'Doomsday Clock' moves closer to midnight

[News_Editor]

'Doomsday Clock' moves closer to midnight

2012-01-12 08:19:40 GMT+7 (ICT)

WASHINGTON, D.C. (BNO NEWS) -- The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) on Tuesday announced it has moved its symbolic 'Doomsday Clock' a minute forward, bringing it five minutes to midnight as a result of 'inadequate progress' on nuclear weapons reduction and proliferation.

It is the first time since early 2010 that BAS has decided to move the Doomsday Clock, which aims to represent how close humanity is to catastrophic destruction, according to the organization. The last time was in January 2010 when the clock's minute hand was pushed back one minute from five to six minutes before midnight.

"It is five minutes to midnight. Two years ago, it appeared that world leaders might address the truly global threats that we face. In many cases, that trend has not continued or been reversed," BAS said in a statement. "For that reason, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is moving the clock hand one minute closer to midnight, back to its time in 2007."

The organization believes inadequate progress is being made on nuclear weapons reduction and proliferation and also notes 'continuing inaction' in regards to climate change. This is in stark contrast with January 2010, when BAS noted the planned negotiations for further reductions in the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenal and agreements at Copenhagen to limit global temperature rise and limit carbon emissions.

"The provisional developments of 2 years ago have not been sustained, and it makes sense to move the clock closer to midnight, back to the value it had in 2007," said Lawrence Krauss, co-chair of the BAS Board of Sponsors. "Faced with clear and present dangers of nuclear proliferation and climate change, and the need to find sustainable and safe sources of energy, world leaders are failing to change business as usual."

Krauss added: "Inaction on key issues including climate change, and rising international tensions motivate the movement of the clock. As we see it, the major challenge at the heart of humanity's survival in the 21st century is how to meet energy needs for economic growth in developing and industrial countries without further damaging the climate, exposing people to loss of health and community, and without risking further spread of nuclear weapons, and in fact setting the stage for global reductions."

Allison Macfarlane, chair of the BAS Science and Security Board, warned the global community may be near a 'point of no return' in efforts to prevent catastrophe from changes in Earth's atmosphere. "The International Energy Agency projects that, unless societies begin building alternatives to carbon-emitting energy technologies over the next five years, the world is doomed to a warmer climate, harsher weather, droughts, famine, water scarcity, rising sea levels, loss of island nations, and increasing ocean acidification," she said.

The Doomsday Clock was launched in 1947 at seven minutes to midnight. The closest approach to midnight was from 1953 to 1960 as the United States and the Soviet Union carried out tests of thermonuclear devices. "Only a few more swings of the pendulum, and, from Moscow to Chicago, atomic explosions will strike midnight for Western civilization," the bulletin said in 1953.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2012-01-12

[Scott]

As many posters argue about which country is the worst, this little thread, which gets to the meat of the matter was slipping into last place on the page.

[rotary]

I believe all this money printing by irresponsible countries will kill the world before a bomb does

[Tywais]

Track record (Wiki). Looks like 1991 was a good year.

[maiphedmaiaroi]

I believe all this money printing by irresponsible countries will kill the world before a bomb does

Total financial meltdown for main course. Nuclear bombs for dessert?

[maidu]

The US spends about $150 million annually to try and keep their nuclear arsenal from deteriorating. Why not just trash it, and save the money? I could think of better ways to spend $150 million. To their credit (and I'm an American), the US just destroyed their most powerful N bomb, so that's a plus.

It's amazing that sh!t hasn't hit the fan in the years since WWII. Indeed, no nuclear bomb has been used in anger since Nagasaki, that's over 60 years. Still, all nuclear weapons should be trashed a.s.a.p. Unfortunately, human maturity did not develop as fast as its tech skills, otherwise it would be a saner world.

[flying]

The US spends about $150 million annually to try and keep their nuclear arsenal from deteriorating. Why not just trash it, and save the money? I could think of better ways to spend $150 million. To their credit (and I'm an American), the US just destroyed their most powerful N bomb, so that's a plus.

It's amazing that sh!t hasn't hit the fan in the years since WWII. Indeed, no nuclear bomb has been used in anger since Nagasaki, that's over 60 years. Still, all nuclear weapons should be trashed a.s.a.p. Unfortunately, human maturity did not develop as fast as its tech skills, otherwise it would be a saner world.

+1

Good Post especially the last sentence

[koheesti]

The US spends about $150 million annually to try and keep their nuclear arsenal from deteriorating. Why not just trash it, and save the money?

Do you believe if all the countries with nukes got rid of them, leaving no country on the planet with nuclear weapons - that countries wouldn't then race to develop nukes to become the sole (at least first) nuclear super power on Earth? They would, guaranteed. That being the case, getting rid of all nukes is much more dangerous than actually having them.

Edited January 13, 2012 by koheesti

[Pedzie]

The US spends about $150 million annually to try and keep their nuclear arsenal from deteriorating. Why not just trash it, and save the money?

Do you believe if all the countries with nukes got rid of them, leaving no country on the planet with nuclear weapons - that countries wouldn't then race to develop nukes to become the sole (at least first) nuclear super power on Earth? They would, guaranteed. That being the case, getting rid of all nukes is much more dangerous than actually having them.

The world would be a much safer place without nukes, the cold war is over...

To quote a line from the Terminator 2 film (it's in out nature to destroy ourselves)....sad but true!

Professor Stephen Hawking was right when he said that mankind's only real chance of long term survival of the human species is to colonise space! The threat of nuclear war is so ever close, even without this we have over-population and increasing depletion of the earths natural resources and enviromental degredation.

My opinion is....It's to late! We will suffer the fate we inflicted on ourselves.

[Pedzie]

I believe all this money printing by irresponsible countries will kill the world before a bomb does

Total financial meltdown for main course. Nuclear bombs for dessert?

+1

The ones that caused the meltdown will try push through a new world agenda, much to the disgust of other nuclear powered nations!

[thequietman]

The US spends about $150 million annually to try and keep their nuclear arsenal from deteriorating. Why not just trash it, and save the money? I could think of better ways to spend $150 million. To their credit (and I'm an American), the US just destroyed their most powerful N bomb, so that's a plus.

It's amazing that sh!t hasn't hit the fan in the years since WWII. Indeed, no nuclear bomb has been used in anger since Nagasaki, that's over 60 years. Still, all nuclear weapons should be trashed a.s.a.p. Unfortunately, human maturity did not develop as fast as its tech skills, otherwise it would be a saner world.

they are here now. there is nothing we can do about it. i really do believe that the reason the world has had relative peace (no world war) is because of the nuclear deterent. however the world has more than it needs, so decommissioning some would save the american and other countries economies millions each year. this money could be well used on reducing genocide in many other countries in the world, notably Africa.(Somalia) and many more.

Peace.

Edited January 13, 2012 by thequietman

[maidu]

The US spends about $150 million annually to try and keep their nuclear arsenal from deteriorating. Why not just trash it, and save the money?

Do you believe if all the countries with nukes got rid of them, leaving no country on the planet with nuclear weapons - that countries wouldn't then race to develop nukes to become the sole (at least first) nuclear super power on Earth? They would, guaranteed. That being the case, getting rid of all nukes is much more dangerous than actually having them.

Yes, I believe N bombs can be eradicated from all the world's arsenals. Not easy, but here's how it can happen. Concentrated messages to all the world's youth, backing the message that nuclear weapons are sickingly harmful to all people and all living things. Humans have taboos already, and all those taboos came forth via a combination of common sense and publicity. Taboos against eating uncooked pork, against incest, against eating one's own pets, etc.

Look at an example related to N bombs: In WWI chemical weapons were used by both sides against each other. In WWII chemical weapons weren't used (because all sides saw their horror), even though all the antagonists knew about them, and they were easy to make and use. Many times, battles were lost, when chemical weapons might have turned the tables against the assumed victor, but chemi weapons weren't used in any battles.

Teachers at childrens' schools worldwide should make repeated mentions of the insanity of nuclear weapons. Maybe I'm naive, but I believe over time, the ensuing adults will accept it as 2nd nature that nuclear weapons are not to be assembled or used, period. In a world like that, if any regime or terrorist group were found to be making nuclear weapons, other responsible countries (probably via UN or Nato?) would justifyably dash their production facilities to smithereens.

[BookMan]

The US spends about $150 million annually to try and keep their nuclear arsenal from deteriorating. Why not just trash it, and save the money? I could think of better ways to spend $150 million. To their credit (and I'm an American), the US just destroyed their most powerful N bomb, so that's a plus.

It's amazing that sh!t hasn't hit the fan in the years since WWII. Indeed, no nuclear bomb has been used in anger since Nagasaki, that's over 60 years. Still, all nuclear weapons should be trashed a.s.a.p. Unfortunately, human maturity did not develop as fast as its tech skills, otherwise it would be a saner world.

+1

Good Post especially the last sentence

Nuclear weapons are here to stay. At least until a new and more powerful weapon is developed anyway.

[BookMan]

The US spends about $150 million annually to try and keep their nuclear arsenal from deteriorating. Why not just trash it, and save the money?

Do you believe if all the countries with nukes got rid of them, leaving no country on the planet with nuclear weapons - that countries wouldn't then race to develop nukes to become the sole (at least first) nuclear super power on Earth? They would, guaranteed. That being the case, getting rid of all nukes is much more dangerous than actually having them.

Yes, I believe N bombs can be eradicated from all the world's arsenals. Not easy, but here's how it can happen. Concentrated messages to all the world's youth, backing the message that nuclear weapons are sickingly harmful to all people and all living things. Humans have taboos already, and all those taboos came forth via a combination of common sense and publicity. Taboos against eating uncooked pork, against incest, against eating one's own pets, etc.

Look at an example related to N bombs: In WWI chemical weapons were used by both sides against each other. In WWII chemical weapons weren't used (because all sides saw their horror), even though all the antagonists knew about them, and they were easy to make and use. Many times, battles were lost, when chemical weapons might have turned the tables against the assumed victor, but chemi weapons weren't used in any battles.

Teachers at childrens' schools worldwide should make repeated mentions of the insanity of nuclear weapons. Maybe I'm naive, but I believe over time, the ensuing adults will accept it as 2nd nature that nuclear weapons are not to be assembled or used, period. In a world like that, if any regime or terrorist group were found to be making nuclear weapons, other responsible countries (probably via UN or Nato?) would justifyably dash their production facilities to smithereens.

A bit like a giant worldwide love in, but over a long period of time?

[koheesti]

The US spends about $150 million annually to try and keep their nuclear arsenal from deteriorating. Why not just trash it, and save the money?

Do you believe if all the countries with nukes got rid of them, leaving no country on the planet with nuclear weapons - that countries wouldn't then race to develop nukes to become the sole (at least first) nuclear super power on Earth? They would, guaranteed. That being the case, getting rid of all nukes is much more dangerous than actually having them.

Yes, I believe N bombs can be eradicated from all the world's arsenals. Not easy, but here's how it can happen. Concentrated messages to all the world's youth, backing the message that nuclear weapons are sickingly harmful to all people and all living things. Humans have taboos already, and all those taboos came forth via a combination of common sense and publicity. Taboos against eating uncooked pork, against incest, against eating one's own pets, etc.

Look at an example related to N bombs: In WWI chemical weapons were used by both sides against each other. In WWII chemical weapons weren't used (because all sides saw their horror), even though all the antagonists knew about them, and they were easy to make and use. Many times, battles were lost, when chemical weapons might have turned the tables against the assumed victor, but chemi weapons weren't used in any battles.

Teachers at childrens' schools worldwide should make repeated mentions of the insanity of nuclear weapons. Maybe I'm naive, but I believe over time, the ensuing adults will accept it as 2nd nature that nuclear weapons are not to be assembled or used, period. In a world like that, if any regime or terrorist group were found to be making nuclear weapons, other responsible countries (probably via UN or Nato?) would justifyably dash their production facilities to smithereens.

Chopping someone to pieces with a sword is horrible but that's not why countries stopped using them. If you come at us with a sword, we'll shoot you. Same principle with chemical weapons. Chemical weapons aren't used today NOT because they are horrible weapons, but because there are nukes. You gas us, we nuke you.

I can 100% guarantee, without the least bit of doubt that if tomorrow the USA, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, France, UK, Israel and whoever else admits to having nukes were to destroy them all leaving the world without nuclear weapons...another country - likely one tired of being pushed around - would race to get nukes and be the top dog in the world for a change. To think that teachers can convince children enough so that no one will ever want nuclear weapons is the most naive idea I've ever heard. How long have teachers (& parents) taught that killing, stealing, cheating is bad? How has that worked out?

As for the last part of your post, "if any regime or terrorist group were found to be making nuclear weapons, other responsible countries (probably via UN or Nato?) would justifyably dash their production facilities to smithereens." - does that mean you are in favor of bombing Iran's nuke facilities?

[maidu]

The US spends about $150 million annually to try and keep their nuclear arsenal from deteriorating. Why not just trash it, and save the money?

Do you believe if all the countries with nukes got rid of them, leaving no country on the planet with nuclear weapons - that countries wouldn't then race to develop nukes to become the sole (at least first) nuclear super power on Earth? They would, guaranteed. That being the case, getting rid of all nukes is much more dangerous than actually having them.

Yes, I believe N bombs can be eradicated from all the world's arsenals. Not easy, but here's how it can happen. Concentrated messages to all the world's youth, backing the message that nuclear weapons are sickingly harmful to all people and all living things. Humans have taboos already, and all those taboos came forth via a combination of common sense and publicity. Taboos against eating uncooked pork, against incest, against eating one's own pets, etc.

Look at an example related to N bombs: In WWI chemical weapons were used by both sides against each other. In WWII chemical weapons weren't used (because all sides saw their horror), even though all the antagonists knew about them, and they were easy to make and use. Many times, battles were lost, when chemical weapons might have turned the tables against the assumed victor, but chemi weapons weren't used in any battles.

Teachers at childrens' schools worldwide should make repeated mentions of the insanity of nuclear weapons. Maybe I'm naive, but I believe over time, the ensuing adults will accept it as 2nd nature that nuclear weapons are not to be assembled or used, period. In a world like that, if any regime or terrorist group were found to be making nuclear weapons, other responsible countries (probably via UN or Nato?) would justifyably dash their production facilities to smithereens.

Chopping someone to pieces with a sword is horrible but that's not why countries stopped using them. If you come at us with a sword, we'll shoot you. Same principle with chemical weapons. Chemical weapons aren't used today NOT because they are horrible weapons, but because there are nukes. You gas us, we nuke you.

I can 100% guarantee, without the least bit of doubt that if tomorrow the USA, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, France, UK, Israel and whoever else admits to having nukes were to destroy them all leaving the world without nuclear weapons...another country - likely one tired of being pushed around - would race to get nukes and be the top dog in the world for a change. To think that teachers can convince children enough so that no one will ever want nuclear weapons is the most naive idea I've ever heard. How long have teachers (& parents) taught that killing, stealing, cheating is bad? How has that worked out?

As for the last part of your post, "if any regime or terrorist group were found to be making nuclear weapons, other responsible countries (probably via UN or Nato?) would justifyably dash their production facilities to smithereens." - does that mean you are in favor of bombing Iran's nuke facilities?

to address your last Q first: no, I'm not in favor of bombing Iran's N facilities for the following reasons:

>>> it's not 100% sure they're making weapons-grade U (though it looks highly likely)

>>> the protesting countries have N weapons, so it wouldn't fit with the scenario I outlined.

Naivite can quickly spin to to realism depending on scenarios and outlook. Land mines were banned in nearly all countries worldwide - by a conscientious group that must have looked mighty naive when it started. They won a Nobel Peace prize also, and have probably done some tangible good - in lessening the incidence of land mines worldwide.

I wouldn't doubt the early mentions of eradicating small pox worldwide - were met with mighty skepticism. Yet it worked.

Chemical weapons were not used in WWII (several years before N weapons appeared) mainly because of the horror of WWI. Again, the outcome of many battles could have been changed if chemical weapons had been used. Instead, losing forces chose not to use them, even though it meant losing battles and the war itself. That says a lot about what can be achieved via mental attitudes.

[Pedzie]

I'm sure the the US & Russia built a facility in the 90's to destroy both countries arsenal of biological and chemical weapons, this shows that progress can be made in reducing terrifying weapons that threaten the world.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Pedzie

[koheesti]

to address your last Q first: no, I'm not in favor of bombing Iran's N facilities for the following reasons:

>>> it's not 100% sure they're making weapons-grade U (though it looks highly likely)

>>> the protesting countries have N weapons, so it wouldn't fit with the scenario I outlined.

So only countries with no nukes are allowed to go into a country with nukes to stop them? I can see how that would end. On top of that, the only 100% proof would be a mushroom cloud. So basically, there would be no deterrent for having nukes.

Naivite can quickly spin to to realism depending on scenarios and outlook. Land mines were banned in nearly all countries worldwide - by a conscientious group that must have looked mighty naive when it started. They won a Nobel Peace prize also, and have probably done some tangible good - in lessening the incidence of land mines worldwide.

It's more than a stretch to lump landmines and nukes together here. Landmines are small localized defensive weapons that are useless unless someone steps on one. No country has ever become a major power or made demands of the world for possessing landmines. You might as well say that if we can enforce laws against using a cellphone and driving (which probably kills more than landmines each year), them we can enforce laws against nukes.

Chemical weapons were not used in WWII (several years before N weapons appeared) mainly because of the horror of WWI. Again, the outcome of many battles could have been changed if chemical weapons had been used. Instead, losing forces chose not to use them, even though it meant losing battles and the war itself. That says a lot about what can be achieved via mental attitudes.

Gassing was indeed horrible, but on the battlefield if the wind changed it could also be deadly to your own troops. Perhaps if gas were as effective as it was horrible armies would have used it anyway. Gas masks can be used to defend against gas, but not nukes. BTW - did the technology exist in WWII to put gas in bombs to be dropped from planes?

Then of course the Nazis killed millions with it anyway, just not in battle. Furthermore, by the time WWII came around, they were just firebombing cities and burning people alive by the tens - even hundreds - of thousands. So "horror" wasn't always a deterrent.

[koheesti]

I'm sure the the US & Russia built a facility in the 90's to destroy both countries arsenal of biological and chemical weapons, this shows that progress can be made in reducing terrifying weapons that threaten the world.

It certainly is a move in the right direction. But neither side will ever get rid of their nuclear arsenals entirely - until something better (worse) comes along or renders nukes less effective. That's a good argument for a missile defense system right there.

[OccamsRazor]

It certainly is a move in the right direction. But neither side will ever get rid of their nuclear arsenals entirely - until something better (worse) comes along or renders nukes less effective. That's a good argument for a missile defense system right there.

I seem to remember when the Strategic Defense Initiative (aka Star Wars) program was being developed that Russia considered it an offensive move by the US. It also was in conflict with the MAD concepts.

[Pedzie]

I'm sure the the US & Russia built a facility in the 90's to destroy both countries arsenal of biological and chemical weapons, this shows that progress can be made in reducing terrifying weapons that threaten the world.

It certainly is a move in the right direction. But neither side will ever get rid of their nuclear arsenals entirely - until something better (worse) comes along or renders nukes less effective. That's a good argument for a missile defense system right there.

Yes neither country will entirely get rid of nukes, the US proposal to build a missile defence system in eastern europe enraged Russia. The US says it was to counteract a perceived threat from Iran, I highly doubt this was the case! Since Iran has not developed the bomb yet. The motives for the defence shield in eastern europe is anyone's guess, mines is that Russia lacks sufficient security to secure all of It's nuke sites, America is worried about this and rightly so..I am not sure if the US is going ahead with the defence shield, think the last I heard is that the US is going to have some sort of missile defence shield but all based at sea.

[koheesti]

I'm sure the the US & Russia built a facility in the 90's to destroy both countries arsenal of biological and chemical weapons, this shows that progress can be made in reducing terrifying weapons that threaten the world.

It certainly is a move in the right direction. But neither side will ever get rid of their nuclear arsenals entirely - until something better (worse) comes along or renders nukes less effective. That's a good argument for a missile defense system right there.

Yes neither country will entirely get rid of nukes, the US proposal to build a missile defence system in eastern europe enraged Russia. The US says it was to counteract a perceived threat from Iran, I highly doubt this was the case! Since Iran has not developed the bomb yet. The motives for the defence shield in eastern europe is anyone's guess, mines is that Russia lacks sufficient security to secure all of It's nuke sites, America is worried about this and rightly so..I am not sure if the US is going ahead with the defence shield, think the last I heard is that the US is going to have some sort of missile defence shield but all based at sea.

I would think that a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe would be too close to stop anything coming from Russia aimed at the USA. Or they are in the wrong spot all together because the missile trajectory would go over the north pole. But it is in a good position to stop something coming from the direction of Iran.

[maidu]

to address your last Q first: no, I'm not in favor of bombing Iran's N facilities for the following reasons:

>>> it's not 100% sure they're making weapons-grade U (though it looks highly likely)

>>> the protesting countries have N weapons, so it wouldn't fit with the scenario I outlined.

So only countries with no nukes are allowed to go into a country with nukes to stop them? I can see how that would end. On top of that, the only 100% proof would be a mushroom cloud. So basically, there would be no deterrent for having nukes.

Naivite can quickly spin to to realism depending on scenarios and outlook. Land mines were banned in nearly all countries worldwide - by a conscientious group that must have looked mighty naive when it started. They won a Nobel Peace prize also, and have probably done some tangible good - in lessening the incidence of land mines worldwide.

It's more than a stretch to lump landmines and nukes together here. Landmines are small localized defensive weapons that are useless unless someone steps on one. No country has ever become a major power or made demands of the world for possessing landmines. You might as well say that if we can enforce laws against using a cellphone and driving (which probably kills more than landmines each year), them we can enforce laws against nukes.

Chemical weapons were not used in WWII (several years before N weapons appeared) mainly because of the horror of WWI. Again, the outcome of many battles could have been changed if chemical weapons had been used. Instead, losing forces chose not to use them, even though it meant losing battles and the war itself. That says a lot about what can be achieved via mental attitudes.

Gassing was indeed horrible, but on the battlefield if the wind changed it could also be deadly to your own troops. Perhaps if gas were as effective as it was horrible armies would have used it anyway. Gas masks can be used to defend against gas, but not nukes. BTW - did the technology exist in WWII to put gas in bombs to be dropped from planes?

Then of course the Nazis killed millions with it anyway, just not in battle. Furthermore, by the time WWII came around, they were just firebombing cities and burning people alive by the tens - even hundreds - of thousands. So "horror" wasn't always a deterrent.

Your arguments are witty and tinged with truth. I had considered those items already. If you want to argue for the sake of argument, then you're free to do so. I still stand by my wishful assumption that nukes can and will be outlawed worldwide in the not-too-distant future. There needs to be increased awareness and maturity of our species for that to happen. Attitudes can change. Even if there are hold-outs (dictators, angry Imans, vindictive despots, etc) there are times when good triumphs over evil.

[koheesti]

Your arguments are witty and tinged with truth. I had considered those items already. If you want to argue for the sake of argument, then you're free to do so. I still stand by my wishful assumption that nukes can and will be outlawed worldwide in the not-too-distant future. There needs to be increased awareness and maturity of our species for that to happen. Attitudes can change. Even if there are hold-outs (dictators, angry Imans, vindictive despots, etc) there are times when good triumphs over evil.

I don't have as much short term faith in mankind as you do. In some distant Star Trek-like future a few centuries from now, sure. Sometime in our lifetime? No. Different cultures of our species seem to evolve at different rates. Some are ready now, others won't be ready for centuries. If everyone were more like Northern Europeans, it could be done. But everyone isn't.

[flying]

I don't have as much short term faith in mankind as you do. In some distant Star Trek-like future a few centuries from now, sure. Sometime in our lifetime? No. Different cultures of our species seem to evolve at different rates. Some are ready now, others won't be ready for centuries. If everyone were more like Northern Europeans, it could be done. But everyone isn't.

Funny & somewhat true what you say here...

Sadly the majority or what is left of it will be ready for level headed thinking after

a large amount of them are obliterated or......

The earth takes the lead & just shakes us off its back like an infection.

Because the truth is Nuclear everything should be stopped until such a time that they can actually

dispose/diffuse nuclear waste/byproducts without threat to the earth.

If there is a future generation I have a feeling they will look back &

laugh at us for many things such as these & our wars & even our supposed advances in medicine.

They will look back on radiation treatments for cancer like we look back on the art of bleeding patients in ancient times.

Edited January 15, 2012 by flying

[maidu]

I don't have as much short term faith in mankind as you do. In some distant Star Trek-like future a few centuries from now, sure. Sometime in our lifetime? No. Different cultures of our species seem to evolve at different rates. Some are ready now, others won't be ready for centuries. If everyone were more like Northern Europeans, it could be done. But everyone isn't.

Funny & somewhat true what you say here...

Sadly the majority or what is left of it will be ready for level headed thinking after

a large amount of them are obliterated or......

The earth takes the lead & just shakes us off its back like an infection.

Because the truth is Nuclear everything should be stopped until such a time that they can actually

dispose/diffuse nuclear waste/byproducts without threat to the earth.

If there is a future generation I have a feeling they will look back &

laugh at us for many things such as these & our wars & even our supposed advances in medicine.

They will look back on radiation treatments for cancer like we look back on the art of bleeding patients in ancient times.

agree. Rather like the Romans using lead tubes to channel water, ....then finding out later, it was poisoning people.

Or London hatters (or 49'er gold miners) using mercury for their trade, then finding it not only poisoned themselves, but also the rivers and the sea where the water emptied out. Nuclear anything is out of line. Let's just let nuclear go to the history books. .....and get on with trying to clean up our little planet.

Edited January 21, 2012 by maidu

[koheesti]

After watching this video I'm led to believe that nukes aren't as bad for the Earth as we think. I know that sounds nuts. Ask yourself how many nuclear explosions there have been since the 1940's then watch the video. There's no lecturing, just a map with visuals as to when and where explosions took place and which country did it. I was totally surprised. It's amazing that two or three regions of the planet are even habitable after the past 65 years.,,yet they are.

Edited January 21, 2012 by koheesti

[nurofiend]

pffft i'm not worried about nuclear war,

it's the inevitable zombie armageddon that keeps me up at night.

[koheesti]

pffft i'm not worried about nuclear war,

it's the inevitable zombie armageddon that keeps me up at night.

There will be no zombie armageddon. Geez. After 40 years of zombie films, no one will get freaked out when it happens. Pretty much everyone knows how to kill them and what to do and not to do when you encounter a group of zombies. It'll be a cakewalk.

Edited January 21, 2012 by koheesti

[Richard W]

BTW - did the technology exist in WWII to put gas in bombs to be dropped from planes?

The Italians used such technology when they conquered Abyssinia just before WWII.