Mini-Throughput: The Irrelevance of the Doomsday Clock

Michael Siegel

Michael Siegel is an astronomer living in Pennsylvania. He blogs at his own site, and has written a novel.

Related Post Roulette

16 Responses

  1. Damon says:

    “The decision to move the clock 10 seconds forward this year is largely due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the increased risk of nuclear escalation, the Bulletin said in a news release.”

    They just moved the clock for that NOW?! How much more will they move it for this:
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11674127/Russia-blasts-blatant-provocation-Putins-puppets-call-Bundestag-NUKED-tank-deal.html

    TLDR? Germany and the US are sending top line tanks (Leopard and Abrams) to Ukraine. So those 31 Abrams cost 310M dollars* @ 10M per tank, escalating from using the estimated 2016 amount of 9M dollars. I assume the Leopard costs something similar.Report

    • Dark Matter in reply to Damon says:

      I wonder if Russia even has functional nukes any more.

      Cheap and easy to just make threats and lie about how great your stuff is. Especially with nukes.

      You have an expensive weapon you know will never be used or even tested. Why not sell important parts of it and just lie about how ready it is. Are we supposed to think that was just a thing for the rest of Russia’s military?

      Have those things really been maintenance?Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Dark Matter says:

        When I read the stories about Russian trucks blowing their tires and having to leave some really good stuff by the side of the road due to tire dry-rot, I immediately felt better about the nukes.

        Not, like, 100% better… but I also know that triggering a really good nuclear explosion requires some well-maintained warheads and some well-maintained rockets to get them to where they need to go.

        Given that the tires were not well-mantained, I thought that Russia was probably not half the threat that I thought they were prior to the Ukrainian invasion.

        But 16% of a world-ender is still 16%. I feel a lot better. But I still don’t feel good.Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to Jaybird says:

          Russia’s last real nuke test was 24 October 1990.

          From the point of view of the Russian military, not doing maintenance on the nukes and just lying about it is low hanging fruit. Heck, actively selling important parts of the nuke is still low hanging fruit.

          All of the factors which made the tanks a problem are present in big steroids for the nukes. With tanks it’s reasonable to think that someone will at some point drive them around. You do nothing similar with nukes. There are no checks. Russia hasn’t even been building new ones and the old ones eventually go bad just because of radioactive decay.

          Russia doesn’t have the ability to have a working aircraft carrier when that ship is always in the public. Nukes are in holes in the ground and just sit there.

          Way to bet is the money to maintain the nukes was stolen. Various parts of the systems are also missing. The people doing the servicing exist only on paper.

          Because nothing bad can happen from having very old unstable nukes around. We presumably still have problems, just not the ones we’ve been worrying about.Report

      • InMD in reply to Dark Matter says:

        Even if only a fraction of their declared stockpiles are functioning that would still be enough to do a lot of damage.

        When it comes to NATO I would think the MAD principle still applies and I doubt they want to die too. The question to me is if, and it’s still a big if, Ukraine inflicts a few more major conventional defeats on the Russians. Maybe they decide if they can’t have Ukraine no one will, or at least not for a few generations.Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to InMD says:

          In a nuclear exchange Putin’s bunker is target #1. It might even be the only target.Report

          • InMD in reply to Dark Matter says:

            I don’t believe there would (or should) be an exchange if all targets are within Ukraine.Report

            • Dark Matter in reply to InMD says:

              After the genii is out of the bottle you don’t know where he’s going to go.

              The non-nuclear responses I’ve seen put out there by serious people look a lot like war. Russia claims it’s already at war with the West.Report

              • InMD in reply to Dark Matter says:

                While one can certainly never rule it out it seems like actually delivering strategic nuclear weapons from ICBM or submarine to targets in the West would be several degrees of escalation, and of course would also result in the destruction of Russia. Keep in mind though that they also (theoretically) have tactical nuclear weapons that can be delivered by bomber, cruise missile, or even truck mounted MLRS. You could inflict some severe destruction still very much within Ukraine that renders it unviable as a state without the kind of doomsday full nuclear war at issue. I don’t think even the most hawkish voices on Ukraine would trade their own countries and lives to punish Russia for that.Report

      • Jippo in reply to Dark Matter says:

        It doesn’t take many functional nuclear weapons to end the world. Nuclear Winter is not a pipedream, it is a reality-based killswitch backed by science. Russia is not the only one who directs nuclear weapons towards Doomsday.Report

  2. Pinky says:

    Great. Scientists continue to allow science to be politicized for public consumption. This will restore people’s faith in its objectivity.Report

  3. KenB says:

    You’re not gonna get an article in CNN for changing it from 2:33PM to 2:37PM.Report

  4. Michael Cain says:

    If I were going to pick a reason, I’d pick proliferation. New estimates from the IAEA are that Iran has enough enriched uranium to build several bombs. The President of South Korea is making noises about his country becoming a nuclear power (they have also test flown a solid-fuel rocket capable of reaching orbit). If Korea goes nuclear, it’s almost a certainty that Japan will follow them.Report

  5. Jaybird says:

    The thing that gives the game away is your tidbit about 1992: The lowest it has ever been, like, *EVER* is 11:43.

    Which means that it’s got a scale of 0-17.

    They’ve upped it to 15.5? Huh.Report

  6. DamYank says:

    “We are currently living in history’s most peaceful time.”
    With death cults on the border, starvation in the streets, pandemics blooming in China and an occupied Europe…

    Just In Time was a grand idea for Peace In Our Time.
    Twenty years is a good run, for a worldwide economic engine.

    Foreign policy and Domestic is currently being run with the agenda of decreasing human population.Report