News What is the current time on the Doomsday Clock?

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

The new setting is 2 1/2 minutes to midnight. The only year they made it closer was 1953, after the first H-bomb was detonated, when they set it to 2 minutes to midnight. They have a PDF which explains their reasons. I do not necessarily endorse their reasoning. But it's good to think about our situation.

http://thebulletin.org

 

[gleem]

I do not necessarily endorse their reasoning

Lets begin by exploring why you do not necessarily endorse their reasoning.

 

[DiracPool]

The new setting is 2 1/2 minutes to midnight. The only year they made it closer was 1953, after the first H-bomb was detonated, when they set it to 2 minutes to midnight.

Ignore that warning at your own peril. The "clock" is real, not a joke. This really concerns me. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. As Noam Chomsky is fast to acknowledge, the two biggest threats we face today are the nuclear "powder keg" we are sitting on and climate change. These are the two likely ones that will get us if we don't get pro-active. I'm much less concerned about cyberthreats, artificial intelligence, etc.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

As Noam Chomsky is fast to acknowledge, the two biggest threats we face today are the nuclear "powder keg" we are sitting on and climate change. These are the two likely ones that will get us if we don't get pro-active. I'm much less concerned about cyberthreats, artificial intelligence, etc.

I agree with you. I have already made several posts about climate change and nuclear war. Of course nuclear war likely means nuclear winter as well. I believe we could survive some climate change. I don't believe we could survive nuclear war, at least not for very long.

Another point is that climate change can lead to war. I read an article on the civil war in Syria, claiming that the original cause was a massive crop failure due to a drought, and the fact so many Syrians were outraged at the way it was handled. There could have been other factors for all I know. But there's no doubt that wars have been fought over natural resources, whatever the stated reason may have been.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/...to-drought-caused-by-climate-change.html?_r=0

I have always had the feeling we are living on borrowed time. I'm not qualified to say if we are at 2 minutes, 5 minutes, or whatever. I tend to trust the Bulletin guys in their assessment. I'm not qualified to endorse or not endorse. I just pass this along because I think those guys know what they are talking about.

 

[Student100]

Ignore that warning at your own peril. The "clock" is real, not a joke. This really concerns me. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. As Noam Chomsky is fast to acknowledge, the two biggest threats we face today are the nuclear "powder keg" we are sitting on and climate change. These are the two likely ones that will get us if we don't get pro-active. I'm much less concerned about cyberthreats, artificial intelligence, etc.

Large scale nuclear conflict (between Russia and the US) would kill a lot of people, destroy civilization, and have long lasting consequences far into the future, but it wouldn't destroy all of human life.

Neither will climate change, in fact, climate changes are likely to produce winner and losers for various countries and civilizations, unlike a large scale nuclear conflict.

Lumping climate change into the same basket as large scale nuclear war just feels disingenuous from someone who should know better.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

Thanks for the video. I watched it, but honestly I don't follow Chomsky. I know that he is considered very important in linguistics. As for nuclear war or climate change, I listen to scientists who have dedicated their lives to those specific fields. Also, I normally tune out when people mix politics and science.

 

[BL4CKB0X97]

I agree with you. I have already made several posts about climate change and nuclear war. Of course nuclear war likely means nuclear winter as well. I believe we could survive some climate change. I don't believe we could survive nuclear war, at least not for very long.

Another point is that climate change can lead to war. I read an article on the civil war in Syria, claiming that the original cause was a massive crop failure due to a drought, and the fact so many Syrians were outraged at the way it was handled. There could have been other factors for all I know. But there's no doubt that wars have been fought over natural resources, whatever the stated reason may have been.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/...to-drought-caused-by-climate-change.html?_r=0

I have always had the feeling we are living on borrowed time. I'm not qualified to say if we are at 2 minutes, 5 minutes, or whatever. I tend to trust the Bulletin guys in their assessment. I'm not qualified to endorse or not endorse. I just pass this along because I think those guys know what they are talking about.

I also believe nuclear winter will destroy us, but the humans have survived ice ages before maybe we will survive the next one,nuclear war induced or not.

I also believe another world war is inevitable, the dominoes seem to be falling in faster sucsession all the time. I believe it may be in my lifetime (I'm 19) and I am not convinced society will survive it. In fact, someone recently gave a paper on his prediction that society has 20 years. I shall try and find it.

 

[russ_watters]

Lumping climate change into the same basket as large scale nuclear war just feels disingenuous from someone who should know better.

This is why I think they jumped the shark when they changed the definition of their "clock". I think they've gone a little nuts. Maybe the people who remember the 1950s and 1960s no longer work at BAS and the people who work there now have never read any history? In the 1950s and 1960s, people literally believed that the US and USSR might exchange ten thousand nuclear weapons a half hour from now. We're nowhere close to that now; maybe 6:45? They'd have to re-design the clock for that...

The types of risks behind climate change are very, very different from nuclear war. Even the language they use in the statement doesn't jive. But ultimately, moving the clock has only one real purpose: they are just saying they don't like Trump. And that makes them and their clock a joke.

 

[russ_watters]

Ignore that warning at your own peril. The "clock" is real, not a joke.

Insofar as they built a physical prop they could take pictures with it is real; but that doesn't mean it isn't a joke.

...Noam Chomsky...

is a linguist.

 

[russ_watters]

Thanks for the video. I watched it, but honestly I don't follow Chomsky. I know that he is considered very important in linguistics. As for nuclear war or climate change, I listen to scientists who have dedicated their lives to those specific fields. Also, I normally tune out when people mix politics and science.

Your instincts serve you well on Chomsky, but the problem with the doomsday clock is that it is a political statement made by scientists. That's problematic at its very core.

 

[Buckleymanor]

This is why I think they jumped the shark when they changed the definition of their "clock". I think they've gone a little nuts. Maybe the people who remember the 1950s and 1960s no longer work at BAS and the people who work there now have never read any history? In the 1950s and 1960s, people literally believed that the US and USSR might exchange ten thousand nuclear weapons a half hour from now. We're nowhere close to that now; maybe 6:45? They'd have to re-design the clock for that...

The types of risks behind climate change are very, very different from nuclear war. Even the language they use in the statement doesn't jive. But ultimately, moving the clock has only one real purpose: they are just saying they don't like Trump. And that makes them and their clock a joke.

Liking or not liking a person will not change the outcome of a situation saying that they are a joke might offer some comfort but that is all.

 

[russ_watters]

Liking or not liking a person will not change the outcome of a situation...

It isn't clear to me what you are trying to say here. Did you read their statement? They really did move the clock because they don't like Trump.

 

[Buckleymanor]

It isn't clear to me what you are trying to say here. Did you read their statement? They really did move the clock because they don't like Trump.

This is what I read.
In this Op Ed for the New York Times, the Bulletin's Lawrence Krauss and David Titley note that this year marks the first time that the Bulletin decided to advance the clock largely because of the statements of a single person. But when that person is the new president of the United States, his words matter.
That does not say they don't like him or like him it is the statements he makes and the position he holds.

 

[lewando]

A better indication of immanent doom would be realtime access to the DEFCON level, managed by the Executive Branch of the US government. However, this level is generally not communicated to the public until well after the fact. The Doomsday Clock, is somewhat of a subjective reality condenser, that can be described with even less precision by the use of additional fuzzy adjectives.

 

[russ_watters]

This is what I read.
...
That does not say they don't like him...

Ok, so you did read it -- there's no need to split hairs on what "like" means: I'm saying that the fact that they moved the clock over their opinion of Trump/Trump's statements is very problematic.

[edit; expand]
What I mean is that it makes no sense. Regardless of what their judgements of Trump/his statements are, I can't fathom that they actually believe we are closer to an apocalypse now than, for example, during the Cuban Missile Crisis. If everyone on the editorial staff has a bomb shelter in their backyard, then I'd believe they are being rational about the movement of the clock (though not necessarily rational about the bomb shelter).

[edit2] Here's the wiki with a list of the movements and why:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock

On its own, moving the clock's position by a half minute over fear of Trump wouldn't seem problematic. It is really more that they are hamstrung by an already absurd position of the clock based on previous absurd judgements. They've painted themselves into a corner almost literally* with these movements, because what they are after seems to be about making a statement by moving the clock as opposed to using the clock to actually express their rating of the risk.

*I'm using the word "literally" too much today, but I'm ok with that.

 

[gleem]

Ok, so you did read it -- there's no need to split hairs on what "like" means: I'm saying that the fact that they moved the clock over their opinion of Trump/Trump's statements is very problematic.

Yes and those statements are problematic for a great number of others too.

Gorbachev in a Times article expresses his concern: http://time.com/4645442/gorbachev-putin-trump/

 

[Buckleymanor]

On its own, moving the clock's position by a half minute over fear of Trump wouldn't seem problematic. It is really more that they are hamstrung by an already absurd position of the clock based on previous absurd judgements. They've painted themselves into a corner almost literally* with these movements, because what they are after seems to be about making a statement by moving the clock as opposed to using the clock to actually express their rating of the risk.

