Is the Doomsday Clock the biggest mistake coming out of pop-sci in the past years? It has no basis in objective, measurable facts, and it serves only as a political tool. I wouldn't have a problem with this if it weren't presented as a scientific tool, but it isn't, so I do.
I don't disagree with the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists' message of nuclear disarmament, but they are using fear to further their political goals.
>objective, measurable facts,
US has come to a crossroad - within a year, max, NK will have the ability to nuke mainland USA with an ICBM.
Any president has to make a choice: 1) accept it or 2) prevent it.
(1) means trusting NK, like you would trust China or Russia
(2) means that NK agrees to nuclear disarmament, or gets bombed to hell.
My guess is that the sanctions are not supposed to work in a traditional sense, their only function is to provide NK a fig leaf so it can back off with minimal face loss. If NK fails to take it, US either has to go with (1) or the nasty version of (2).
NK isn't gonna agree to anything. I bet you they just do nothing forever though.
They wanna be powerful but they also want to be liked.
problem is, strategic decisions are always done according to the capability, not the intentions, of the enemy
If only NK would have limited its missile range to Japan, US and NK could have just have snarled at each other like two dogs, and nothing else.
Everything has changed dramatically now that US feels it is in the cross hairs of a nuclear bomb itself.
One or the other has to capitulate,
either (1) or (2)
there are no other options.
This is what makes the situation so dangerous, passivity has become a choice.
>strategic decisions are always done according to the capability, not the intentions, of the enemy
Get a load of this dipshit
>Doomsday Clock
leftist garbage, just ignore it
>i have no argument
Even if you accept the memesday clock it still has no basis on science. It is purely a geopolitical devise, geopolitics are not scientific they belong with the humanities. If you want to talk about this shit go to any of the thousand sites on the internet about politics. Just because it has the atomic somewhere in it that doesn't mean it belongs here
the press release literally goes on and on about the disinformation campaigns subverting democracy (i.e. the debunked 'Putin hacked the election' narrative)
>the debunked 'Putin hacked the election'
kek
brainwashed foxnewsfaggot detected
>brainwashed foxnewsfaggot detected
Why the homophobia?
can you take your political bullshit out of this board? jesus fuck you are like vegans, you just have to talk about it you cannot keep your faggot mouth shout
fuck off back to
No you fuck off back to pol, this clock bullshit is not scientific and doesn’t belong on Veeky Forums
>another poster spooked by the /pol/ bogeyman
>Bulletin of Atomic Scientists'
>they also happen to be experts on global warming and politics
>>they also happen to be experts on global warming and politics
that's the typical leftist mindset, opinions on everything based on nothing but feels
wow, talk about projection
run along little idiot, it's your time to fap to a orange again
7/10 bait thread. Would post in.
>make commentary on an instance in which scientists comment on the real world use of technology
>spergs argue over whether or not "it" is science
>political sparing breaks out for no reason
>"nod an argument" dropped early
>someone already pulling out "leftists" as a slur
>shilling to intensify
>and it serves only as a political tool
nigger why do you write this as if it was some sort of counter argument? It's meant to be a political tool.
Wasn't the last time it was at 2 minutes during the cuban missile crisis?
>Comparing 2 superpowers with thousands of nukes about to blow each other into the fucking stone age
to
>One little tinpot dictator with maybe a handful of nukes that will get immediately btfo
This clock is a shameful political tool now with 0 relevance to actual reality.
Because it's the same?
USA + Russia + China + Tin-pot dictator.
If you think Russia or China are going to back NK against America in a nuclear war you are lacking in brain matter.
It'll be more like they won't trust US to stay within NK. A stray bomb could quickly escalate out of hand.
>Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
DO SAY: It's two Minutes to Metaphorical Midnight
DONT SAY: This guy Tooker is a good scientist
>hurr Trump is going to end the world
Holy shit.
>2 minutes to midnight
>literally impending doom, the closes we've ever been to the apocalypse
>why?
>because climate change, which is creeping a big problem but not doomsday scenario level and....
>DRUMPF. i fucking hate that guy
that's how dumb it is
Scientifically speaking being on the verge of a nuclear war between the two greatest nuclear powers and having drumpf as president are on equal footing, virtually identical.
I agree with these digits. It's officially ogre
>A stray bomb
pretty sure NK has plans of faking just that
Virtually identically unimportant to anyone but to narcissistic fearmongering americans.
If that's what science says then I believe it wholly and truly, because scientism is my religion and I don't question anything scientists say. Climate change is real and Drumpf is a nuclear bomb. The science is settled.
