17 replies to this topic

[duke_Qa]

On January 12, 2007, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in a press release noted that the Doomsday clock was to be moved forward to highlight the "Most Perilous Period Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

"The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (BAS) will move the minute hand of the "Doomsday Clock" on January 17, 2007, to 5 minutes before midnight, the first such change to the Clock since February 2002. The major new step reflects growing concerns about a "Second Nuclear Age" marked by grave threats, including: nuclear ambitions in Iran and North Korea, unsecured nuclear materials in Russia and elsewhere, the continuing "launch-ready" status of 2,000 of the 25,000 nuclear weapons held by the U.S. and Russia, escalating terrorism, and new pressure from climate change for expanded civilian nuclear power that could increase proliferation risks."

five minutes... and i would say that there are chances it might go further down within the next two years. not much fun that.

[Grobi]

I don't understand. Whats the doomsday clock?

[duke_Qa]

http://en.wikipedia..../Doomsday_Clock

basically its a thing a bunch of nuclear scientists in the US warns us to how close we are to doomsday. midnight being the "game over" moment.



you can see here that since 1991, the minutes has been dropping like a rock. the worst downgrade in its history to be exact.

Edited by duke_Qa, 14 January 2007 - 03:33 PM.

[MSpencer]

Interesting thing, the vast majority of scientists who worked on the atomic project were forming members of the BAS, or would go on to be heavily involved in its publications. This includes the well known Albert Einstein and J. Robert Oppenheimer, but even Russian scientists such as E.K. Fedorov and Semenov. Even Edward Teller contributed, but he then went on to later become a huge, gigantic douchebag. I would say of everyone who worked on the atomic bomb, it was a very small group that did not regret what they did, or who did not see the atomic bomb as a huge threat to international peace. Today, unfortunately, the place of scientists to argue such matters has been supplanted by a few ignorant politicians who care nothing of the facts and only care about their political ambitions. It is a recipe for disaster, and with an unstable political climate rather conductive to proliferation, we will soon be staring down the barrels of six... seven... eight more big guns. The only answer to this horrible problem which confronts us is the complete and utter destruction of all of the nuclear weapons on the planet.

[duke_Qa]

its a problem yes. people who only wants power gets nukes, what would they care if the world ends together with them? if they can't have absolute power then theres no point in life anyway is it not?

[Cossack]

What I dont get is why doesn't 1962 drop WAY down on that chart. In my opinion, the cuban missile crisis was the closest point to doomsday ever.

[Mastermind]

Interesting thing, the vast majority of scientists who worked on the atomic project were forming members of the BAS, or would go on to be heavily involved in its publications. This includes the well known Albert Einstein and J. Robert Oppenheimer, but even Russian scientists such as E.K. Fedorov and Semenov. Even Edward Teller contributed, but he then went on to later become a huge, gigantic douchebag. I would say of everyone who worked on the atomic bomb, it was a very small group that did not regret what they did, or who did not see the atomic bomb as a huge threat to international peace. Today, unfortunately, the place of scientists to argue such matters has been supplanted by a few ignorant politicians who care nothing of the facts and only care about their political ambitions. It is a recipe for disaster, and with an unstable political climate rather conductive to proliferation, we will soon be staring down the barrels of six... seven... eight more big guns. The only answer to this horrible problem which confronts us is the complete and utter destruction of all of the nuclear weapons on the planet.

How do you propose doing that? And how do you ensure that all of the rogue states don't have any hidden away, or the materials to easily assemble them? How do you ensure that their reactors aren't capable of breeding plutonium for further production? The safest way is to ensure that stable powers maintain a large nuclear arsenal and the willingness to use it (or at least the apparent willingness to use it) against nations that develop nuclear weapons and threaten their use in conflict.

