April 1 - Introduction, Doomsday clock, Nuclear Annihilation - Questions #1
Comments
|
When faced with an existential threat like Nuclear Armageddon, can we as humans comprehend the apocalypse or is it beyond or comprehension? What I mean by this is when faced with such a massive threat, are we able to think in a way that would lead to the disarmament of nuclear weapons, or are we not able to understand what the end of civilization would look like and we will simply do nothing because we have no notion of the threat at hand? I suppose this is applicable to every disaster we will talk about, but is it more clear to us when the consequences are immediate rather than over decades (like climate change)? |
|
When faced with the limitless ways in which the human race and life as we know it can be destroyed, what is the most likely factor that will lead to our demise, statistically and in your opinion? We read about a lot of different possible endings; ones that come from nuclear war, even accidental nuclear war caused by misinformation, a worse pandemic, climate change issues such as increased temperature, sea level’s rising, and the increase in number of tropical storms, bioweapons, etc. Will it be any of those? Or do you think that the human race has enough incentives to “work against the clock” and it is instead possible that none of those events or factors will ever take place or be grave enough to lead to the “Armageddon?” |
|
Do you think a man-made apocalypse is inevitable, be that through nuclear war or another self-inflicted catastrophe? Do you believe that it is too late or too unrealistic for the human race to be able to make an effective and conscious effort to keep the earth habitable? Do you believe mankind would be willing to put aside short-term gain (economic or otherwise) to improve international relations and climate conditions for the sake of future generations, or will we inevitably be the bringers of our own destruction, which can only be postponed but never eliminated? |
|
Now that climate change is continuing and as "governments have failed to sufficiently correct it" do you see bioterrorism potentially becoming more common? If yes, in what ways has climate change helped contribute to that growth? I have also heard that there are a tremendous amount of viruses frozen in the ice caps, and as our planet warms, what is the timeline in which those ice caps will melt enough so that those viruses escape into the atmosphere? |
|
How do we balance the hypothetical threat of nuclear armageddon with the more real and immediate threat of climate change? I don't mean to seem naive here -- I understand a) the need for the US to have a strong deterrent program and b) the fact that nuclear investment partly helps local economies. I also recognise that we don't necessarily need to pick -- we can spend money and energy on both of these objectives. But, in my mind, nuclear weapons and climate change are in many ways directly opposed. One is oriented around competition and threat, and the other is all about collaboration. So, at what point do we say enough is enough, and it is time we focus on the threats we know will come to pass, rather than those we desperately hope will not? |
|
Is there an end goal of nuclear armament? We see all these countries (mainly the US and Russia) arming themselves with thousands of warheads in preparation for the eventuality of nuclear war, but what is the point of that if only a couple are needed to effectively sterilize the planet. We have more nukes than we could ever possibly use, even if it was just the US launching them. The arguments can be made for their importance to many local and regional economies, and I understand that they serve as a symbol of America’s military strength (in some ways acting as its own deterrent) but there must be an upper limit to this. At what point are there too many warheads, such that they effectively become useless wastes of money. China has a solid plan, they only need a few hundred so they can spend money elsewhere. So why keep building nukes? |
|
The atomic clock was first set to 7 minutes because it “looked good” to Martyl Langsdorf’s eye. What does the clock’s current status, 100 seconds to midnight, mean to you? As our situation becomes increasingly dire, how do you balance between alarming the public and doomsday fatigue? When educating around existential threats, is a quantitative approach (like Martin Hellman’s) or qualitative approach (like Vinton Cerf’s) better? Lastly, as the consumption of traditional news sources continues to markedly decline and new media mediums arise, how do you expect the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’s messaging to evolve? |
|
If countries like the US can withdraw from pledges like that of the Paris Agreement, what ensures that more countries stepping up to pledge will in any way decrease the risk of nuclear war? Who is holding these countries accountable for their pledges and who do you think should be? |
|
As we move closer and closer to midnight on the doomsday clock what threat should we be paying the most attention to? While nuclear weapons and the constant threat of nuclear war pose an unacceptable level of risk is it more important to spend our time and resources on climate change and trying to stop the increasingly devastating events such as wildfire already occurring? |
|