Of course it's all politics, however it's also about 60 years old.
This is the most punchable statement I have ever seen on this board
All this nuke thing ever was is NK trying to sit at the big boy table to get the international aid they desperately need without losing face completely.
If NK can hit US with a ICBM, it's like having a man in your kitchen with a gun, pointing at your kids for fun and sneering "I could if I wanted to".
The fact that NK can reach US changes everything, people really under appreciate how much it changes plans.
is this a for sure? The range, I mean.
Only a question of time. If not now, in a year or two, definitely.
Now is US' time to do something about it.
see Doing nothing is choosing (1).
I hope we're not making a mistake of a different nature, though. NK and the hardliners that actually call the shots aren't ignorant of the consequences of their actions. These are humans at the end of the day, and even though their values may not align with ours, they have a survival instinct.
>they have a survival instinct.
That's exactly what drives US to act, unfortunately.
I think you are right in that it does change plans, but I think it is important to keep in mind that they do not pose TOO serious a threat. Keep in mind that NK has (as far as I know) just a single nuclear launch site on the Panghyon airbase. While US anti-missile systems are fledgling at best, they have a solid chance of stopping a single ICBM. If the North Koreans had several launch sites or MIRVs, they wold pose a far greater threat.
Besides the practical considerations, it is politically highly unlikely that NK would strike first. Think about what they would have to gain: a single, yet heavy, blow against the most capable nuclear power in the world---a blow that would accomplish about as much as a suicide bombing. And what do they have to lose? The backing of the entire international community. Without Russia and China to purchase their coal and cheap labor, the already weak economy of NK would collapse. Not to mention they would lose out on all the international aid that is also important in keeping their country functioning.
In short, yeah, the fact that they can reach us does change how we should approach diplomacy and military posturing, but I would guess that a first strike from the DPRK is quite unlikely.
You think Trump isn't backed by a similar bunch? It's obvious he makes no policy. The war hawks didn't get where they are by shooting their wad early. The history of US imperialism is a history of fucking shit up just enough to not kick over the powder keg. They may beat their chests occasionally, but unless they are true Cobra-level enemies of humanity, they have some stake in staying alive.
The Norks know well enough that we won't kill them all when we finally bring our special brand of freedom to their shores, so their backs are not up against the wall, so to speak. I hope this fizzles like I think it will.
You are concentrating on intentions too much.
Strategic plans take into account that the enemies plans could change any time.
US will have to decide what it does this winter on the base that, sooner or later, NK will try to shoot an ICBM at US. The 'hope for best, prepare for worst' thinking.
You are setting your hopes on Trump wanting to leave a legacy of being the president who let NK's set its gun pointed at US' forehead.
Don't know about you, but I'm not particularly optimistic.
I'd be more afraid of the India - Pakistan flashpoint if I were you, or even Israel - Iran. A nuclear exchange is a bigger black mark than a dictator winning a dick-waving contest.
Why didn't they stop or attempt to stop the duds lobbed into the Sea of Japan?
>India - Pakistan
that war is coming, once the Indus dries out.
Give it 20y.
Israel-Iran... nah. Israel already has its 200 nuclear bombs, game's over.
NK-US is a classic situation where a new technology changes the military balance and a pre-emptive strike becomes tempting.
And Russia or China is just going to sit back and not defend an energy supplier against an attack by a United States ally? I'm totally sure they won't swoop in just to stand opposed, even if they have a dicey history with Iran. Russia may not need the oil, but Iran produces a hell of a lot more than Israel. Looks pretty sexy to China desu
somehow I don't see nuclear ICBMs flying into mainland USA from that,
so idgaf
1) They couldn't
2) They knew they were duds
3) They could have stopped them but wanted a possible reason to retaliate.
4) They don't want to reveal information about their capabilities to a dry run.
Israel picks a country off the map that produces 5 million barrels of oil a day and you don't see that getting a little out of hand?
>I don't see nuclear ICBMs flying into mainland USA from that
did I fucking stutter?
I honestly can't know. Record a vocaroo please.
As I said, the bigboy table.
all kidding aside, here's how that happens:
Bibi gets a hard-on one day and decides to install some glass in soon-to-be-artist formerly known as Iran. The US, being homies, is looked upon by the world to check their boy. Assuming Israel blew not nearly half the wad and knowing they're fucked no matter what, they hit a few low-hanging possibly formerly-friendly fruit before ceasing to exist; Perhaps Turkey... perhaps SYRIA. Then we're firmly up in Putin's shit so far that people in Kansas will need to have invested in 50ft thick lead walls to hope to see the next day
and this applies to many Russian interests over there. It's called a flashpoint for a reason. I applaud meme-atheist Laurence Krauss in his decision to tell us all we're about to die
Is that Lawrence Krauss on the left?
