|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,005 Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
OP
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,005 Likes: 29 |
https://thebulletin.org/2020/01/press-release-it-is-now-100-seconds-to-midnight/
Doomsday Clock Now Closer to Midnight Than Ever in Its History; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Cite Worsening Nuclear Threat, Lack of Climate Action & Rise of “Cyber-Enabled Disinformation Campaigns” in Moving Clock Hand; Bulletin Joined by The Elders in Announcement Today.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – January 23, 2020 – The iconic Doomsday Clock symbolizing the gravest perils facing humankind is now closer to midnight than at any point since its creation in 1947. To underscore the need for action, the time on the Doomsday Clock is now being expressed in seconds, rather than minutes: Today, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Science and Security Board in consultation with the Bulletin’s Board of Sponsors, which includes 13 Nobel Laureates, moved the Doomsday Clock from two minutes to midnight to 100 seconds to midnight.
As the statement issued today by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists explains: “Humanity continues to face two simultaneous existential dangers—nuclear war and climate change—that are compounded by a threat multiplier, cyber-enabled information warfare, that undercuts society’s ability to respond. 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.”
The Doomsday Clock has now moved closer to midnight in three of the last four years. While the Doomsday Clock did not move in 2019, its minute hand was set forward in 2018 by 30 seconds, to two minutes before midnight. The Clock was adjusted in 2017 to two and a half minutes to midnight from its previous setting of three minutes to midnight.
Rachel Bronson, president and CEO, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, said: “It is 100 seconds to midnight. We are now expressing how close the world is to catastrophe in seconds – not hours, or even minutes. It is the closest to Doomsday we have ever been in the history of the Doomsday Clock. We now face a true emergency – an absolutely unacceptable state of world affairs that has eliminated any margin for error or further delay.”
Former California Governor Jerry Brown, executive chair, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, said: “Dangerous rivalry and hostility among the superpowers increases the likelihood of nuclear blunder. Climate change just compounds the crisis. If there’s ever a time to wake up, it’s now.”
For the first time, experts from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists were joined in making the Doomsday Clock change by members of The Elders. Founded by Nelson Mandela in 2007, The Elders are independent global leaders working together for peace and human rights.
Former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, deputy chair, The Elders; and former South Korean Foreign Minister, said: “We share a common concern over the failure of the multilateral system to address the existential threats we face. From the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the Iran Nuclear Deal, to deadlock at nuclear disarmament talks and division at the UN Security Council – our mechanisms for collaboration are being undermined when we need them most.”
Former President of Ireland Mary Robinson, chair, The Elders, and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said: “We ask world leaders to join us in 2020 as we work to pull humanity back from the brink. The Doomsday Clock now stands at 100 seconds to midnight, the most dangerous situation that humanity has ever faced. Now is the time to come together – to unite and to act.”
The Doomsday Clock statement highlights three worsening factors:
· Nuclear weapons. “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.”
· Climate change. “Public awareness of the climate crisis grew over the course of 2019, largely because of mass protests by young people around the world. Just the same, governmental action on climate change still falls far short of meeting the challenge at hand. At UN climate meetings last year, national delegates made fine speeches but put forward few concrete plans to further limit the carbon dioxide emissions that are disrupting Earth’s climate. This limited political response came during a year when the effects of manmade climate change were manifested by one of the warmest years on record, extensive wildfires, and quicker-than-expected melting of glacial ice.”
· Cyber-based disinformation. “Continued corruption of the information ecosphere on which democracy and public decision making depend has heightened the nuclear and climate threats. In the last year, many governments used cyber-enabled disinformation campaigns to sow distrust in institutions and among nations, undermining domestic and international efforts to foster peace and protect the planet.”
At the same time, the Doomsday Clock statement also identifies possible action steps to turn back the hands of the Clock.
· US and Russian leaders can return to the negotiating table to: reinstate the INF Treaty or take other action to restrain an unnecessary arms race in medium-range missiles; extend the limits of New START beyond 2021; seek further reductions in nuclear arms; discuss a lowering of the alert status of the nuclear arsenals of both countries; limit nuclear modernization programs that threaten to create a new nuclear arms race; and start talks on cyber warfare, missile defenses, the militarization of space, hypersonic technology, and the elimination of battlefield nuclear weapons.
· The countries of the world should publicly rededicate themselves to the temperature goal of the Paris climate agreement, which is restricting warming “well below” 2 degrees Celsius higher than the preindustrial level. That goal is consistent with consensus views on climate science, and, notwithstanding the inadequate climate action to date, it may well remain within reach if major changes in the worldwide energy system and land use are undertaken promptly. If that goal is to be attained, industrialized countries will need to curb emissions rapidly, going beyond their initial, inadequate pledges and supporting developing countries so they can leapfrog the entrenched, fossil fuel-intensive patterns previously pursued by industrialized countries.
· The United States and other signatories of the Iran nuclear deal can work together to restrain nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. Iran is poised to violate key thresholds of the deal.
