SoylentNews

2 Minutes to Midnight

posted by martyb on Friday January 26 2018, @01:18PM   
from the better-read-this-VERY-quickly dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

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!

---

Original Submission

• Re:Where's the Doomsday? Re:Where's the Doomsday? (Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Friday January 26 2018, @06:08PM (2 children)

  by frojack (1554) on Friday January 26 2018, @06:08PM (#628377) Journal

  NK launches one missile towards all the countries that DIDN'T retaliate against the US,

  Said single missile falls harmlessly into the sea or is shot down.

  Radiation cloud drifts to North America on prevailing winds. Slight excess in cancers is measured for a few years.
  The hopelessly pessimistic WHO predicted 4000 EVENTUAL deaths due to Chernobyl in 2005 within 20 years.
  13 years on, and this is NOT happening.

  5 SEPTEMBER 2005 | GENEVA - A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.
  As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.

  http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/ [who.int]

  The US would not hit NK with a nuke, because of this very reason.
  The radiation deaths, while vastly over stated, would do more damage to the US than to NK. Especially crop damage (unsalable food supply).

  --
  No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.

  Parent

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Moderation		+1
  Informative=1, Total=1
  Extra 'Informative' Modifier		0
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		3

• Re:Where's the Doomsday? (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday January 27 2018, @08:27AM

  by maxwell demon (1608) on Saturday January 27 2018, @08:27AM (#628764) Journal

  Of course "died because of" != "can be directly attributed to".

  For example, if someone got cancer because of the radiation. Good luck finding out the cause of that specific case of cancer.

  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.

  Parent

• Re:Where's the Doomsday? (Score: 2) by Wootery on Tuesday January 30 2018, @02:14PM

  by Wootery (2341) on Tuesday January 30 2018, @02:14PM (#630345)

  The US would not hit NK with a nuke, because of this very reason.

  You mean USA-launches-first? I think there are plenty of reasons to assume the USA wouldn't launch first, but I don't think such long-term consequences would deter a nuclear response if NK launched on the US. That's sorta the point of MAD, no?

  Parent