The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) has set the Doomsday Clock to "two minutes to midnight" to reflect fears of a nuclear confrontation with North Korea, as well as the failure of world leaders to address climate change and other factors. The clock is now set as close to doomsday as it was in 1953:
The team of scientists singled out a series of nuclear tests by North Korea. They dramatically escalated tensions on the Korean peninsula and led to a war of words between North Korea and the US.
The BAS also referred to a new US nuclear strategy that was expected to call for more funding to expand the role of the country's nuclear arsenal. Rising tension between Russia and the West was also a contributing factor.
The "weakening of institutions" around the world in dealing with major global threats - including climate change - was another major concern, the scientists said. They also mentioned US President Donald Trump's "unpredictability", pointing to his often controversial tweets and statements.
We're back, baby!
(Score: 4, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Friday January 26 2018, @02:41PM (5 children)
Why are you using the past tense? Those huge arsenals still exist. And are still on alert. And now think what happens if a system misinterprets a missile to NK as a missile to Russia …
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by frojack on Friday January 26 2018, @05:57PM (3 children)
He's using the past tense because the US and Russia have both substantially reduced their nuclear arsenals from previous highs.
Probably more than enough to make each country un-inhabitable, but no longer enough to end life on earth.
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat [armscontrol.org]
The key figures are in the bottom most graphic. But the US and Russia have less than 2000 warheads deployed. The number stockpiled
doesn't matter because neither side will survive long enough to use those.
Expectations are that less than 1000 from each side would land due to some launchers being taken out before they could launch,
failures to perform, delivery vehicle intercept, etc.
Would suck to live in either country, but much of the world would survive, including most of europe, and the southern hemisphere.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26 2018, @08:16PM (2 children)
No, just human life on earth. And if you think it would only affect 2 countries, you are insane. 2000 warheads is enough to kill billions.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday January 26 2018, @11:08PM (1 child)
If all those billions were targeted perhaps. But there aren't a billion people in the US and Russia combined.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday January 27 2018, @02:04PM
One nuclear reactor goes bad (Chernobyl) and its effects were felt throughout Europe, affecting livestock, crops and milk production, polluting water supplies etc. 2000 warheads would probably affect the entire planet, although the worst affected areas would be those that had been targeted. Not the end of civilisation as we know it perhaps, but enough to cause the death of millions of people outside the participating countries.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Friday January 26 2018, @07:45PM
Round two of "this ain't the USSR we're talking about" is the NK delivery vehicle is likely to be a ship of some sort perhaps pulling into Diego Garcia or some west coast port, and the USA delivery vehicle is likely to be a manned bomber.
Neither side would be doing the cold war silo launch thing.