[MSpencer]

So the safest way to ensure the human race doesn't kill itself off is by giving the biggest kids on the block the tools to do just that? Practical considerations aside, nuclear proliferation is madness, and the continued retention of nuclear weapons likewise is madness. Weapons should be forcibly destroyed, and any nation who does not comply with such a policy should receive a hefty economic embargo from every other nation in the United Nations! Nuclear weapons are a decisive threat to the entire planet, not just two countries which might destroy each other, but every single living thing, humans and otherwise. To ignore this threat and presume that further proliferation will not breed any trouble, and that the current countries would never use their stockpiles because of the threat of a larger country wiping them off the planet is madness. During the Cold War, and even afterwards, the United States and the Soviet Union/Russia nearly destroyed each other at least five times, two of which occurred well after the fall of the Soviet Union after a missile test and a radar malfunction. Accidents. Accidents almost destroyed the world.
The only proper analogy is a five year old playing with a loaded pistol. We are not a responsible society, we do not understand, and neither do those in charge, that once those missiles are out of those silos, there will be nothing resembling humanity left on this planet. We will all die, from radiation poisoning, the initial blasts, nuclear winter, food shortages, but eventually we will all succumb, and this wonderful little spark that was our species will sink into the earth and will perhaps be discovered by alien travelers in a few millennia, who will remark at the horrible devastation that the idiots in charge wreaked upon the planet.
The threat that we pose to ourselves is absolutely undeniable. Every effort should be made to curb this threat. Be it by military force, economic embargo, or diplomatic maneuvering, proliferation of nuclear weapons must be halted and nations with nuclear stockpiles must destroy their arsenals immediately. And what of reactors? There is no solution which I can currently think of, but any action is better than sitting here and staring down the biggest gun in the history of humanity.

[Cossack]

Was it not you spencer who convinced me only a few months ago that it was nuclear weapons that prevented any large scale war, and prevented Russia from taking over Europe? Now you want all nukes gone?

What happens when all the nukes are gone, some tinpot dictatorship manages to build a nuclear program and suddenly they're more powerful than the world's superpowers?

[Comrade Kal]

There's no point in preventing a couple of conventional wars at the risk of having the annhilation of our entire species a button press away.

[duke_Qa]

its a bit hypocritical, but at the same time pretty logical. even though quite a few nations around the world has nukes, its not very good that alot of people get access to nukes. They might not have the same opinion as the other nations on how to use them. if weak nations gets nukes, and gets invaded, the leader might decide that if their nation will fall then so will everyone else.

[Comrade Kal]

The best option is still that nobody has nukes.

[MSpencer]

Was it not you spencer who convinced me only a few months ago that it was nuclear weapons that prevented any large scale war, and prevented Russia from taking over Europe? Now you want all nukes gone?

What happens when all the nukes are gone, some tinpot dictatorship manages to build a nuclear program and suddenly they're more powerful than the world's superpowers?

Nuclear weapons prevent wars between superpowers which have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet, and they know it.
What I am worried about is the smaller countries, the ones with five nukes, ten nukes. Israel, Pakistan, India, and to an extent, France and England, do not have enough nuclear weapons to kill everyone on the planet. Iran and North Korea seek to acquire these weapons. Some of these countries are no threat, France and England come to mind immediately, but others would gladly use nuclear weapons, such as the first three I mentioned. In the event of a full blown war between India and Pakistan I have no doubts that there would be a nuclear exchange. They do not have much to lose, and their governments are not used to coming to the brink of extermination. They would see only gains out of obliterating the enemy's cities, no losses.
Iran supports terrorism. Who would they give a nuclear weapon in the event that the United Nations began blowing smoke up their ass? Well certainly, someone who could bring that nuclear weapon within 300 meters of the United Nations building in New York City. That would send a message, and it's already clear they would have no qualms with doing something like that.
Nuclear weapons prevent a massive, intentioned exchange between Russia and the United States from occurring, but don't mistake this for nuclear weapons being peacekeeping tools in today's global climate. Proliferation of nuclear weapons gives more and more countries the means to wipe an entire city off the face of the earth with one piece of ordnance. Nothing else is capable of that, no weapon is capable of wreaking such horrible destruction and murder upon its intended victims. The presence of nuclear weapons anywhere is a threat to every living person on this planet.
And just a quick thing to explore: What if Iran and Israel get in a nuclear exchange, or what if Iran decides to back a few terrorists and they wipe New York City off the face of the planet? Either way, at this rate this would be possible in ten years. Iran or Israel could start the first, and terrorists would orchestrate the latter scenario. In either event, the United States would quickly get involved and conduct a nuclear strike against Iran. Of course, with these missiles in the air, nobody would know where they're going, just that they're going in that general direction, so, India and Pakistan would launch against each other. Nuclear warfare is a domino effect, and both sides are weary of each other and their relations with the United States, especially India about US-Pakistani relations post-9/11. So, that would result in several million dead. Delhi would be a crater, and so would Islamabad. Naturally, while this is all happening, and while the nukes are still in the air, China and Russia would get ancy. Russia would launch, not knowing what the hell was going on, and judging on their readiness to launch in 1995 after a Swedish rocket test, they would very quickly conduct an almost unlimited nuclear strike against the United States. After all, there are probably thirty nukes in the air already, and they don't want to feel left out, so they launch a devastating strike, which results in a full launch from US bases. Perhaps China would get involved, maybe lob a few at the US, but probably not, because it would be bad for business. And this is where the world ends, the US and Russia are devastated, probably a few hundred million people dead altogether between India, Pakistan, Russia, Iran, and the US. Fallout would devastate the entire planet, and within months, nuclear winter would strike, killing off the rest of humanity after perhaps... thirty years of survival.
Satellite conflicts really do make all the difference.

[duke_Qa]

yup, as i was trying to get out. US and Russia having nukes is not as bad as if the smallest conflicts around the world did. i have to start planning to build a shelter and buy myself a few years of anti-rad meds.

[GorGorgood]

The Doomsday Clock is way off. In 1973, due to the Israeli victories in the Yom Kippur War, we came very, very close to WWII and a nuclear exchange. It was right there. I saw this.

That is why the Israelis let the Egyptian 2nd Army (if I remember it was the 2nd Army and not the 4th) withdraw westward across the Suex canal out of its encirclement by Israeli forces that were poised to completely destroy said Egyptian Army. The Soviets were losing face since the Egyptians were nearly 100% equipped with Soviet equipment and the Israelis with their USofA and other NATO Nations' equipment were defeating the Egyptians. Just part of the situation.

It came very close and there was a big showdown between the USofA and NATO verses the Soviet Union. War may have been or was adverted by letting that particular encircled Egyptian Army withdraw.

Chris

Edited by GorGorgood, 03 July 2007 - 07:31 AM.

[DemonWolf]

Pfft. Typical "The end is near!" garbage. Really, this is just sad. And at the same time, comical. Doomsayers are fun to watch, as they scurry about their pointless existences, screaming in terror.

Hehe.

[CodeCat]

Well one thing is true. There won't be a last laugh.

[GorGorgood]

Pfft. Typical "The end is near!" garbage. Really, this is just sad. And at the same time, comical. Doomsayers are fun to watch, as they scurry about their pointless existences, screaming in terror.

Hehe.

If this was directed at me then: No, not doom saying. Just saying I am glad to be here. Were you around or involved in such situations??

The Korean War and the French Indochina War, the Berlin Crisis, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the border areas during the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, the 1973 Yom-Kippur War, the 1985 Crisis between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and etc. etc. etc. were very real and tense situations and many people did die etc., and we, the human race as a whole, came close to nuclear war more than once.

Ever lose people in a war etc., or have known people that were in something such as a Pershing I Nuclear Missile Battalion? Known anyone or been onvolved yourself in anysuch matters?? They are indeed real and of a personal nature, especially concerning your little own self's survival.

Sounds as if some people don't believe these things occur, until something happens to them and then they scream and moan.

Chris

Edited by GorGorgood, 05 July 2007 - 08:39 PM.