Well you have to take there judgement literally.(pardon)
You are quite justified in your scepticism but I am sure these academics don't take the decision to move the clock one way or another without heavy debate and quantifiable justification, otherwise it would be pointless.
There will be lots of criteria and events other than what Trump said or did not that we are probably not aware of that makes them decide to move it.

 

[OCR]

...it would be pointless.

It is pointless, by the very facts (?)...

...that we are probably not aware of that makes them decide to move it.

 

[Buckleymanor]

It is pointless, by the very facts (?)...

Why just because we are not aware of the facts it does not mean that there are none.
They might be too sensitive and likely to cause court issues.
These do not mean that they don't exist.Maybe you are trying to placate yourself that these don't exist and that the clock is further from midnight.
Given the current circumstances good luck with that.

 

[Vanadium 50]

but I am sure these academics don't take the decision to move the clock one way or another without heavy debate and quantifiable justification, otherwise it would be pointless.

I agree. Surely there must be some sort of secret quantitative formula, because otherwise there would be no possible justification for the statement that we live in more dangerous times than the Cuban Missile Crisis. Or Able Archer. It would just be a bunch of left-leaning academics clutching their pearls and getting the vapors over the thought that their preferred candidate lost an election. So I agree with you.

 

[Buckleymanor]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-38786231

I agree. Surely there must be some sort of secret quantitative formula, because otherwise there would be no possible justification for the statement that we live in more dangerous times than the Cuban Missile Crisis. Or Able Archer. It would just be a bunch of left-leaning academics clutching their pearls and getting the vapors over the thought that their preferred candidate lost an election. So I agree with you.

No secret formula just pick up your morning news.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38786660
Get real.

 

[TurtleMeister]

No secret formula just pick up your morning news.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38786660
Get real.

What does that have to do with doomsday/nuclear war? This is just a temporary halt, and in my opinion is justifiable since these people were caught in the middle as the executive order was put in place.

The recent update of the doomsday clock is obviously politically motivated. I am just old enough to remember the cold war and to think that we are now closer to nuclear war then we were at that time is ridiculous.

 

[Buckleymanor]

What does that have to do with doomsday/nuclear war? This is just a temporary halt, and in my opinion is justifiable since these people were caught in the middle as the executive order was put in place.

The recent update of the doomsday clock is obviously politically motivated. I am just old enough to remember the cold war and to think that we are now closer to nuclear war then we were at that time is ridiculous.

Everything, did you read the other link and what the headlines were saying.
I am also old enough to remember the cold war and the Cuban missile crises Suez and the like.
Why should you classify it as political, or as others would put it fake news.
Or that this and other problems are not happening and not causing problems and hostility abroad and in the US.
All the reports about the unpredictability of events caused by certain individuals does not add to the stability of the world by any stretch of the imagination.
And for you to say it's justifiable because they were caught in the middle as the executive order was put in place
Some of these people had green cards.
And the executives knew what would happen to these people and if they did not, well I ask you.
I suppose you could use the same justification for just about anything.

 

[DiracPool]

The recent update of the doomsday clock is obviously politically motivated. I am just old enough to remember the cold war and to think that we are now closer to nuclear war then we were at that time is ridiculous.

Using such conclusive terms as "obvious" and "ridiculous" to make unsubstantiated claims is the only thing here that is obviously ridiculous. Where is your evidence that the decision to move the clock was politically motivated? If it's so obvious, you should be able to make a good argument for it.

As far as thinking that the threat of nuclear war is lower now than it was in the cold war, again, please make an argument with supporting references instead of just saying it's "ridiculous." Again, if it's so ridiculous, then making a substantiated argument should be no problem.

In the meantime, I'll put forth the argument that we're actually under a greater threat of global nuclear war now than we were during the cold war. During the cold war, there were basically two major nuclear players, the USA and the USSR, and each of those countries very clearly understood the concept of MAD (mutually assured destruction). That's the main thing that prevented such a holocaust.

Now the situation is much more complex and much more dangerous in my opinion. As a business mentor of mine once told me in reference to a vulnerability in our market strategy, "Just because something bad hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it's never going to happen."