While I understand that the unilateral authorization of nuclear launches appears to be less of a problem now (with Biden in office), you still highlight the importance of a no-first use (NFU) policy. I also acknowledge that a NFU policy can deter nuclear armageddon; yet, have you considered the newfound implication that the allies of the United States may no longer feel safe (due to the lack of, or even the absence of, a nuclear umbrella)? And if you have, do you believe that these countries may develop their own nuclear weapons as a result of this mistrust? |
|
With President Biden speaking on the importance of Nuclear Power today, Will Nuclear Energy have a change of reputation in the next few years from a dangerous scare, to a safe and low-carbon emitting energy source? I personally think that Nuclear Energy will be taking huge steps in the near future, and become a headlining energy source to combat climate change and provide mass amounts of energy. I think with these emergences, the idea of Nuclear Holocaust will fall as people become more educated on the matter, and realize the benefits of Nuclear Energy. |
|
As you mentioned in your article, the Obama administration was close to implementing a no-first-use policy. However, US allies got in the way from the administration following through with the policy. Why did/do US allies not want the US to implement a no-first-use policy? To me, it would make sense that many countries would want the US and other nations with massive nuclear arsenals to declare no-first-use policies. The US could set the example by implementing it first and maybe other nations would follow. As you mention in your article, the no-first-use policy is an important step in avoiding nuclear war. (Brett Riegler) |
|
On the topic of nuclear weapons, what do you believe is the best approach to talk about the other reasons that proliferate nuclear warheads beyond the noble justification of defense? To me, it seems reasonable to suggest that ambition, power and the idea of being a strong international force all can encourage the production and investment into nuclear weaponry. Do you think discussion about these other aspects are productive and/or necessary to try and rid the world of the possibility of nuclear Armageddon? |
|
What are situations where a nuclear attack would actually be in the best interest of a country. It seems to me that with the mutually ensured destruction that comes from having multiple nuclear powers a strike would never be in a nation's best interest, but can you think of situations where it would be? |
|
In 2020 we all witnessed the failure of public messaging around the Covid-19 pandemic, which allowed deep partisan divisions to surface and made the infection rate, death rate, and economic toll of the pandemic much worse than it could have been. Have you observed or do you envision similar failures around the threat of nuclear war? What do you think would be most effective for avoiding these types of communication breakdowns for future existential threats? |
|
The cluster of readings we examined this week approached nuclear disarmament as the panacea to preventing a nuclear holocaust. If more nuclear weapons exist, the probability of a such a weapon being used, whether it be on purpose or by accident, obviously increases. However, the University of Chicago’s esteemed John Mearsheimer, most well known for his magnum opus The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, often advocates that the world would be less prone to war if states in geographically unstable regions possessed nuclear weapons. For instance, in the 90s he supported a nuclear Ukraine and in 2012 he agreed with another neorealist titan, Kenneth Waltz, that a nuclear Iran would bring structure to the Middle East. How would you respond to Professor Mearsheimer’s often repeated idea that, in certain circumstances, more nuclear weapons could bring less war and devastation to our planet? |
|
Following the riot at the US Capitol in January, we later found out that rioters came within approximately 100 feet of the 'nuclear football' that Mike Pence's aides had in their possession. Even though countries including China and Russia have adopted a no-first-use policy in regard to nuclear weapons, do you see it possible—even if not likely—that a nuclear weapon could be launched either inadvertently or by someone who is not supposed to have access to it? Does the fact that the rioters came close to having access to US weapons—combined with the rise of the spread of misinformation—increase the likelihood of such an event happening? |
|
My question for the week revolves around the unilateral access to nuclear launch codes. In the article "More hands needed on the nuclear football", it is discussed that in 1985, President Nixon considered using nuclear weapons on four separate occasions. My question is, how did unilateral access to nuclear launch codes begin? It almost seems intuitive that a single person should not have access to such a large amount of power without the guidance and opinions of others. Also, the article mentions that the United States and other countries should declare that they will not use nuclear weapons first. Even if other nations declare that they will not use nuclear weapons first, what is stopping them from breaking the promise and attacking? What would be the repercussions for violating this pact? |
|
