Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Doomsday Clock Watch

  • View Poll Results: What do you think will happen to the clock?
    It will advance closer to midnight
    62.50%
    It will move a bit further away from midnight
    20.83%
    It will stay the same
    16.67%

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TeeEm)
    that too
    was that sarcasm?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zargabaath)
    was that sarcasm?
    my comment to you ... No
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TeeEm)
    my comment to you ... No
    what about that?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    you've destroyed my trust
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zargabaath)
    what about that?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    you've destroyed my trust
    I am sorry to hear that
    Name:  C26.jpg
Views: 21
Size:  502.9 KB
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrDystopia)
    I don't know if we've moved any closer to Nuclear war. I reckon the recent reductions in nuclear arsenal of Iran would have eased off some fear of that, but then North Korea's H bomb test will be on the minds too.
    I agree. It will most likely stay the same.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The world is probably safer than it has ever been, the main threat is probably climate change which requires cooperation.


    Before it was nuclear war between major world powers and before that it was the rise of fascism.


    Now the greatest military threat is a bunch of inbreds with antiquated weapons charging around the desert.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Hmm, I don't think it's going to go back but I'm not sure it'll go forward either. The 'success' of Paris at least means that their assessment of Climate Change won't be worse than it was before and whilst there is the issue with North Korea, I'm not sure if that's enough to set it forward. We will see!

    (Original post by Blanda Upp)
    The world is probably safer than it has ever been, the main threat is probably climate change which requires cooperation.
    Sorry, this is definitely not true! Whilst we might not be as close to nuclear disaster as we were in the cold war, we still have more than enough capacity to bring down civilization and on top of that and an ever increasing variety of methods of doing so are becoming available.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)


    Sorry, this is definitely not true! Whilst we might not be as close to nuclear disaster as we were in the cold war, we still have more than enough capacity to bring down civilization and on top of that and an ever increasing variety of methods of doing so are becoming available.
    As technology advances more ways of killing people and destroying entire nations are obviously going to be developed, but I really do feel humans are advancing socially and diplomatically in a really positive way.


    100 years ago, this country was literally in the middle of WW1 where millions of people were killed, before that Europe was constantly going to war with itself, Napoleon, Prussia etc and even before that there was the transatlantic slave trade.

    We also have the UN which serves a peacekeeping force in contrast to before when there were various genocides in countries which had broken free from their colonial 'masters'.


    I just don't see why angsty people are so negative about the global outlook, aside from climate change (which is a serious threat imo) the world has probably never been more peaceful. Your response feels like an excuse to restrict the advance of science, rather than allow science to advance, along with greater ethical and moral consideration.
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    11:59 pm
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blanda Upp)
    As technology advances more ways of killing people and destroying entire nations are obviously going to be developed, but I really do feel humans are advancing socially and diplomatically in a really positive way.


    100 years ago, this country was literally in the middle of WW1 where millions of people were killed, before that Europe was constantly going to war with itself, Napoleon, Prussia etc and even before that there was the transatlantic slave trade.

    We also have the UN which serves a peacekeeping force in contrast to before when there were various genocides in countries which had broken free from their colonial 'masters'.


    I just don't see why angsty people are so negative about the global outlook, aside from climate change (which is a serious thread imo) the world has probably never been more peaceful.
    100 years ago, we didn't have anywhere near as much capability of destroying civilization though. You're absolutely correct that in many ways the world has become more peaceful over the past century but this is not necessarily the same thing as becoming safer. Complex systems are very often more vulnerable to small changes than simple systems. Major countries do not want war with each other for obvious reasons but it is easier than ever before for non-state actors to have major impacts on a world stage, and this is probably going to become significantly worse in the future with the development of more advanced automation and biochemistry. Climate Change is a serious threat in its own right and it also exacerbates the likelihood of other existential risks.

    I don't think it's helpful to become obsessively worried about the end of the world but I also don't think it's entirely true to act as if we're in a stable position, because we're not. International politics is definitely better than it could be, but there is still a long way to go in terms of international cooperation (something specifically highlighted by institutes such as the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford) and the fact remains that the capability for self-destruction is probably greater than it ever has been. As long as this capacity exists, given enough time, it will be used.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    There have been some very worrying developments in this last period of a couple of years. One is that the Chinese military directly threatened nuclear war recently over the disputes with the US and Japan about islands in the S. China Sea - they stated that they are "not afraid of nuclear war with the US". This was in the context of US overflights of those artificial islands they are building in contravention of international law to arbitrarily extend their control of the sea. It isn't clear to what extent this was the full political leadership of China saying it, or just gung-ho generals, but it was a marked escalation and very troubling.

