Five minutes to Midnight

MrBishop

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
326b.jpg


The Nobel laureate scientist Stephen Hawking today warned that the world is on the brink of a second nuclear age and a period of unprecedented climate change.
The University of Cambridge mathematician's comments came as the time on the doomsday clock, which counts down to nuclear Armageddon, was moved two minutes closer to midnight, reflecting concerns among scientists over the rise of new nuclear powers.

Climate change was also increasing the threat of catastrophic damage to the planet, academics at the Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists (BAS) said.

"Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no nuclear weapons have been used in war, though the world has come uncomfortably close to disaster on more than one occasion," Prof Hawking said. "But for good luck, we would all be dead.
"As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and a period of unprecedented climate change, scientists have a special responsibility once again to inform the public and advise leaders about the perils that humanity faces.

"We foresee great perils if governments and society do not take action now to render nuclear weapons obsolete and prevent further climate change."

Since 1947, the clock - with midnight representing nuclear apocalypse - has appeared on the cover of the BAS with its minute hand moved to reflect the perceived nuclear threat.

The hand's position has been altered 18 times including today's change, which takes the time shown to five to midnight.

Scientists at the magazine, which was founded by University of Chicago physicists alarmed about the dangers of the nuclear age, said people were living in the "most perilous period" since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

They said the "major step" of moving the hand reflected growing concerns marked by grave threats including the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea and unsecured nuclear materials in Russia and elsewhere.

The move towards increased used of nuclear power to replace fossil fuels, and reduce carbon emissions would increase the risk of nuclear proliferation, they added.

The decision to move the clock forward was reached after discussions with the bulletin's board of sponsors, which includes 18 Nobel laureates.

"North Korea's recent test of a nuclear weapon, Iran's nuclear ambitions, a renewed emphasis on the military utility of nuclear weapons, the failure to adequately secure nuclear materials and the continued presence of some 26,000 nuclear weapons in the United States and Russia are symptomatic of a failure to solve the problems posed by the most destructive technology on Earth," a statement from the board said.

The statement added that the dangers posed by climate change were almost as dire as those posed by nuclear weapons.

"The effects may be less dramatic in the short term than the destruction that could be wrought by nuclear explosions, but over the next three to four decades, climate change could cause irremediable harm to the habitats upon which human societies depend for survival," it added.

Sir Martin Rees, the president of the Royal Society and a professor of cosmology and astrophysics, added: "Nuclear weapons still pose the most catastrophic and immediate threat to humanity, but climate change and emerging technologies in the life sciences also have the potential to end civilisation as we know it."

The closest the clock has come to midnight was at two minutes away in 1953, when the US and Soviet Union tested thermonuclear devices within nine months of each other.

In 1991, in a wave of optimism at the end of the cold war, it was set at its furthest away - 17 minutes to midnight.

It was last moved in February 2002, when, following the terror attacks of events of September 11 2001 and growing concerns over global terrorism, it was pushed forward by two minutes, moving to seven minutes to midnight.

BAS said steps could be taken to reduce the current danger level. These included reducing the launch readiness of US and Russian nuclear forces, dismantling, storing, and destroying more than 20,000 warheads over the next 10 years and stopping the production of nuclear weapons material.

Investments in biofuel and other alternative energies could also reduce the need for new nuclear plants.
Click to expand...

Link
 
The Good Doctor said:
"But for good luck, we would all be dead.
Click to expand...

Call it what you will. I have always held fast to the belief that mankind can not nor will he be allowed to destroy the earth. That is one fear I am completely without.
 
Why did they pick midnight? Do they think the explosions will look cooler in the dark than at, say, 3:30 p.m.?
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Call it what you will. I have always held fast to the belief that mankind can not nor will he be allowed to destroy the earth. That is one fear I am completely without.
Click to expand...

Add to that ...'prevent it's destruction' and I'm there. Krakatoa didn't wipe us out, and neither did the Java supervolcano, nor Yellowstone. The asteroid that took out the dinosaurs didn't get everything either. A planetoid supposedly the size of mars is supposedly the cause of our moon, and yet Earth is still here.
 
One thing I noticed... they said the increased use of nuclear power to replace fossil fuels will increase the risk of nuclear armegeddon. But the article also talks about climate change, and fossil fuels are supposed to be the big reason for climate change, right? So I guess it's kind of a pick your poison sort of thing... wind power requires windmills that chop up poor little birdies... water power requires building dams that flood canyons and stuff... solar power takes up a lot of room and doesn't work so well when it's overcast.

Maybe the best way to generate power is to put illegal immigrants to work on stationary bikes hooked up to generators. :D
 
Inkara1 said:
Maybe the best way to generate power is to put illegal immigrants to work on stationary bikes hooked up to generators. :D
Click to expand...

And put the electric companies out of business? Aren't we having enough trouble with the job market without illegals causing more strife? *handonhip
 
Oh ye of too much faith.

Destroying the earth by ourselves might be a toughie...but the dinosaurs have shown us that the total annihilation of mankind isn't that difficult...just now we don't need a stray meteor, we can just push a button. :shrug:
 
MrBishop said:
Oh ye of too much faith.

Destroying the earth by ourselves might be a toughie...but the dinosaurs have shown us that the total annihilation of mankind isn't that difficult...just now we don't need a stray meteor, we can just push a button. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Which is the point being made. The planet, itself, is quite 'safe' from destruction from mankind. Mankind, however, is quite capable of nearly wiping ourselves out. If the 'second nucular age' is as 'doom and gloom' as those scientists predict, though, it will be mostly restricted to the Northern hemisphere and Australia/New Zealand. Any fallout should be kept in the north by the prevailing winds in the stratosphere..:shrug: Stranger things have happened, though...
 
MrBishop said:
Oh ye of too much faith.

Destroying the earth by ourselves might be a toughie...but the dinosaurs have shown us that the total annihilation of mankind isn't that difficult...just now we don't need a stray meteor, we can just push a button. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Key word being "can".

I hold to the notion that it will never be allowed to happen. The Book I read don't end that way.
 
Gato_Solo said:
The book I read briefed me about the fire from the heavens...sounds like nukes to me...:shrug:
Click to expand...

Mebbe. But the Book I read don't leave room for the fulfillment to be by the hands of man. Once again, we put too much importance on ourselves. We ain't all that in the grand scheme of things. I mean, dominion over the beasts is one thing; bringing about Armageddon is another.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Key word being "can".

I hold to the notion that it will never be allowed to happen. The Book I read don't end that way.
Click to expand...

The four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.... War, Famine, Pestilence and Death. the moon as to blood, skies dark as sackcloth etc etc..

X number of people from each tribe saved...etc etc..
 
If nuclear weapons make an area unliveable, why are Hiroshima & Nagasaki still in business?

Mankind can create mass destrection. Mankind will suffer. Mankind wmay survive.The earth will shrug it off as another bump in the road.
 
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were some seriously weak ass bombs. The modern payload yields will really mess stuff up... plus some formulations of uranium have a multi-thousand year halflife.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top