· The international community should begin multilateral discussions aimed at establishing norms of behavior, both domestic and international, that discourage and penalize the misuse of science. Science provides the world’s searchlight in times of fog and confusion. Furthermore, focused attention is needed to prevent information technology from undermining public trust in political institutions, in the media, and in the existence of objective reality itself. Cyber-enabled information warfare is a threat to the common good. Deception campaigns—and leaders intent on blurring the line between fact and politically motivated fantasy—are a profound threat to effective democracies, reducing their ability to address nuclear weapons, climate change, and other existential dangers.
December 2020 marks the 75th anniversary of the first edition of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, initially a six-page, black-and-white bulletin and later a magazine, created in anticipation that the atom bomb would be “only the first of many dangerous presents from the Pandora’s Box of modern science.”
________________________________
MEDIA CONTACTS: Alex Frank, (703) 276-3264 and afrank@hastingsgroup.com, or Max Karlin, (703) 276-3255 and mkarlin@hastingsgroup.com.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,005 Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,005 Likes: 29 |
Several things raise skepticism of the veracity of this report:
First and foremost, they throw global warming propaganda in a report about the danger of potential war with nuclear weapons.
2) Jerry Brown is listed as "executive chair" of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Jerry Brown is an ultra-liberal with a clear far-Left ideological agenda, and not a scientist.
3) A heavy influence by "members of The Elders. Founded by Nelson Mandela in 2007, The Elders are independent global leaders working together for peace and human rights" also sounds like a highly political agenda-pushing group more prone to ideology than facts.
Plus other cited political groups that raise red flags against the report's believability.
I'll argue against my own points, that maybe these are political figures who are using their public visibility to sincerely raise legitimate concern of potential nuclear war.
But frankly, my observation of these leftists and globalists is that in the past they have consistently used their positions to expand their own power, and have used false narrative to advance their globalist ambitions, and have used pseudo-science to alarm the public to accept their authoritarian control, in the absence of a real threat.
But as I've posted here in multiple previous topics over the last 18 years or so, I do have a real concern about the potential for nuclear war. Hysteria about environmental threats destroying the world in 11 years (originally from Rep.Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, apparently with no backing scientific data source) is just so much hoseshit.
More of a consensus, credible but still ideologically driven scientists were caught cooking the books to make "evidence" conform to their own ideology. Environmentalists for 50 years have been changing their narrative every decade or so, updating their partially disproven pseudo-science narrative to something halfway credible they can keep alive.
But nuclear war...
ICBM nuclear missiles launched from the U.S. or Russia could cross the globe and annihilate dozens of cities in both nations in 30 minutes. The nuclear fallout would then kill virtually everyone in the Northern hemisphere within weeks. And after a few more weeks or months likewise pass into the Southern hemisphere and kill virtually everyone there.
Missiles launched from U.S. or Russian submarines 20 miles offshore could reach their targets even more quickly, in maybe 15 to 20 minutes. Even faster, if Russia really has deployed hypersonic missiles.
As I cited in another topic, even a more limited nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan, firing maybe 100 missiles/bombs each, could still push enough ash into the upper atmosphere to block out a majority of the sun for the entire planet, and kill 50% to 80% of the world's crops and food supply, therefore starving most of the world's population. And also unleash aa cloud of radiation that would kill hundreds of millions outside of India and Pakistan.
So the threat of nuclear war is real. And by far, the most immediate threat to everyone on Earth.
There are other scenarios.
Even without nuclear bombs, an Iranian or North Korean submarine could similarly launch one nuclear magnetic pulse weapon over North America, and permanently knock out power for almost 100% of the U.S. and Canada. Again a scenario that would paralyze logistical ability to transport food, and starve over 90% of the population to death.
Likewise a rogue government or terrorist group could smuggle in a bomb into the U.S. and detonate it, or launch a WMD or nuke, and make it appear either the U.S., Russia, France, Britain, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea or Iran had launched it, to trick nuclear armed nations into nuclear war with each other.
Or using cyber hacking, a hostile nation or group could hack the security of multiple nuclear power plants in the U.S., and cause meltdowns to irradiate huge swaths of the United States. Or Europe, or Russia.
There are a lot of possibilities for nuclear Armageddon. And I don't stay up at night thinking about it, but it does concern me. But I don't really see a way out. If one side backs down and either abandons or even shows an unwillingness to use their nuclear weapons, the other (or others) would see it as weakness, and exploit it for political or military advantage.
I think Irael's remarkable concessions in the last 25 years or so (since the 1994 agreement), where Palestinians have just exploited it and become far more aggressive, is a prime example of that.
And the fact that the U.S. and Russia signed agreements to ban chemical and biological warfare, and then both secretly continued these programs anyway.
Or that Ukraine gave its nuclear missiles back to Russia in 1991 after the Soviet collapse, and then Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, and is still militarily expanding its territory inside Ukraine.
I wish I could offer a solution.
This much is true: If the world ever does end in a nuclear, chemical or bio-weapons war, it will happen suddenly, and we will probably never know how it occurred, even years after. We will only struggle to survive in the aftermath.
|
|
|
|
|
