• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Doomsday Clock moves closest to midnight in 73-year history

I love the "leading scientists" thing, as though it makes it so that what they do can't be argued with. (And the assumption that they are "leading scientists" in the first place.)

So, they have a clue; you don't.

The CAN be argued with - by someone who has an argument, and that's not you. Typical of an ignorant commentator, you refer to things you are ignorant about as assumptions; you should go learn who they are before opening your mouth.

No, they don't. They set it as events warrant, in their estimation. Even your own link shows this.

The Clock is not set and reset in real time as events occur; rather than respond to each and every crisis as it happens, the Science and Security Board meets twice annually to discuss global events in a deliberative manner. The closest nuclear war threat, the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, reached crisis, climax, and resolution before the Clock could be set to reflect that possible doomsday.

Doomsday Clock - Wikipedia
 
In some people's minds it would be a cure. I have a feeling they might be in for a big surprise if it isn't.

Why do you feel it wouldn't reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 90% of humanity died of plague or war?
 
SThe CAN be argued with - but someone who has an argument, and that's not you. Typical of an ignorant commentator, you refer to things you are ignorant about as assumptions; you should go learn who they are before opening your mouth.

My argument was that no one takes it very seriously, and that's true. Your response was that the people who set it do. So what, if hardly anyone else does?



You said that it's "set" twice a year. It's not. What you quoted from Wikipedia is basically what I said.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was an event which warranted a "reset," seeing as nuclear war was literally minutes away from happening. According to their reasoning for this reset:

The international security situation is dire, not just because these threats exist, but because world leaders have allowed the international political infrastructure for managing them to erode.

In the nuclear realm, national leaders have ended or undermined several major arms control treaties and negotiations during the last year, creating an environment conducive to a renewed nuclear arms race, to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and to lowered barriers to nuclear war. Political conflicts regarding nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea remain unresolved and are, if anything, worsening. US-Russia cooperation on arms control and disarmament is all but nonexistent.

If that potentiality warrants such a dire setting, then the very real, not potential, near total destruction of everything certainly did. If they meet twice a year, then they met shortly after the crisis.
 
My argument was that no one takes it very seriously, and that's true. Your response was that the people who set it do. So what, if hardly anyone else does?

You might think that was your implied argument, but you asked a question. I answered it - and it's not only the scientists who run it who do. Many, many more do, including many other scientists, many less ignorant citizens, and the media who report the information.

If that potentiality warrants such a dire setting, then the very real, not potential, near total destruction of everything certainly did. If they meet twice a year, then they met shortly after the crisis.

Sorry, correcting uninformed comments has reached a limit of my patience for now.

But I'll add another comment on the issue.

The dangers were high in 1962, yet the trends were also for JFK pursuing the first-ever de-escalation of the threats; it was also a time when he got the first treaty REDUCING the threat, his most proud accomplishment, the limited nuclear test ban treaty, passed over the strong objections of his own Pentagon, enacted; while now, threats are increasing all the time.
 
You might think that was your implied argument, but you asked a question.

No, it wasn't implied; it was stated clearly.

I answered it - and it's not only the scientists who run it who do. Many, many more do, including many other scientists, many less ignorant citizens, and the media who report the information.

Such as? When was the last time anyone did anything because of the Doomsday Clock? When was the last time it influenced anything except tongue-wagging?

Please document such events.


Sorry, correcting uninformed comments has reached a limit of my patience for now.

You just don't have anything else.


The dangers were high in 1962

Yeah, which was never reflected on the clock, which stood at 7 minutes to midnight throughout. The clock didn't change until a year later. At which time it was moved back.


yet the trends were also for JFK pursuing the first-ever de-escalation of the threats; it was also a time when he got the first treaty REDUCING the threat, his most proud accomplishment, the limited nuclear test ban treaty, passed over the strong objections of his own Pentagon, enacted; while now, threats are increasing all the time.

AFTER the near total annihilation of everything.
 
Last edited:
No, it wasn't implied; it was stated clearly.

Your statement was: "I don't know who actually takes the "Doomsday Clock" seriously". That doesn't even qualify as an argument; I was being generous. Did I say I'm done wasting time correcting uninformed errors? Stopped reading.
 
I'm not worried. We could wipe out 99% of all humanity and mankind would still have 77,000,000 bodies roaming around eating, sleeping and screwing.

In what sort of world? Post-nuclear exchange with a nuclear winter cutting all sunlight, crops irradiated and unable to grow, poisoned water? You wouldn't be screwing for very long before you starved or froze to death. 77,000,000 is just under the population of Germany. One country.

This Is How Nuclear Winter Would Affect Every Single One of Us Across The Planet
 
Last edited:
In what sort of world? Post-nuclear exchange with a nuclear winter cutting all sunlight, crops irradiated and unable to grow, poisoned water? You wouldn't be screwing for very long before you starved or froze to death. 77,000,000 is just under the population of Germany. One country.

This Is How Nuclear Winter Would Affect Every Single One of Us Across The Planet

Possible this could end up like "The Road". OTOH, life on Earth has survived worse. Timeline: The evolution of life | New Scientist

Animal life first proliferated about 600 million years ago. The planet still has about 4 Billion years to go before the Sun kills it. Lots of time to reboot the planet.
 
Really? I imagine the Cuban missile crisis was pretty alarming. What do you think?

I'd bet about 99% of people here don't understand how close we actually came to nuclear war in that crisis - or, for that matter, how Eisenhower had recklessly put the world on a hair-trigger for nuclear war (to cut conventional spending, leaving nuclear the only response), which JFK saw fixing as his #1 priority.
 
Your statement was: "I don't know who actually takes the "Doomsday Clock" seriously". That doesn't even qualify as an argument; I was being generous. Did I say I'm done wasting time correcting uninformed errors? Stopped reading.

Sorry you're unable to discern the obvious. :shrug:

You did say it, yes, but you keep not being done.
 
I'd bet about 99% of people here don't understand how close we actually came to nuclear war in that crisis - or, for that matter, how Eisenhower had recklessly put the world on a hair-trigger for nuclear war (to cut conventional spending, leaving nuclear the only response), which JFK saw fixing as his #1 priority.

I was about ten years-old so my memory of that that time is fading, but I do recall the concern of my parents. There have been a few occasions since then where near misses occurred. There was the Russian computer foul-up to which I have linked below. We came that close...

Stanislav Petrov - Wikipedia


Petrov was a genuine hero; disobeying orders to prevent a global thermonuclear exchange.
 
Really? I imagine the Cuban missile crisis was pretty alarming. What do you think?

I've no problem with the clock being moved close to midnight during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Or a couple of other times. Right now it does seems alarmist though.
 
Petrov was a genuine hero; disobeying orders to prevent a global thermonuclear exchange.

No American - including JFK - had any idea how close we came. The above is one example; another is that we did not know the Russians had placed 100 tactical nuclear missiles in the hands of the local Russian forces, with the authorization to use them, to use against any American invasion force.

Our leaders were planning our response - with most favoring an invasion - with no idea of those tactical missiles waiting for the invading force.

We only learned of them at a 1992 meeting in Cuba with Russian, Cuban and American leaders who compared notes on the crisis.

Picture this image in your mind’s eye: a thumb and forefinger brought so near to each other that they almost, but don’t quite, touch. As the thumb and forefinger nearly touch, a voice says, “We came that close to nuclear war in the Cuban missile crisis.”

In January 1992, top-level decision-makers of the Cuban missile crisis—former Cuban leader Fidel Castro and former US defense secretary Robert McNamara—used this image to convey how close the world had been to nuclear annihilation on October 26-27, 1962. As they spoke, the pupils in their eyes dilated, their voices cracked, heavy with barely managed emotion. That was their remembered reality of that moment: a world on the brink of Armageddon. Both would go to their graves haunted by what they learned from each other in the 1992 conference on the crisis that we organized in Havana, almost 30 years after the most dangerous moment in recorded history.

Are we being hyperbolic? Were they? We don’t think so. In the case of the Cuban missile crisis, what could in many other contexts be brushed aside as hyperbole is often just unvarnished fact. Consider what McNamara and Castro learned in the course of those epochal exchanges at the 1992 Havana conference.

McNamara had already believed in October 1962 that the crisis was dangerous. In military affairs, McNamara was President John F. Kennedy’s designated principal worrier. He worried about a panicky Russian second lieutenant who might launch a nuke at the United States without authorization. He worried about a Russian move against West Berlin. In these instances, a nuclear response would be required, and after that, probable escalation to all-out nuclear war. Subsequent research by us and by others has shown that he was right to worry about all these possibilities.

But what he learned in January 1992, 30 years later, was far more horrifying to him. He learned that the Russians on the island were ready and willing to nuke any invading US force with tactical nuclear weapons—something McNamara had never dreamed was possible. He also learned later that the Russians were ready and willing, with Cuban logistical assistance, to strike the US base at Guantánamo Bay with tactical nukes that, by October 27, had been moved into battle positions in eastern Cuba—another eventuality that had never appeared on his scope. If either of these scenarios had materialized, a nuclear US counterattack would have followed immediately, killing millions of Cubans and thousands of Russians on the island. Cuba would have been destroyed. And that would have been only the beginning—of the end of the world, as we know it. Again: fact, not hyperbole. Essentially, McNamara learned that he was monumentally wrong about the basic assumptions on which any US attack on Cuba would have been based.