>Brainwashed Fox news
Your also brainwashed
your spelling is a cliché
yep, the BoAS is staffed by Larry Krauss, Bill Nye, Neil Degrasse-Tyson, Mr. Wizard, and that guy who made the "Imagining the 10th Dimension" videos
It's funny how atheists have become the new apocalypse cryers.
Not a new thing, really. Watch the original Cosmos.
Funny how evidence affects opinions.
what a party! sounds like they fucking love science over there
>They are using fear to further their political goals.
Yeah? So what? It's nuclear bombs. They're something to be afraid of, idiot.
I wonder if NK got some better missile technology from my theory after the Americans decided they wanted no part of my crank pseudo-science drivel and quackery?
>smooth move ex-lax
there's literally nothing wrong with fox news
Of course not. Bless your heart.
>They're something to be afraid of, idiot.
Fun fact, the only way a nuclear apocalypse could happen is if every single nuclear bomb ever created was as dirty as possible and designed to produce as much toxic fallout as possible. In real life, weapons are designed to use as much of their fissile content up as possible because it's extremely expensive to produce, and even then those fission explosions are usually used mostly as a means of setting off a much more powerful fusion charge, meaning overall most modern weapons are very clean. Also, megaton-range warheads were never meant to actually be deployed and as such make up a tiny fraction of the total world's nuclear arsenal, most weapons are kiloton range devices, which are perfect for knocking out military bases and other strategic points. In short, if we fired all the nukes at one and blanketed the entire Earth for maximum widespread destruction, it would probably end or severely impact modern life and civilization, but we wouldn't go extinct or even revert back to stone age tribes.
It would also solve global warming so maybe you fags will stop whining about it
You're talking out of your ass.
If India and Pakistan go nuts at each other, just half of their nuclear arsenal is enough to fuck up the whole worlds crop production.
>Disregarding DNC files were locally copied and not obtained through cracked systems
The argument is literally in the OP. Why the fuck would he present an argument against a post he agrees with?
Youre the dissident here, wheres your argument?
Drumpf is a f*cking lunatic. How about that for an argument?
Not an argument at all. If Trump wipes Pyongyang off the face of the Earth the world will be better off. China isnt going to start a nuclear war for the sake of such a small and unhinged country.
I would be interested in a non-buzzword argument how the USA vs NK is somehow more of a threat than cold war USA vs Russia.
This. We will have to go back to MAD
The entire point of nuclear weapons is based on fear. The fear of their use, abuse, and destruction is what keeps nations from using them. The only time they were ever used were to end the largest calamity mankind put upon itself, world war two.
And the capability of abuse is very, very, very real. You see all the "russian hacking" shit in the media? This will force Trump and the Congress to adopt a hard, no-negotiation stance with Russia otherwise they appear as sympathizers and collaborators. This has huge implications as New Start expires in 2021, if it is not renewed then the US and Russia no longer have caps on the amount of warheads they can possess. This would lead to smaller nuclear weapons inside tank shells and similar, meaning their use is more likely. There are even two conflict zones where both America and Russia could conceivably use nuclear weapons: North Korea and Ukraine.
Meanwhile all sides are upgrading their bombs themselves (Obama started this in 2014) and engaging in new delivery equipment. America alone will build new nuclear submarines, new B-21 stealth bombers to replace the B-52, and a replacement for the Minuteman. Now factor in new UAV and UUV tech, and you have a recpie for disaster. Disaster being nuclear weapons being freely used, causing massive destruction while fueling a huge arms race amongst the great powers. This only ends in tragedy.
The Clock is meant to be an easy-to-reference device designed to stop this almost inexorable trend. It also serves the same purpose the NRA does with guns: to pass the torch of a particular idea (this one being nuclear sobriety and disarmament) to the younger generation. Whether or not it will achieve this goal is questionable though, because 9/11 changed American society so much and Americans' priorities.
If mutual destruction is guaranteed, what does it matter how much development is carried out? All sides develop congruently and the balance is ever-maintained. My only fear is of an irrational actor not understanding the veracity of nuclear threats and pushing the big red button. No, I'm not talking about Kim Jung-un. I can't wait for 2020 to come.