From: http://www.nti.org/learn/nuclear/

"While it has been more than twenty years since the end of the Cold War, the existence of thousands of nuclear weapons continues to pose a serious global threat. The likelihood of a nuclear war between the United States and Russia has decreased, but the continued presence of large stockpiles makes the accidental or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons a persistent risk. Many of the countries with smaller nuclear arsenals, such as India and Pakistan, are actively engaged in regional conflicts, making the possibility of regional nuclear war a concern. North Korea illicitly acquired nuclear weapons, and other countries, including Iran and Syria, have violated their nuclear safeguards commitments and are suspected of covertly pursuing nuclear weapons capabilities."

And: https://www.thenation.com/article/the-threat-of-nuclear-weapons-is-greater-today-than-it-was-during-the-cold-war/

"One of the gravest challenges that face us is an “unauthorized, mistaken launch” of a nuclear weapons. The risk that such an event could occur has 'not only grown since end of Cold War, but continues to grow.'"

And: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/11/trump-nuclear-north-korea/506750/

"Already, it is believed that North Korea will have produced roughly 20 bombs’ worth of fissile material by year’s end. Its leaders appear to be irrational, capricious, malevolently messianic and deeply cruel. They have acted on a desire to sell their nuclear technology to anyone with money (the Assad regime in Syria was one such customer); and they have proven themselves to be almost completely impervious to outside pressure."

I don't know about you, but I'll take the cold war era any day over what we are facing today...

 

[gleem]

I don't know about you, but I'll take the cold war era any day over what we are facing today...

And so do I.

I was a senior in college during the Cuban missile crisis. And I can tell you If people thought they had a half hours to live they did not show it Life continued as normal with people. Of course it was in the news but people seem to accept it like we accept the possibility of being wiped out by a killer asteroid. During the 50's sure there where those that built bomb shelters. We had bomb raid drills in schools but they where taken like we take fire drills today. I do not remember any substantia or sustained debates or discussions of this issue with my peers. Today you hear of 12 year old seeking assurance from the their parent for their safety. Perhaps the internet has amplified our concerns? But apart from that today we have so much more to worry about; real , imagined or prophesied.

 

[TurtleMeister]

Everything, did you read the other link and what the headlines were saying.
And for you to say it's justifiable because they were caught in the middle as the executive order was put in place
Some of these people had green cards.
And the executives knew what would happen to these people and if they did not, well I ask you.
I suppose you could use the same justification for just about anything.

I think there's a misunderstanding here. What I meant was, I think the action taken by the judge was justifiable because these people were caught in the middle.

Using such conclusive terms as "obvious" and "ridiculous" to make unsubstantiated claims is the only thing here that is obviously ridiculous. Where is your evidence that the decision to move the clock was politically motivated? If it's so obvious, you should be able to make a good argument for it.

You are correct. I should not make such statements without being prepared to show some evidence. Sometimes I forget about the strictness of this forum. I don't have a lot of time right now so I'll just correct my original post. Thanks for the reply. You make some good points.

edit: Well I can't correct it because the time has run out. I'll try to get a mentor to fix it.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

In my opinion, the BAS report would be more useful if it focused on the threat of global thermonuclear war, and left other issues such as global warming for their own separate reports.

The BAS report should have explained in detail what would happen in the event of nuclear war, using some best case and worst case scenarios. This site contains some information along those lines. One scenario shows how even a "limited" war between India and Pakistan could have devastating consequences for the entire world.

http://www.nucleardarkness.org/index2.php

I think a more quantitative approach to this topic is a good idea. Perhaps we could come up with something like Drake's equation, only instead of predicting the chance of life on another planet, it would predict the chance of a nuclear war. Then perhaps we could use this equation to guide us towards a situation of less danger.

We could start with the number of warheads stockpiled by each nuclear power, and the destructive power of each of these warheads. This article indicates the number of warheads.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...tries-that-have-nuclear-weapons-a6798756.html

If we move on to such factors as the level of armed conflict, the status of ongoing nuclear disarmament talks, the level of militarism or aggressiveness in a particular state, and how often a state violates international law, then we run into an area where there are conflicting opinions. It seems difficult or even impossible to come up with a metric we could agree on.

On second thought, let's keep it simple. We need to get rid of all the nuclear weapons. We know what can happen if we fail to do so.

The BAS report closes with the recommendation for wise citizens to take the lead on this issue if the world leaders don't do a good job. Just how would these wise citizens take the lead?

What gives me some hope is that if the USA and Russia could get together on this issue, agree on a program for total nuclear disarmament, and guide (or force) the rest of the world to comply, then we could work this out. This problem is man-made and it can be solved by man. I agree with the saying from Terminator 2: "no fate but what we make."

 

[Buckleymanor]

I think there's a misunderstanding here. What I meant was, I think the action taken by the judge was justifiable because these people were caught in the middle.

Yes thanks my misunderstanding the mention of executive order threw me off track.
Definitely justifiable but what a mess that judges had to take the action in the first place.
It's only a week and the administration is in meltdown.

 

[OCR]

Why just because we are not aware of the facts it does not mean that there are none.

Lol... yeah, as a matter of fact, just because we are not aware of the facts does not mean that there are any facts, either....

Maybe you are trying to placate yourself that these don't exist...

Of course, it could be a fact, these facts may only exist in a parallel universe... but that fact doesn't make me angry or hostile, I actually like the fact that these facts, could be facts somewhere...

They might be too sensitive and likely to cause court issues.

That might be a fact... where is Julian when we need him ?

 

[OCR]

Or Able Archer.

Just in case "the great unwashed" don't know... this was Able Archer ...

There were some other incidents, also...

A fellow with, at least, the ability to use some common sense... Stanislav Petrov .

Another one... Vasili Arkhipov.

The Norwegian rocket incident ...

It would just be a bunch of left-leaning academics clutching their pearls and getting the vapors...

I believe a bunch of left-leaning academics clutching their pearls would be the type....

 

[Astronuc]

I think the process to determine the setting (or how it is moved) on the Doomsday Clock (which seems rather pessimistic) is highly subjective. Science, or the scientific method, should involve an objective process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_approach

 

[mheslep]

The Cuban Missile Crisis has been referenced a few times for comparison. The year was 1962, and The Bulletin set the clock at 7 minutes compared to the current 2 1/2 minutes. Also in 1962, there were 140 nuclear weapons tests, and the global nuclear warhead stockpile was seven times what it is today. President Kennedy urged citizens to build fall out shelters, saying "the time to start is now".

The following year The Bulletin set the clock back to 12 minutes with the advent of the partial test ban, though the USSR would go on to multiply it's nuclear stockpile eight fold.

 

[gleem]

I think a more quantitative approach to this topic is a good idea.

Would be a waste of time. Too complex. Too little agreement an assigning probabilities..How do you quantify or agree on the effects due to political or religious feelings , misunderstandings, plain stupidity, unforeseen or unintended events all of which can contribute to a catastrophic event? How would you take into account quantitatively a change in national leadership ?

Maybe we should have an online on going poll of everyone's opinion. After all we are all in it together.

 

[DiracPool]

I think the process to determine the setting (or how it is moved) on the Doomsday Clock (which seems rather pessimistic) is highly subjective. Science, or the scientific method, should involve an objective process.

I agree with Gleem in his previous (#33) post. The science is too chaotic for there to be a hope of an objective evaluation of the threat. That's precisely why the condition is so dangerous. Too many arrogant and paranoid individuals with their finger "on the button," and too many psychological and political variables to account for to have even a remote hope to analyze the situation "objectively."

That's always been the case, though, when it comes to war/conflict or even dangers such as climate change, which by definition is a chaotic phenomenon. What is the best we can do in such a situation? Well, it's subjective consensus. That doesn't mean it's unscientific, it just means that that's the best science we can afford to the problem/situation at hand.

Just by coincidence I was browsing my TV directory this morning and, sure enough, on C-SPAN2 there was an hour long press conference (which initially aired Thursday), where Lawrence Krauss and company unveiled the new 2.5 minutes to midnight clock. Are we supposed to ignore this because we can't pin down some objective measure to convince us that we are under a real threat? Sometimes we have to match subjective with subjective. Donald Trump pushing the button or Vladamir Putin pushing the button or Kim Jon-whatever pushing the button is almost assuredly going to be a subjective decision. So objectivity has little place in assessing the danger or where to place the hands on the doomsday clock.

Again, in this C-SPAN briefing, it was revealed that the "bulletin" has 15 Nobel laureates on it's advisory committee along with the notable scientists that are more directly associated with the publication. As far as the collective of them having..

some sort of secret quantitative formula

..I don't think that's the case, I think that it's a very carefully considered "subjective consensus" of a serious situation that is not quantitatively objectifiable, and that's about the best science we are going to get on the matter. So, again, laugh at the clock at your own peril.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree with Gleem in his previous (#33) post. The science is too chaotic for there to be a hope of an objective evaluation of the threat. That's precisely why the condition is so dangerous...