We were sitting next to McNamara in January 1992 when he learned from Russian General Anatoly Gribkov about the possibility of a nuclear attack on an invading US force in Cuba, a force that would not initially have been equipped with nuclear weapons. Normally loquacious, McNamara was rendered temporarily speechless. His face turned pale. He couldn’t believe what he had just heard. He asked the interpreters to confirm the accuracy of the translation. They did so. He became aware that the greatest danger of Armageddon in the crisis lay in what he and his president had not known, and in fact had never even imagined. His discovery might be summarized this way: In the event of any non-nuclear US air attack and invasion of Cuba, the nuclear war he wanted desperately to avoid would have begun on the beaches of Cuba at the initiation of the Soviets and Cubans. On October 26, 1962, McNamara imagined that such a US attack might be required within 24 hours, never dreaming that such an action would have been the penultimate move toward a catastrophic nuclear war that would begin in Cuba.

The Cuban Missile Crisis at 55 | The Nation
 
I was about ten years-old so my memory of that that time is fading, but I do recall the concern of my parents. There have been a few occasions since then where near misses occurred. There was the Russian computer foul-up to which I have linked below. We came that close...

Stanislav Petrov - Wikipedia


Petrov was a genuine hero; disobeying orders to prevent a global thermonuclear exchange.

Petrov's supposed role in avoiding a nuclear war is way overstated. People forget that Petrov DID NOTIFY his superiors of the computer registering a Minuteman launch from the U.S. after the second computer warning. He also told his superiors he was overriding the alarm (which he did several times). But he did notify his superiors and it was someone else up the chain of comman who made the actual decision to wait and see.
 
Petrov's supposed role in avoiding a nuclear war is way overstated. People forget that Petrov DID NOTIFY his superiors of the computer registering a Minuteman launch from the U.S. after the second computer warning. He also told his superiors he was overriding the alarm (which he did several times). But he did notify his superiors and it was someone else up the chain of comman who made the actual decision to wait and see.

Had Petrov not alerted his superiors what do you think the outcome could have been? There was no "supposed" about Petrov's role.
 
No American - including JFK - had any idea how close we came. The above is one example; another is that we did not know the Russians had placed 100 tactical nuclear missiles in the hands of the local Russian forces, with the authorization to use them, to use against any American invasion force.

Our leaders were planning our response - with most favoring an invasion - with no idea of those tactical missiles waiting for the invading force.

We only learned of them at a 1992 meeting in Cuba with Russian, Cuban and American leaders who compared notes on the crisis.



The Cuban Missile Crisis at 55 | The Nation

the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis had very little capability of attacking the U.S. with nuclear weapons so a nuclear war would've been extremely one sided in favor of the U.S. The Soviets would've been nearly exterminated while the U.S. would've been merely hurt with a handful of cities destroyed at most.
 
Had Petrov not alerted his superiors what do you think the outcome could have been? There was no "supposed" about Petrov's role.

The same. By the time his superiors learned of the computer warnings the situation would've became obvious anyway as happened in real life.
 
the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis had very little capability of attacking the U.S. with nuclear weapons so a nuclear war would've been extremely one sided in favor of the U.S. The Soviets would've been nearly exterminated while the U.S. would've been merely hurt with a handful of cities destroyed at most.

Your "handful" of cities would have been destroyed before you even had the time to launch in response. Cuba is right next door. Let's not forget that the siting of nukes in Cuba was in response to the US siting nukes in Turkey, pointing at the USSR just over the border.
 
Last edited:
Your "handful" of cities would have been destroyed before you even had the time to launch in response. Cuba is right next door. Let's not forget that the siting of nukes in Cuba was in response to the US siting nukes in Turkey, pointing at the USSR.

No it wasn't. The Soviets put IRBMs in Cuba because the guidance systems on their ICBMs were flawed and could not reliably hit targets in the U.S. And any U.S. attack on Cuba would've destroyed the IRBMs there in the first wave.
 
Because I don't believe that is the only factor to consider.

NASA states otherwise and I'll go with them verus politically-minded activists. :)


https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/l
203_co2-graph-061219.jpg
The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.



Causes | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
The Role of Human Activity
In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

The panel's full Summary for Policymakers report is online at
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf.
 
NASA states otherwise and I'll go with them verus politically-minded activists. :)


https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/l
203_co2-graph-061219.jpg
The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.



Causes | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
The Role of Human Activity
In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

The panel's full Summary for Policymakers report is online at
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf.

Guess the survivors will learn the truth.
 
Back
Top Bottom