>If mutual destruction is guaranteed
The thing is, it isn't or at least commanders don't see it that way. Small nuclear weapons offer the ability for conflicts to be "contained" without immediate escalation to larger guns, especially if the conflict is being carried out between proxies and not great powers themselves. This dovetails into proliferation concerns.
Also Trump pressing a button isn't the most important thing here, killing a bunch of North Koreans is not what is important. What's important is that it's set a precedent, and open a pandora's box of shit as countries begin using nuclear weaponry in conflicts as they would with any other weapon. Russia would immediately match us in Ukraine, and Pakistan would probably match it in Kashmir. This would scare other countries and cause them to build nuclear weapons, creating a larger problem. Trump would have taken a backseat to all of this, because people wouldn't be fearing total destruction from a great power. More nukes get out there and wars start having higher and higher civilian kill counts, as the situation was before the cold war.
Meanwhile, this would only cause the great powers to develop much more powerful bombs and ways to potentially shoot down missiles. If a reliable anti-ballistic missile system can be deployed, then MAD goes into the toilet. At the end of the cold war the US was moving towards this with SDI, but then the USSR collapsed.
>Not an argument at all. If Trump wipes Pyongyang off the face of the Earth the world will be better off. China isnt going to start a nuclear war for the sake of such a small and unhinged country.
During the Korean War they did exactly that.
This whole long winded post only to say that's it's all muslims fault. Thanks mister racist now go back to
NK is just a wee baby in the "Nuclear Club". They don't have the materials and infrastructure to make a significant nuclear arsenal. Protip: Making nuclear weapons is very difficult and expensive as fuck.
They have late 1940s early 1950s-era nuclear devices (crude, huge, poor yield and dirty as fuck).
Their so-called "ICBM" rockets are inferior to the R7 a.k.a grand-daddy of all ICBMs (shitty guidance system, poor engine reliability/rocket platform, pre-MIRV and easy to counter with current ABM systems).
The real threat from NK comes from their conventional forces pointing towards SK over the DMZ.
Their nuclear arsenal is just a distraction on the world stage. Kim Jong Un's vain attempt to live up to his predecessors legacies.
>significant nuclear arsenal
10 bombs is significant
Horrible idea. MAD is exactly that: a crazy concept that relies on hoping the other side isn't going to launch anyway while trying to look as threatening as possible. Not only that, but the American nuclear program is still far more capable of dispatching NK than it is of the U.S.A. and allowing them to catch up to us to entertain this uncertain idea would be costly and could still end up killing us all.
Im confused as to what your point is in this link.
>Attacking the Chinese army itself stationed in North Korea is the same as eliminating a rogue government that is openly threating the United States
>Attacking
Fuck, that typo at the end
>what is the prisoner's dilemma
come on guys i thought Veeky Forums was too smart for political science
...
what does that have to do with fox news?
True, doomsday clock is p much the only reason why millenials are aware that a state of MAD still exists.
>these are the people calling you a soyboy
I thought (s)he was rubbing her(male) nipple in the thumbnail.
>In short, if we fired all the nukes at one and blanketed the entire Earth for maximum widespread destruction, it would probably end or severely impact modern life and civilization, but we wouldn't go extinct or even revert back to stone age tribes.
You say that like it makes nuclear weapons somehow less bad. The absolute state of drumpfkins.
>cuba
Not even close. Today's Doomsday clock is closer than any point in the Cold War.
Just so everyone is aware, there is good reason for this. Firstly nuclear policy itself has left the public sphere, people don't think about it. If the government were to plop down massive Safeguard pyramids outside major cities most people would accept it, if they noticed at all. This itself is extremely dangerous because it means nobody is watching or doing oversight over our nuclear arsenal, this opens up the door to essentially anything.
Secondly, there is a confluence of events that happen to coincide within Trump's Presidency. Trump might be put into a situation where he could use a nuclear weapon (North Korea) as could Russia (Ukraine) meanwhile both will be forced to contemplate their existing cap on nuclear arms in 2021 per New Start.
This happens at a time when the left, who is supposed to be the loudest voice against brinksmanship, is now the loudest voice for it because of the "russian hacking" issue. Because of this, there is nobody in the public sphere willing to stop the construction and use of nuclear weapons, a situation that if left unchecked leads to a lot of death and suffering in conflicts where those weapons are utilized.
>Russia could use nukes on Ukraine
You are retarded please keep your ignorant opinions to yourself
>the left, who is supposed to be the loudest voice against brinksmanship
You got everything right, except for this. Always remember that Horowitz's fabricated "make love, not war" left of the 60's/70's was only created to serve as a smoke screen to the true horrors of the communist regimes in Eastern Europe.