The article “More hands needed on the nuclear football” leads me to wonder about potential downsides to having a “two-person rule” in the authorization of use of nuclear weapons. The goal of this policy would be to reduce the risk of impulsive decision-making. However, the same action may result in indecisiveness and politics interfering with necessary action. Moreover, if it is implemented as stated in the article where any cabinet official could be the second to concur with the president, what would make the Secretary of Agriculture, for example, qualified to make such a decision? If we allow the president to choose the second person, how can we be sure that person is significantly different enough in thought process and character from the president that it would affect? Overall, my question is how can we choose a second person such that it would serve the purpose of reducing risk. Moreover, who would make that decision? |
|
In the 2021 Doomsday Clock, the author suggests that, given the evidence of new hypersonic weapons and increased nuclear endeavors in various countries across the globe, the world is at an increased threat of stumbling into a nuclear war. Would you agree with this statement? Or do you think the ideas of mutually assured destruction and improved communication channels opened from globalization could help deter a full-fledged nuclear war? |
|
I would like to elaborate on @louisjlevin's question: is it justifiable for concerns about nuclear war to stunt our response to climate change? Fission technologies have been available for more than 60 years, and they have already demonstrated the ability to provide a non-polluting, on-demand backbone for modern energy infrastructure at more than acceptable cost and low fatality, even including accidents. Lack of development in fission energy has been justified by non-proliferation concerns. When can fission's assured contribution to the fight against climate change outweigh its potential contribution to the threat of nuclear war? |
|
The 2021 Doomsday Clock Statement refers to the need for the United States government’s need to “restore the primacy of science-based policies”. Understanding that this is a change that could be, hopefully, imminent could you elaborate on what current institutions specifically you would like to see more involved? How do you foresee this integration? What new institutions may be in the offing? What creative scientific roles could be carved out for policy making and implementation? |
|
How have your expectations been met or unmet in nuclear affairs as we have gone through this change of administration? Specifically surrounding the continuation of the talks or lack thereof around the JCPOA and our country's foreign policy with Iran? |
|
From my understanding, the Doomsday Clock originated as a device that depicted the threats of the nuclear age, and as the years went on it has come to include climate change and even the mention of other "threat multipliers" like the spread of misinformation. My question is how the Bulletin made the decision to start including other threats beyond nuclear tensions and what was under consideration. Was there ever the discussion to make a completely different clock for climate change altogether? Rather than compounding different potential catastrophes into one visual portrayal? How was the decision made to start including a topic like the spread of misinformation in the statement? Lastly, does the Bulletin ever worry about including too much into the clock/statement and conversely reducing the impact of each threat to its audience? |
|
The farthest from midnight the doomsday clock has been was 17 minutes in 1991, and the closest was 100 seconds both this year and last. Is the difference of about 15 minutes between 1991 and today appropriate in your opinion? Do you believe that how the time to midnight is calculated has changed significantly when compared to when the clock first originated? Additionally, is there ever discussion of increasing the scale of the clock to better differentiate between different years and threat levels? |
|
The looming presence of a potential doomsday is ever present as we only have 100 seconds to midnight. While much of the course of action depends on government agencies or large companies to make necessary reforms, what do you think individuals of the general public can do to address the widespread dysfunction? In particular, what can we as college students do? |
|
From one perspective, US military spending could actually substantially grow: peak expenditure during the Cold War in 1985 was at 7.5% of its GNP, where as today (2021), the US spends 3.6%. To what extent do you believe that military spending on nuclear warheads is justified by the realist logic of deterrence? Alternatively, do you feel this spending actually proportionally increases the threat we face? |
|
Nuclear war is generally considered a mutually catastrophic event, essentially indicating that one would likely only occur as an act of spite or retaliation. Is this assumption correct, or are there any perceivable instances in which nuclear war might actually benefit a country? |
|
One of the most interesting aspects of the Doomsday Clock statement was the characterization of the "infodemic." This problem appears to have grown more and more significant over the past four years, coming to a head with the 2020 election and COVID-19. In the Doomsday Clock Statement, you suggest that governments and other organizations must cooperate "to combat internet-enabled misinformation and disinformation." This is obviously a very complicated task, but do you have any more specific suggestions as to how to approach and deal with this issue? Second, if disinformation continues to be widespread among the general public, how much of an obstacle would that present to governments dealing with the current global crises? In other words, if the US government for instance, is committed to addressing climate change, can they do so effectively in spite of mass disinformation or does it cause a significant hindrance to the progress? |
