Doomsday Clock Moves One Minute Closer to Armageddon

Kenjitsuka

New member
Sep 10, 2009
3,051
0
0
""Two years ago, it appeared that world leaders might address the truly global threats that we face. In many cases, that trend has not continued or been reversed.""

Wow, I see a very clear political motivation here. Obama got it to go back 2 minutes, then he needs to be re-elected and they basically say *he* didn't deliver. If the Republicans don't use this to say "Even them science types agree with us!", they are not campagning as evil -eh, hard- as they usually do ;)
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
TRANSLATION: Human beings are still suffering from paranoid delusions while BSing about politics.

Also, the Escapist still fails to realize that I am not a bot. Go Team Venture.
 

TheMann

New member
Jul 13, 2010
459
0
0
In other news, non-research scientists, noticing that their careers' Irrelevancy Clock was about 10 seconds from midnight, decided to make vague alarmist claims using a visual aid that no-one has taken seriously in 30 years.
 

AzureArchon

New member
Jan 10, 2012
14
0
0
Guardian of Nekops said:
What we really need to do is set up a global system capable of shooting down nuclear weapons, from anywhere, heading to anywhere.

I mean, haven't we all sort of decided that these things were a bad idea, and that the only reason we want to have them is to be able to scare the other guys into not using theirs?

So yeah, just shoot the damn things down whenever they take off. Hell, have it automatically shoot down every rocket or thing that looks like a rocket and isn't on the flight plan approved by the UN.

We aren't going to convince people to destroy their nuclear arsenals due to fear of everyone else, but we CAN make them useless. And we should. Let the damn things rot in their silos, or reduce them to something that has to be delivered by hand.

That way, at least maybe we'd have to discover a new form of energy to blow ourselves up with. Should buy us a minute or two, anyway. :p
Reagan tried this with the "Star Wars" program. Got as expensive as hell though, so he had to stop it. Scared the shit out of the Russians though.
 

jklinders

New member
Sep 21, 2010
945
0
0
AzureArchon said:
Guardian of Nekops said:
What we really need to do is set up a global system capable of shooting down nuclear weapons, from anywhere, heading to anywhere.

I mean, haven't we all sort of decided that these things were a bad idea, and that the only reason we want to have them is to be able to scare the other guys into not using theirs?

So yeah, just shoot the damn things down whenever they take off. Hell, have it automatically shoot down every rocket or thing that looks like a rocket and isn't on the flight plan approved by the UN.

We aren't going to convince people to destroy their nuclear arsenals due to fear of everyone else, but we CAN make them useless. And we should. Let the damn things rot in their silos, or reduce them to something that has to be delivered by hand.

That way, at least maybe we'd have to discover a new form of energy to blow ourselves up with. Should buy us a minute or two, anyway. :p
Reagan tried this with the "Star Wars" program. Got as expensive as hell though, so he had to stop it. Scared the shit out of the Russians though.
Oh God, don't get him started again... he's either trolling or more frighteningly he really believes it's a good idea.
 

SilentHunter7

New member
Nov 21, 2007
1,652
0
0
Guardian of Nekops said:
After the nuclear apocolypse, though, we'd be lucky to have 2.5% of our population LEFT. Also keep in mind that Mutually Assured Destruction only works so long as only sane persons, with control over countries and ambitions of their own which require the world to keep on spinning, have control over nuclear weapons. One madman, the same sort of person who ends up shooting up a mall and turning the gun on himself, could potentially trigger this whole thing if he got hold of a nuclear weapon. And they're not all accounted for.
Assuming there ever is an Nuclear Apocalypse. The Cuban Missile Crisis proved that both sides will make whatever concessions they have to to prevent that from happening. Jumping off a cliff to your doom is such a simple action, yet so very difficult for anyone to actually go through with.

Also one madman does not a nuclear holocaust make. It's not like a bomb goes off, and all of a sudden everyone launches their missiles at everyone else. Even if a lone terrorist nukes Washington D.C., which would also be indefensible even with a missile shield, unless Russia or China was responsible for the bomb, and is preparing for full-scale war, noone is going to order a nuclear strike on them, knowing that with it comes the end of your nation as a whole.
 

ReinWeisserRitter

New member
Nov 15, 2011
749
0
0
I've said it dozens of times, in dozens of places, but my greatest fear for us, and this world, is that by the time we've rendered our situation such that it will be impossible to avert catastrophic disaster, it will be far too late to do something about it. And worse will be that the selfish dickbags that made things this way just to fill their own pockets (because you'd have to be out of your fucking mind to claim we can't cause any lasting effect to this world and mean it) will be dead long before they're forced to reap the consequences of their selfishness.

I'd love to be wrong. I'd love nothing more than for people who oppose the cynical view with all of their being to be able to say they told me so. But as we have been, and as we are now, I see that no matter how many glimmers of hope we as a species have, our fate is ultimately to do nothing but destroy, and at the center of that destruction will be greed, the stupid and inane belief that having much more than we need is more important than the well being of all.

I'm not saying we're all entitled to the same things, though I believe we're all entitled to the chance. I'm not saying there should be no consequences for one's actions, good or bad. But when one's goal is just to make money at the expense of others, and they die upon a pile of wasted cash, something is seriously, dangerously wrong. It's far, far too common among the people in a position to do it, and should the day come when we've finally damned ourselves and the entire world as we know it (because if it happens, we will take the world with us; it will be the only way to stop us by that point), we'll likely have them to thank for it.

All of that said? The concept of a doomsday clock is fucking retarded and whoever came up with it should put their head(s) through the nearest wall. You can't quantify how fucked we are; it's just your personal view of the world, even if other people do agree with it.
 

Guardian of Nekops

New member
May 25, 2011
252
0
0
SilentHunter7 said:
Also one madman does not a nuclear holocaust make. It's not like a bomb goes off, and all of a sudden everyone launches their missiles at everyone else. Even if a lone terrorist nukes Washington D.C., which would also be indefensible even with a missile shield, unless Russia or China was responsible for the bomb, and is preparing for full-scale war, noone is going to order a nuclear strike on them, knowing that with it comes the end of your nation as a whole.
Okay, consider this slightly different scenario:

A lone missile, armed with a nuclear warhead, is launched from the Palestinian territories and slams into the holy city of Jerusalem, destroying it utterly. The relevant government officials deny all involvement, and say it was some mad terrorist. How many people would believe them, do you think?

Say that some insane person who happens to be sitting in America at the time nukes Mecca. Somehow, I don't see the world just laughing that off and saying, "Yeah, I'm sure this was just some big misunderstanding."
 

The Austin

New member
Jul 20, 2009
3,368
0
0
Therumancer said:
The Austin said:
MorphingDragon said:
The Austin said:
This is just ridiculous.

It was two minutes to midnight when the world was about to bomb each other into submission;
And it's five minutes to midnight when, aside from an ECONOMIC recession, everything is pretty alright.

What the fuck is 10 minutes to midnight? A world where people get along just fine?
What about 15 minutes to midnight? It that a world where everybody holds hands and frolics in the meadow?

Don't even get me started on 4PM, or as I like to call it, "8 hours to midnight."
Because Economic recession and Capital abuse are such tiny insignificant issues...

lol.
You know what?
You're right.

The world is probably going to end any minute now, all because of the recession.
I'm going to go hide in my bunker.

Actually almost all wars come down to economic reasons one way or another, especially today. Right now we face a situation where there are too many people and too few resources. We're literally destroying the planet in the pursuit of wood, metal, and other things, and we're not coming close to producing enough for the people currently on the planet to maintain anything close to the US standard of living, and if we increase production we wind up depleting the resources even further until we run out. With the global population increasing this makes things even worse.

A lot of people tend to bury their heads in the sand, but a lot of the current issues with say China come down to them wanting a higher standard of living for a country that consists of roughly 1/3rd of the world's population. As they demand things like better housing and to drive cars pressure put on the already fragile wood and oil production go even further. To compete for these resources China employs it's robber economy, sweatshop labour, and other things which are having a pronounced effect on the rest of the world, and nations like the US who go into recession when the stiffer competition and greater strain mean their domestic economy has trouble meeting it's own requirements.

Right now most people realize we have too many people on the planet but don't want to reduce the population due to "OMG, it involves killing human beings". Like similar times of global tension you see people building up larger militaries and making plans to go to war to meet their own needs. China for example has been working on it's Navy and the abillity to project it's huge population into other countries offensively, it's also been working on systems to blind US satellites to reduce the threat of MAD from first world nations like the US if it DOES decide to invade. There is plenty of saber rattling if you read the right stuff about China wanting to colonize other countries for "living space", justified by a combination of racial supremacy, and payback for "slights" going back to the Opium wars and even further.

The point here isn't to argue geo-politics, simply to say that I agree with you and the guy your responding to both it seems. Like it or not the world is a powder keg, and despite what merchants and business interests always say, economics are a reason for wars, not something that prevents them. After all the Romans believed they were invincible because of how central they were to trade and how they maintain the roads, they were in denial right as the barbarians assembled outside the gates and tore them down. Hence the saying "Barbarians At The Gates" for being willfully ignorant and oblivious to the obvious.


That said for those that read this far, the "Doomsday Clock" started out as a good idea, but rapidly became too political for it to matter. Barak Obama for example should have moved the clock closer, not further away, not so much beause he's a bad guy, but because those same apparent tendencies that "filled people with hope" meant he wasn't aggressive enough to maintain the peace. Right now the big threats that have a chance of ending the world, or the world as we know it, like China, have continued to grow. China has grown more militarily powerful, not less, and we've been doing very little to try and curtail their development
in a practical sense.

On the other hand the "Clock" has become too heavily tied to WMD (which is ironic given when and why it was created). Right now WMD disarmament is more of a political position than anything. WMD if anything has helped preserve the peace as long as we've had it, and really the biggest threat to the world right now are WMD countermeasures, like the missle interception abillity the has demonstrated and which slotted off the Russians due to treaties with the now-defunct USSR, and China's satellite blinding systems (do a search for Satellite, Lasers, China, or Chinese Anti-Satellite Lasers).

Right now the big threats are wars over economics and living space, with WMD being irrelevent due to countermeasures terrorism and conventional warfare rises, huge overpopulated countries who can mount huge armies and deliver the navally (like China)
become the major threat, and while we do see WMD used they wind up having to be delivered at relatively close range. Hypothetically things like huge scale EMP, and Biological and chemical weapons are going to be the big things that do in humanity as opposed to
traditional Atomic weapons.

As odd as it sounds I'd probably put us as closer to two minutes to midnight on the clock, and argue that ironically military action to remove certain developing threats would move it back.

As far as the Aztecs go... I'm hoping we're about to see the birth of Shadowrun for real, I look forward to my future existance as an Elven battle mage. :)
Knowing my luck I'd be the guy who wakes up in a morgue with amnesia.

But, all Shadowrun jokes aside, you do bring up solid points. Perhaps I really SHOULD consider hiding in a bunker...
 

SnakeoilSage

New member
Sep 20, 2011
1,211
0
0
Ugh. I just got done venting my rage about robot apocalypses. So let me put this a little more succinctly to the Doomsday worshipers-

Fuck you.
 

jklinders

New member
Sep 21, 2010
945
0
0
Guardian of Nekops said:
SilentHunter7 said:
Also one madman does not a nuclear holocaust make. It's not like a bomb goes off, and all of a sudden everyone launches their missiles at everyone else. Even if a lone terrorist nukes Washington D.C., which would also be indefensible even with a missile shield, unless Russia or China was responsible for the bomb, and is preparing for full-scale war, noone is going to order a nuclear strike on them, knowing that with it comes the end of your nation as a whole.
Okay, consider this slightly different scenario:

A lone missile, armed with a nuclear warhead, is launched from the Palestinian territories and slams into the holy city of Jerusalem, destroying it utterly. The relevant government officials deny all involvement, and say it was some mad terrorist. How many people would believe them, do you think?

Say that some insane person who happens to be sitting in America at the time nukes Mecca. Somehow, I don't see the world just laughing that off and saying, "Yeah, I'm sure this was just some big misunderstanding."
I know I am going to regret this but oh well.

This is not a global scenario. Israel would finally have the excuse it's wanted for over 50 years to clean all the refugees out. All of the other nations would sit back and watch mainly because that is going too far by any standard.

Besides, Jerusalem is a holy site not just for Jews or Christians but also Islam. It would really piss off a lot and I mean a lot of muslims. The Palistinians want that city intact.

As for the missile. ***** please. It would not break atmo. It would only need to travel a few dozen KM rendering your precious missile shield useless. This would be a regional frackus and the rest of the world would sit back and watch just like it has for 60 years.

If some insane person in the US was to nuke Mecca ( i know not all the Russian nukes are accounted for but this is a stretch) there would be outrage in the UN followed by no official action by the nations beyond the usual saber rattling. Unless it was an ICBM or a sub launched missile there would be no proof of the US officially doing it. No one wants their country turned to glass by a US counter assault on a hunch.

You never did address the issue of Sub launched missiles raised by Silenthunter. They do not have stationary launching points leaving any pre arranged system useless for them. Billions could die from them and nothing can be done about it.

As Silent Hunter pointed out all a set of countermeasures would do is insure that more not fewer missiles are built. Any defense can be breached. The constant evolution of tank design and weapons is proof of that. After all the advances in tech the best defense for those machines is still, don't get hit. It may seem unrelated but it's not. Any defense can be breached. This genie is out of the bottle and no fantasy missile shield can squeeze it back in.

This is a dream. Welcome back to reality.
 