Are we supposed to ignore this because we can't pin down some objective measure to convince us that we are under a real threat? Sometimes we have to match subjective with subjective. Donald Trump pushing the button or Vladamir Putin pushing the button or Kim Jon-whatever pushing the button is almost assuredly going to be a subjective decision. So objectivity has little place in assessing the danger or where to place the hands on the doomsday clock.

Again, in this C-SPAN briefing, it was revealed that the "bulletin" has 15 Nobel laureates on it's advisory committee along with the notable scientists that are more directly associated with the publication. As far as the collective of them having..

..I don't think that's the case, I think that it's a very carefully considered "subjective consensus" of a serious situation that is not quantitatively objectifiable, and that's about the best science we are going to get on the matter. So, again, laugh at the clock at your own peril. [emphasis added]

I disagree with a lot, but in particular the last part. We do have ways of converting the subjective into the objective or at least the quantifiable. As the eye test goes, this is a case that demands it: the output is a number. Possible ways to do it are by asking questions such as these:

1. How fearful are you that there will be a nuclear war in the next year? (rate 1-10)
2. What do you think the odds are of a nuclear war in the next year? (rate by %)

Apply an equation to the average responses.

Scientists are smart enough people and the reading on the clock so far removed from historical reality that I simply don't believe they've made any effort to make the readings on the clock meaningful/consistent with respect to each other over time. Yes, if a scientist or anyone else told me he was refurbishing his bomb shelter because he was *actually* much more afraid of a nuclear war today than in the 1960s, I think I would indeed laugh if I wasn't able to stifle it before it came out.

I think it is more likely that each of the movements are taken in a vacuum, as statements unto themsevles, which is what has caused the current absurd position of the clock.

Some specific responses/opinions:
To say something is dangerous because we cannot quantitavely evaluate its danger is self-contradictory and incorrect.

Should we ignore it because it isn't/can't be objective? Yes, we should ignore it because it should be and because they clearly made no effort for it to be objective.

Perhaps more to the point, risk management is an entire field that is largely dedicated to addressing difficult to quantify risks. Scientists should be capable of doing it effectively.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_management

 

[Buckleymanor]

I disagree with a lot, but in particular the last part. We do have ways of converting the subjective into the objective or at least the quantifiable. As the eye test goes, this is a case that demands it: the output is a number. Possible ways to do it are by asking questions such as these:

So how do you quantify a risk situation.
Lets suppose a certain rogue nation is trying to develop nuclear weapons.Sanctions are then imposed on that nation to stop them, after years of dispute the rogue nation complies and stops development and sanctions are liftted.Suddenly a new leader is elected to the country which originaly imposed the sanctions and more draconian sanctions are imposed once again on the rogue nation for no apparent reason.
So how do you put a number on the likely event that the rogue nation will start up it's weapons program and use them.

 

[gleem]

1. How fearful are you that there will be a nuclear war in the next year? (rate 1-10)
2. What do you think the odds are of a nuclear war in the next year? (rate by %)

Garbage. I completely disregard any question that asks me to quantify my feelings on some scale. It was silly of me to mention a public poll you cannot even trust political polls. What does anybody's perception have to do with reality except perhaps lead to irrational behavior.

.

Scientists are smart enough people and the reading on the clock so far removed from historical reality that I simply don't believe they've made any effort to make the readings on the clock meaningful/consistent with respect to each other over time. Yes, if a scientist or anyone else told me he was refurbishing his bomb shelter because he was *actually* much more afraid of a nuclear war today than in the 1960s, I think I would indeed laugh if I wasn't able to stifle it before it came out.

What do you know of their effort, why don't you believe? You do not believe those who spend a great deal of their time assessing the threats to our civilization are not credible? .

I could understand you saying that you do not understand how they made their assessment. I don't fully myself But they have access information that we do not. Do you have access to relevant information? Please tell us.

Just because it does not align with your preconceived notion of how you would assess current global threats does not invalidate theirs. The original clock was set to seven minutes to midnight. Why not 30 minutes? I haven't a clues accept it was perhaps a desire to indicate the gut wrenching immediacy of feeling you only had that amount of time to live. OK since then it has ebbed and flowed back and forth as fears were allayed or strengthened. It reach 2minutes in 1953. as the US announce its intent to test the H-bomb. In 2007 global warming took up a significant position in pending threats. Except for 2010, the initiation of the START talks, the clock has moved closer to midnight. The half minute adjustment does not seem unreasonable. Would you have left it at three minutes? Keep in mind that this does not mean anything is necessarily going to happen in any specified time period.