|
The entwinement between Ground-Based Strategic Deterrents and the local economies in which they are sited reminds me of the perceived economic threat that a transition to clean energy poses for regions heavily involved in producing fossil fuels. One frame that climate advocates have used to reconcile this is justice—for example, a just green transition might involve providing training programs. This is often linked with racial justice too, as communities of color are disproportionately affected by climate change and pollution. Given the racial reckoning America is undergoing, might economic and racial justice be an effective frame for persuading Americans to move towards disarmament? |
|
In its barest conception, government is designed to deal with market failures. But what are we to do when, as in the case of potential nuclear armageddon, global governments are themselves unable to coordinate? Is there a role for private citizens to take action, or does the fate of the world depend on soft international law? |
|
After reading the quantitative vs qualitative way of assessing the threat of nuclear annihilation, I began to realize I actually didn't understand how much of a threat nuclear war was currently. I was wondering what the next steps are in creating larger exposure for this information. Cerf asks why society has just 'sat there' assuming that this threat will never actually happen, but I think that's because I don't think this information is as widespread as warnings about climate change are to the general public. Could there be more effective change if there was increased media exposure about nuclear annihilation? |
|
How has the politics of nuclear energy as a war tool affected the politics of nuclear energy as an energy source and vice versa? Have they complemented each other? Has one helped developed the other more so than the other? Are their expansions and contractions correlated? |
|
Do you believe that the United States still has the credibility on an international scale to "lead by example" with more progressive membership in / adherence to international treatises and accords (i.e. START, Paris Climate Agreement, etc.)? At what point does the international disapproval of recent administrations outweigh the U.S.'s influence in economy through its heavily imperial/interventional history? Do you foresee other global economies, such as China, leading the charge on this in spite of the U.S. ? |
|
Given that the effects of nuclear radiation is well documented and the impact of using a single nuclear weapon, let alone tens or hundreds of missiles, being devastating if not world annihilating, is there any real reason to expect a nuclear armed country to use them? Especially if conditions such as no-first-use and removing the power from one person are implemented, there doesn't seem to be any use for nuclear weapons without it being self-destructive. |
|
In one of the Bulletin readings, it is mentioned that the threat of global nuclear war has gone down and yet the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up. As global internet connectivity increases, enabling education to be accessible in all corners of the globe, a consequence is the lessening of one of the barriers to production of nuclear weapons--differentiated education--and the increased likelihood of cybersecurity threats interfering with nuclear weapons as the nominal amount of high quality hackers increases. Which of the two scenarios for nuclear attack--procurement/production or cyber attack--do you foresee is more likely to take place? Why? |
|
The Doomsday Clock is often criticized as being a nonsensical measure of the current state of humanity. Do you believe the Doomsday Clock is a good way of showing how close we are to the end of civilization? Further, in what ways do the Clock and the Bulletin inform politicians and the military in their decisions regarding nuclear weaponry? |
|
With the rising threats of nuclear war, should the governments responsible for the looming threat provide more for their citizens in terms of nuclear bunkers and fallout supplies? What do contingency plans look like for a nuclear fallout? |
|
In "Why is America getting a new $100 billion nuclear weapon?", we learned that there have been several opportunities for de-escalation of nuclear weapons and redirection of their funding, but they have been blocked not only by politicians, but by citizens residing within the nuclear states. Their reasons are understandable, as the opportunity for more jobs in the local economy provides a more immediate solution that potential funding from the redirection of missile funds for these communities, however the threat of nuclear attacks is real, and housing the weapons has made them a target and advocates for an accelerant to nuclear tension. How can we convince these communities to recognize the nuclear threat and advocate against it? Is it simply a matter of educating them on the true threat? Can we resolve this by replacing a proportionate amount of nuclear jobs with ones in clean energy using redirected funds? |
|