SilentHunter7

New member
Nov 21, 2007
1,652
0
0
Guardian of Nekops said:
SilentHunter7 said:
Also one madman does not a nuclear holocaust make. It's not like a bomb goes off, and all of a sudden everyone launches their missiles at everyone else. Even if a lone terrorist nukes Washington D.C., which would also be indefensible even with a missile shield, unless Russia or China was responsible for the bomb, and is preparing for full-scale war, noone is going to order a nuclear strike on them, knowing that with it comes the end of your nation as a whole.
Okay, consider this slightly different scenario:

A lone missile, armed with a nuclear warhead, is launched from the Palestinian territories and slams into the holy city of Jerusalem, destroying it utterly. The relevant government officials deny all involvement, and say it was some mad terrorist. How many people would believe them, do you think?

Say that some insane person who happens to be sitting in America at the time nukes Mecca. Somehow, I don't see the world just laughing that off and saying, "Yeah, I'm sure this was just some big misunderstanding."
You see, the beautiful thing about security is that a rogue missile launch can't happen. It's called the two-man rule. You see, there two operators in each silo. Each of them has two keys. All four keys must be turned at the same time. The operators in the Launch Control Center must do the same.

So unless you get four people who passed the - quite frankly - insane levels of background checks you'd need for a top-secret security clearance to all just go batshit crazy one day, that can't happen.

Also, you need the authorization codes from the President or the Secretary of Defense.

And a short-range attack by a Middle-Eastern nation on Israel would justify a full-scale invasion of the country of origin by a NATO-backed Israel "to disarm the rogue nation", and there would be *nothing* anyone would do about it. What world power would seriously side with a third world country that just leveled a city? Noone said boo when we invaded Afghanistan after 9/11, and 9/11 is nothing compared to a nuclear attack.
 

Squilookle

New member
Nov 6, 2008
3,584
0
0
Proverbial Jon said:
Radoh said:
Proverbial Jon said:
Just a guess but I'd say that clock is about as acurate as this one:

But, that clock is extraordinarily accurate.
What time is it?
Calibration time.
Clearly the Doomsday Clock's "time" is realtive to whoever decides to set it, much like Garrus' clock is relative to him and him only. I mean, it can't be calibration time ALL the time. Can it?

Evidently there's a higher, philosophical context going on here. A social commentary on the state of our world. I just can't seem to find it...
You're both wrong. It's clearly half-past calibrations. Says so right there on the tin. Uhuh. Yup.
 

xdiesp

New member
Oct 21, 2007
446
0
0
They're probably on the payroll of Washington, as the only reason the world is less safe is because the US keeps stringing new wars even under completely false reasons such as WMDs in Iraq (which they helped Saddam shape). Right now they're piling up troops to go grab Iran's oil, while teenager farmers in Afghanistan die shot by their cowardly drone operators for being too close to their elder (40?) fighting an illegal occupation. Way to israelize the entire world.
 
Sep 14, 2009
9,073
0
0
Proverbial Jon said:
Just a guess but I'd say that clock is about as acurate as this one:

this is awesome. i literally laughed out loud at it.

OT: this means nothing at all to me, unless there is literally a nuke in the air coming right for me, i couldn't care less.
 

Zhadramekel

New member
Apr 18, 2010
661
0
0
I say this on every doomsday / apocalypse / end of the world thread and I'll say it here too. What does doomsday / end of the world etc. even mean in this day and age!? The land wreathed in flames, skeletal flying horsemen. What!? Somehow I can't picture that happening in anything except the Simpsons.
 

Lord Beautiful

New member
Aug 13, 2008
5,940
0
0
Radoh said:
I believe Dr. Manhattan said it best:
"...I would only agree that a symbolic clock is as nourishing to the intellect as a photograph of oxygen to a drowning man."
Honestly, if electing President Barack Obama was enough to change the time to Doomsday, than it has really no meaning at all.
And there goes anything I could have added to this topic.

And it was the first response, no less.
 

Wintermoot

New member
Aug 20, 2009
6,563
0
0
according to Wikipedia it used to be worse (the closes it ever got to midnight was 11:58 PM in 1958)
even IF it hits midnight doesn't automatically mean we have to scavenge the wastes for food.
 

Chewster

It's yer man Chewy here!
Apr 24, 2008
1,050
0
0
unacomn said:
5 minutes? Pfff, call me when it's TWO Minutes to Miiiiiiiidnight.
I see what you did there and it was all kinds of awesome.

On topic: I too would agree with the earlier assessments of Dr. Manhattan, in that this clock is merely an amalgamation of ideas, while remaining symbolic. And like all symbols, it is shallow and flawed and only conveys an aspect of truth. It might tell us what needs to happen, but not the why or how.

I do wonder though, who will be around to crank it up to midnight once the bombs drop?