Click here (thebulletin.org) to set your watch to the infamous Doomsday Clock...
What do you think about some of the scientists' risk assessments for nuclear conflict, in historical retrospect? Is a clock analogy (in which the hands can move in both directions) an effective symbol for measuring atomic armageddon? Why/why not?
5 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I think the clock analogy is not very accurate. The risk for nuclear armegeddon is higher now in my opinion than ever before. We have so many nations with nuclear weapons as compared to the 80's when then main contenders were the US, Russia, and China. The more we have out there in 2nd and 3rd world countries the more likely to have a actual shooting conflist. The clock analogy is an obsolete way to measure the danger. hopefully the world gets some sense and backs off these massively destructive weapons before its too late.
Measuring the potential for armageddon in “minutes to midnight” seems to give an overly dire and alarmist feel to the doomsday clock, though this is likely by design.
Looking back at how the doomsday clock time has changed in response to world events in the past, it seems that scientists have done a decent job of measuring the relative change in potential risk for doomsday over time. For example, the clock got 7 minutes earlier when START was signed in 1991, but then got 5 minutes later when India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons in 1998.
However, the clock analogy does not seem to be a very effective method for measuring the absolute potential for atomic armageddon (or now environmental disaster and biological hazards too). It is hard to judge the current accuracy of the doomsday clock, or its accuracy at all, because its current time, as well as all its previous times, is/are relative to the clock’s initial setting of 7 minutes to midnight back in 1947. Without knowledge or perspective of the world’s situation back then, it is near impossible to assess how close we are to potential doomsday. Furthermore, the clock will not be set to midnight until doomsday actually occurs, so the clock could theoretically be set as close to midnight as scientists want and the world would remain the same.
Overall, the doomsday clock is meant to serve as a relative warning if the world is moving in a dangerous direction and would be fundamentally flawed instrument for actually trying to predict doomsday.
I think the clock analogy is a poor one as well, if only because of the subtle psychological effect engendered by using an object that in day to day life would be broken if it were to stop or move backwards. The analogy implies an inexorable march forward toward doomsday, and while it may be moved back periodically, progression is the goal of the device they've chosen to represent it. That said, I am not certain what would be better, but there has to be something else.
Oh, I also wanted to add that Max is spot on about it being relative to 1947 and as we distance ourselves from that time, our ability to compare/contrast is impaired.
This article confused me greatly. I understood they were talking about nuclear weapons and treaties to prevent a nuclear war but Im not sure what the clock analogy was trying to show. I feel like it can be an alright assumption of a measurement of an atomic armageddon, but nothing I would look into anymore. It just shows the progression of the problem of nuclear arms since the late 1940's. We have treaties in place to prevent this, it is possible that one day it just might happen. But all I can consider this article to be is a quick information bit about the history of the problem.
5 comments:
I think the clock analogy is not very accurate. The risk for nuclear armegeddon is higher now in my opinion than ever before. We have so many nations with nuclear weapons as compared to the 80's when then main contenders were the US, Russia, and China. The more we have out there in 2nd and 3rd world countries the more likely to have a actual shooting conflist. The clock analogy is an obsolete way to measure the danger. hopefully the world gets some sense and backs off these massively destructive weapons before its too late.
Bob
Measuring the potential for armageddon in “minutes to midnight” seems to give an overly dire and alarmist feel to the doomsday clock, though this is likely by design.
Looking back at how the doomsday clock time has changed in response to world events in the past, it seems that scientists have done a decent job of measuring the relative change in potential risk for doomsday over time. For example, the clock got 7 minutes earlier when START was signed in 1991, but then got 5 minutes later when India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons in 1998.
However, the clock analogy does not seem to be a very effective method for measuring the absolute potential for atomic armageddon (or now environmental disaster and biological hazards too). It is hard to judge the current accuracy of the doomsday clock, or its accuracy at all, because its current time, as well as all its previous times, is/are relative to the clock’s initial setting of 7 minutes to midnight back in 1947. Without knowledge or perspective of the world’s situation back then, it is near impossible to assess how close we are to potential doomsday. Furthermore, the clock will not be set to midnight until doomsday actually occurs, so the clock could theoretically be set as close to midnight as scientists want and the world would remain the same.
Overall, the doomsday clock is meant to serve as a relative warning if the world is moving in a dangerous direction and would be fundamentally flawed instrument for actually trying to predict doomsday.
Max Hesser-Knoll
I think the clock analogy is a poor one as well, if only because of the subtle psychological effect engendered by using an object that in day to day life would be broken if it were to stop or move backwards. The analogy implies an inexorable march forward toward doomsday, and while it may be moved back periodically, progression is the goal of the device they've chosen to represent it. That said, I am not certain what would be better, but there has to be something else.
Megan
Oh, I also wanted to add that Max is spot on about it being relative to 1947 and as we distance ourselves from that time, our ability to compare/contrast is impaired.
~Megan
This article confused me greatly. I understood they were talking about nuclear weapons and treaties to prevent a nuclear war but Im not sure what the clock analogy was trying to show. I feel like it can be an alright assumption of a measurement of an atomic armageddon, but nothing I would look into anymore. It just shows the progression of the problem of nuclear arms since the late 1940's. We have treaties in place to prevent this, it is possible that one day it just might happen. But all I can consider this article to be is a quick information bit about the history of the problem.
-Taylor E.
Post a Comment