The 2021 Doomsday Clock Statement says that citizens should demand action on these global existential threats "through public protest, at ballot boxes, and in other creative ways". In other words, citizens should work hard to push for new, proactive policies in these areas, but should work from inside the system. However, I am doubtful, especially in the United States since essentially all of our politicians are owned by mega-corporations, that these existential challenges can be effectively countered, or even mitigated, under a capitalist system. I guess my question, then, is do you believe that effective, lasting change can be achieved under capitalism in the United States, and if so, how can force corporations to play along, when the deck is so heavily stacked in their favor? |
|
In the reading by Elisabeth Eaves, "Why is America getting a new $100 billion nuclear weapon?" we read about the economic embeddedness that nuclear construction has in rural communities. In the ideal world, where nuclear weapons are no longer produced on a global scale, how do we ensure that thousands of jobs and livelihoods do not disappear? What politically viable methods are there to divert funding away from nuclear construction and where might you suggest it should go to prepare the United States for preeminent global threats? Edit: Just realized someone posted a very similar, but much more well written question minutes before I did. New question: Dr. Bronson argues in her article for policies that dictate that the United States will not be the first actor to use nuclear weapons. Some might suggest that this could lengthen the fuse as Russia and China have already signed them, but there is a difference between Russia and China when compared to the US: in the US, military commanders do not have to follow illegal orders. While Russia and China would be making a nice statement that would put some at ease but offer no actual increase in safety because they are not enforceable policies, the United States might be binding itself depending on the policy route they took. How could this critique be addressed? |
|
|
|
The amount of money invested in nuclear weapons by the US government is unimaginable to most US citizens and creates some consensus that the focus on nuclear warhead should be scaled back. Considering the recent $100 billion investment in nuclear missiles, my question is: if the building of these weapons is truly for the purpose of deterrence only, when is it appropriate to put an end to these ridiculously costly projects? The US already has thousands of nuclear weapons, so is it even sound to believe that these continued investments, in both time and money, are solely for deterrence? |
|
Many of the articles included this week talk about the importance of disarmament and how it is the only way to really prevent nuclear war. However, since the scale of the United States nuclear program is so massive I was wondering what kind of economic impact disarmament would have? It could be done very slowly but this seems to be the exact opposite direction that is happening (100 billion dollar nuclear weapon). It is as if nuclear weaponry has been treated as an essential industry and has sort of made itself one in the process. Or are the risks of nuclear war so great that it is worthwhile to sacrifice the economic wellbeing of some? Can climate change be compared to nuclear war in terms of economic sacrifices? |
|
Humans seem almost pre-dispositioned to adopt flawed lines of thinking that allow them to reason away the possibility or probability of impending doomsday events. For example- "it hasn't happened thus far, so why prepare for it to happen in the future?". At the same time, I believe that many people- consciously or not- adopt a nonchalant attitude because they would be simply unable to deal with the weight of the true realization that the world may be ending. Given our human flaws in reasoning and understanding, what do you think would be the most effective (and least psychologically painful) way to get people to care more? Is our human tendency to see "ignorance as bliss" an ironic, but ultimately key factor in why doomsday might eventually, really come? |
|
At the economic and philosophical levels, what is the incentive for continued nuclear proliferation in 2021? Why do superpower nations who are not actively engaged in any major conflicts continue to deploy scientific resources for nuclear development, and industrial resources for nuclear arms manufacturing? All nations, without exception, agree that the use of nuclear weapons should be avoided in the vast majority of cases; all leaders understand the capacity that these weapons have to slaughter millions. Why are stronger, more unanimous agreements pursued in which all countries "stand down" on proliferation? |
|
Places like Raytheon, with their "we're supportive of our LGBT staff!" marketing campaign, use the language of online activism to put a progressive, liberal spin on being Head of War Crimes. These nuke programs, with their "isn't is great that the Malmstrom nuke base promoted racial diversity!" angle, are doing the same thing. How do we undermine an argument like that? Is engaging with it at all a trap? |
|
The presidency of Joe Biden seems to mark a return of science-based American leadership. However, we all know that the result of the 2020 election was not generally acknowledged, and we might have witnessed one of the most polarized eras in US history. The paradox of the nuclear holocaust is that the most powerful weapon in the world is controlled by only one person in the country. He or she is both the gate-keeper of world peace and the destroyer of the globe. If a country cannot have a consistent and stable international policy, how may world leaders cooperate with each other to protect humanity from existential risk? More specifically, how can the current polarized political situation in the US guarantee that science-based leadership could continue? and how should the rest of the world deal with the uncertainty brought by the change of leadership in the US? |