    The other big concern is that Russia's Putin oligarchy is busy modernising and expanding nuclear forces and that Russian diplomats have recently made similar threats, for example, against Denmark.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-10125529.html

    It's pretty tragic that the deep cuts in nuclear weapons which were previously discussed between Putin and Obama have been replaced with this type of posturing. It's also very troubling that the Russian and Chinese leadership appear to have such a dim understanding of what full nuclear war would mean to them and the world.

    We haven't solved this threat to our survival and we need to.

    A start would be to signal some disarmaments to the rest of the world and to try to engage them in proper talks about it.
    The Chinese have a history of thinking they could survive a nuclear war due to their population size. Who cares if the state exists provided there are a few Chinese peasants left.

    One of the biggest worries for me comes from the current slide back towards tactical nuclear weapons. At one point nuclear strategists felt a limited nuclear conflict could be contained to a tactical level and won. Seems American and Russian doctrine is trying to move back that way.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    The Chinese have a history of thinking they could survive a nuclear war due to their population size. Who cares if the state exists provided there are a few Chinese peasants left.

    One of the biggest worries for me comes from the current slide back towards tactical nuclear weapons. At one point nuclear strategists felt a limited nuclear conflict could be contained to a tactical level and won. Seems American and Russian doctrine is trying to move back that way.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    They are literally out of their minds if they think China can in any meaningful way survive global thermonuclear war, beyond a few remnant people in the hills scrabbling for grubs and worms. What a pathetic delusion if they really think that, which I struggle to accept they do.

    Agree on your second point and on the general ramping of threat posturing around issues of borders such as Ukraine, S China Sea, etc, which appear to be taking us back to a sort of bizarre pre-WWI mentality with Tsarist Russia threatening Mittel-Europa and the Chinese and Japanese on edge with each other.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Soon it will be Midnight.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blanda Upp)
    .
    What planet are you on? The Middle East is on fire, Europe is on the brink of civil war, the Worlds economy is going down the drain and we are in another Cold war with Russia.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dumachi)
    What planet are you on? The Middle East is on fire, Europe is on the brink of civil war, the Worlds economy is going down the drain and we are in another Cold war with Russia.
    Bar Europe I agree with you. If anything, I'd refer to this more as the EU in crisis. Greece is on the brink of (unfairly, IMO) being kicked out of the Union for 2 reasons

    1) The financial crisis - whenever there's financial disaster in the EU, Greece is the scapegoat.
    2) Turkey will access the Union easier, there will be less squabbling (I think you need 100% on a vote for any policy to go ahead in the EU)
    3) Let's not forget Greece and Turkey hate one another.

    Throw in the desire for individual movements in Belgium, Spain, Germany, France and the UK (Walloon / Flanders, Catalonia / Basque, Bavaria, Corsica, Scotland) too

    The UK wants to leave

    Schengen thrown into question because of the migration crisis, and now even more so because of the Paris terror attacks, the tension in Brussels that followed and the attacks on German women on New Year's Eve.

    4) Governments in more debt than they can afford (Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Greece)

    5) The rise of nationalism under the form of PEGIDA, FN and UKIP

    Basically whoever lit the fuse for Syria, lit the fuse for the end of the EU as well.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Nice... nice. Atomic scientists using time as a measurement of how close we are to the end of the World... without the actual use of time... what the actual ****? Like measuring the temperature of my fever with a weighing scale.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    It's an absurd concept, it doesn't offer a meaningful indication of how likely catastrophe is especially when it's perpetually in the last 20 minutes before midnight anyway. Surely if it were an accurate metric we'd either have been dead a while back or we are incredibly incredibly lucky.

    It's also not particularly clear what (for example) 3 minutes to midnight would mean. Are we saying that we have a 3 in 1440 (number of minutes in a day) chance of avoiding armageddon. If so then our survival up until this point is nothing short of miraculous and we should expect death to come for us at any given second.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Russia and ISIS are still credible long term threats, Iran is less of a threat, North Korea probably a little more.

    Stays the same.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Russia and ISIS are still credible long term threats, Iran is less of a threat, North Korea probably a little more.

    Stays the same.
    Everyone also forgets despite relative calm rn, India and Pakistan are old enemies

    Also Turkey and Russia

    China's behaviour in the S & E China Seas

    Poland and the Baltics on edge ...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    NEWS JUST IN:

    No change on the clock
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.