Should we ignore it because it isn't/can't be objective? Yes, we should ignore it because it should be and because they clearly made no effort for it to be objective

Clearly made no effort? You were there?

Anyway this clock was not made for the ordinary person but for those in leadership roles who have the power to change things. Let us hope they do not ignore it.

 

[russ_watters]

So how do you quantify a risk situation.
Lets suppose a certain rogue nation is trying to develop nuclear weapons(1).Sanctions are then imposed on that nation to stop them, after years of dispute the rogue nation complies and stops development and sanctions are liftted(2).Suddenly a new leader is elected to the country which originaly imposed the sanctions and more draconian sanctions are imposed once again on the rogue nation for no apparent reason.(3)
So how do you put a number on the likely event that the rogue nation will start up it's weapons program and use them.(4)
[numbers added]

Like this:
Situation 1: 5
Situation 2: 2
Situation 3: 4
Situation 4: Does not exist yet.

 

[russ_watters]

Garbage. I completely disregard any question that asks me to quantify my feelings on some scale.

Well then you should be completely disregarding the Doomsday Clock, which purports to do exactly that. It least I don't think the whole exercise is a fools-errand, I just know it can be done better. Again: risk management is a critical part of business and engineering. It may cause you to short-circuit, but others actually do it. But beyond that:

I mean, really: do you really agree with them that the risk today is a lot worse than it was in the 1960s? Do you think that opinion is common?

What do you know of their effort, why don't you believe?

What I know is what they have told me of their logic. I have no reason to believe they have done anything better, or they would have told me. But even if I didn't know what they've told me about how the decision was made, I also know a little bit about history.

You do not believe those who spend a great deal of their time assessing the threats to our civilization are not credible? .

No such people are involved in the Doomsday Clock. (edit: well, maybe one, see below)

But they have access information that we do not. Do you have access to relevant information? Please tell us.

Whaaaa? That's bordering on conspiracy theory. Who do you actually think the people who make the Doomsday Clock are? They are a committee formed by the editorial board of a science magazine! All but one are university science professors, and the other one is a Washington think-tank member. No, they don't have information we don't.

Anyway this clock was not made for the ordinary person but for those in leadership roles who have the power to change things.

No, it wasn't. It was made to sell science magazines.

 

[Vanadium 50]

So how do you quantify a risk situation.

You were the one who said it was quantifiable in Message #17. Why don't you tell us?

I think Russ is right - they have painted themselves in a corner, and whether they would like to admit it our not, their rationale shows a preference for left-wing politics.

• They were not bothered by Russia stating that they would upgrade its nuclear arsenal, but they were bothered by the US saying it would follow suit.
• They are concerned about a lack of supranational authorities with the power to address climate change, but do not see the actual reductions from fracking as positive.
• They are concerned about the 'rise of nationalism', but not about Russia's annexation of Crimea. To remind everyone, Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal based on Russian (and US) guarantees of its territorial integrity. After the nukes were gone, so was the agreement with Russia. No country is going to make that mistake again! You'd think that the Bulletin would see this as a threat to anti-proliferation. Nope. Because Russia.

As an organization, they can set the clock anywhere they feel like it. And we can all evaluate how seriously to take it. However, by looking at the positions they have taken over time, one can see that this is not some unbiased empirical judgement.

 

[DiracPool]

What do you know of their effort, why don't you believe? You do not believe those who spend a great deal of their time assessing the threats to our civilization are not credible?

Again, I have to say that I agree with gleem's argument. This was always my problem with the climate change issue. Here we have the vast number of geologists, atmospheric scientists and climatologists claiming that human activity is causing likely deleterious changes in the ecological "balance." So, what are we blue-collar folk supposed to do about this? Yes, we'll contest this on the fact that we don't know our ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to scientific investigation but we'll overcome that technicality because "don't underestimate the power of dumb people in large numbers..."

If we're not going to take heed of the consensus of 97 out of a 100 climatologists on the impact of human endeavors on climate change, then why is our governments funding these individuals? That's their job to make that determination, not your's, or your ignorant congressman, or your grandma, or brother-in law, or pet hamster. If you're not going to trust a consensus of 90+ percent of climatologists in their assessment of climate change then it's your civic duty to work to get their funding removed. Why are we paying them to do schlock research?

Similarly, if you don't believe that a 70 year institution of notable physicists along with a current advisory board of 15 Nobel prize laureates has the authority to advance a consensus opinion on the very charter of what their institution seeks to address, then I think it is your duty to actively protest this institution and seek to strip these Nobel laureates of their medals. Otherwise, you're just talking through your..Hat.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Situation 4: Does not exist yet.

I think it does.http://www.aol.co.uk/video/white-ho...d-ballistic-missile-58900f377ca57647ea74e757/

 

[Buckleymanor]

You were the one who said it was quantifiable in Message #17. Why don't you tell us?

I did not I said others.

 

[russ_watters]

I think it does.http://www.aol.co.uk/video/white-ho...d-ballistic-missile-58900f377ca57647ea74e757/

In the set of hypothetical scenarios you provided me, you described it as a future scenario.

You asked how risk assessments are done and provided some scenarios. I answered the question you asked according to what you provided.

 

[Rubidium_71]

A lot of variables being discussed here. I've watched them play with that clock for decades, it never seemed to directly influence any government or leader as far as I could tell. What it brings to mind for me is Dr. Manhattan's quote - "I would only agree that a symbolic clock is as nourishing to the intellect as a photograph of oxygen is to a drowning man."

 

[Buckleymanor]

In the set of hypothetical scenarios you provided me, you described it as a future scenario.

You asked how risk assessments are done and provided some scenarios. I answered the question you asked according to what you provided.

I did not describe a future scenario, I described a scenario and to be honest I had Iran in mind and the US.

 

[russ_watters]

I did not describe a future scenario, I described a scenario...

This is what you said:
"So how do you put a number on the likely event that the rogue nation will start up it's weapons program and use them."

I could have just considered that the description of what would have had to happen to turn the other scenarios into a nuclear war, but instead I called it a fourth scenario to highlight that a future event [you used future tense] does not get rated. If you want to change it to past tense, e.g., "has started up", then it can be rated.

The point is, you evaluate the risk based on which step you are on, even while recognizing that the next step is more dangerous than the last. For the sake of example, say there are 4 steps in a process, each with a 50% probability of happening. If you are on step 2 but evaluate the odds as if you are on step 3, then you get a 25% probability instead of a 12.5% probability of the bad thing happening. It overstates the current risk.

Maybe I should have just ignore that issue as obvious, but in a bizarre coincidence I just so happened to be in a risk assessment meeting yesterday (I only do half a dozen a year) where someone improperly suggested evaluating a future risk as a basis for changes to the current project.

Applied here, what I think I see is people evaluating Trump's statements as if they were actions that have already happened (in addition to weighting them above all other factors). That would make the rated risk about as meaningful as Obama's Nobel Peace Prize.

...and to be honest I had Iran in mind and the US.

Fair enough, but I am, of course, not in your mind.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Applied here, what I think I see is people evaluating Trump's statements as if they were actions that have already happened (in addition to weighting them above all other factors). That would make the rated risk about as meaningful as Obama's Nobel Peace Prize.

No I think you are ignoring the obviouse.
As for evaluating Trumps statements as actions which have already happened.What makes makes you so confident that they won't.
I hope you are not insinuating he could be telling porkies.

 

[russ_watters]

As for evaluating Trumps statements as actions which have already happened.What makes makes you so confident that they won't.

You are missing the point: an event that has already happened has a 100% probability. An event that is speculated to happen - no matter how likely one thinks it is - has a probability of less than 100% of happening.

I hope you are not insinuating he could be telling porkies.

It's not even about whether Trump is lying or not. People have ascribed all sorts of potential future actions to him, many of them mutually exclusive. Right now in this thread he is being accused of planning to start WWIII against Russia while simultaneously in another thread he is being accused of having too close of a relationship with Russia, for mutual enrichment. These two actions cannot simultaneously be true, so between them they cannot both be above 50% likelihood of occurring.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

The Cuban Missile Crisis has been referenced a few times for comparison. The year was 1962, and The Bulletin set the clock at 7 minutes compared to the current 2 1/2 minutes. Also in 1962, there were 140 nuclear weapons tests, and the global nuclear warhead stockpile was seven times what it is today. President Kennedy urged citizens to build fall out shelters, saying "the time to start is now".

The following year The Bulletin set the clock back to 12 minutes with the advent of the partial test ban, though the USSR would go on to multiply it's nuclear stockpile eight fold.

I watched this video last night. It is called "Power of Decision." It was made in 1958. The topic is an anticipated nuclear war with the Soviet Union, which they predicted could happen in 1960. Therefore I think it's relevant to your remarks about the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was made by the USAF, and is now unclassified and in the public domain. It's fascinating because it is clearly made for a select audience, not for the general population.