|
From reading the "2021 Doomsday Clock Statement" there was a section highlighting how the pandemic has brought to light what is being called an info-demic. Meaning that the spread and belief of false facts and news is spreading like crazy. This has many clear negative effects on the world. I'm curious how you think this will impact the US government and potentially changing the president's ability to have singular power to nuclear weapons? |
|
While it may never be known to the public, was there was ever a point during the Cold War in which either side believed that they could execute a "successful" first strike? As a followup, when, if ever, is a first strike warranted (both nuclear and otherwise)? |
|
What is the likelihood that the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists survives to declare it midnight? Being centered in a major city means to me that if nuclear war were to break out, then it would presumably not survive a nuke targeting Chicago. As for climate change, will Chicago continue to survive and exist as a city as "climate midnight" approaches? |
|
Understanding that the nuclear arsenal for the United States is far greater than any other country currently maintains and that no other country could even fathom having this sort of arsenal, is the sentiment for maintaining (and even growing) this arsenal of a similar nature to US allies rejecting the idea of a no-first-use policy during the Obama administration? On top of this, how exactly did the United States, which maintains a fairly high variance in governance and foreign policy end up in the position of “trigger man” for the protection of all US allies? Are their remnants of a “speak softly and carry a big stick” mindset at work today in the sort of nuclear armageddon situation we currently face? |
|
The advent of mutually assured destruction has created a condition where the possibility of wide scale war is not just unlikely, but essentially an impossibility. We currently live in the most peaceful time in the history of human existence despite the proliferation of nuclear weapons on the world stage. The assurance of destruction also created a condition where capitalism was able to overcome socialism and communism in the 20th century, allowing for global opulence, the likes of which have never been seen. So my question is this: should Oppenheimer be posthumously awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? Furthermore, does the doomsday clock matter given the apparent impossibility of nuclear war. |
|
How do we know if a threat is legitimate? That is, how do we know when it reaches the scale of existential destruction? Also, how do we know when we are hedging against such threats? With regards to nuclear war, there appears to be some reason to believe that a small amount of nuclear arms is good to maintain as it prevents against complete destruction from one country. What would it look like if each country actually gave up its nuclear materials? How would foreign policy change and how would it change the possibility for external threat? |
|
In what ways can we safeguard nuclear weapons to prevent false launches while also maintaining the quick release of nuclear weapons? This is in reference to many accidental "almost launches" and other misplacements of nuclear missiles. In addition, is there any way to move beyond the quick trigger release system? |
|
As the level of technology continues to increase and countries continue to develop nuclear weapons for national defense, what would a nation’s incentive to be to “work against the clock?” Specifically, if other nations are not doing the same and decreasing their warhead stockpiles, why would a country ever be incentivized to decrease their own defense in relation to others? |
deholz
changed the title
|
Why has the discussion of disarming all nuclear weapons not been more pressing of issue? It seem that this is a very urgent matter that has been sidelined, while its impending doom still hovers. Although it does seem like a very difficult issue to resolve, there must be some steps we can take to come closer to a resolution. |
|
How do you think accidents like the mistaken Hawaii ICBM alert can be avoided in the future? Do you think a two person redundancy would help solve the problem, or would it slow down the signaling process, furthering endangering people's lives? |
and others
Questions for Rachel Bronson, about and inspired by:
2021 Doomsday Clock Statement, Rachel Bronson and Sharon Squassoni, “More hands needed on the nuclear football”, Elisabeth Eaves, “Why is America getting a new $100 billion nuclear weapon?”, Martin Hellman & Vinton Cerf, “An existential discussion: What is the probability of nuclear war?” with useful background information at the Union of Concerned Scientists and Outrider.org.
Questions: Every week students will post one question here of less than 150 words, addressed to our speaker by Wednesday @ midnight, the day immediately prior to our class session. These questions may take up the same angle as developed further in your weekly memo. By 2pm Thursday, each student will up-vote (“thumbs up”) what they think are the five most interesting questions for that session. Some of the top voted questions will be asked by students to the speakers during class.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: