|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
"Doomsday Clock": It's Now Two Minutes Closer to Midnight |
Current rating: 0 |
by Robert L. Park
(No verified email address) |
09 Mar 2002
Modified: 11 Mar 2002 |
The symbolic clock was reset to 11:53, the closest to midnight since
1998, after both India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons. |
The symbolic clock was reset to 11:53, the closest to midnight since
1998, after both India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons. Scientists on the panel that controls the hands said
the 9/11 terrorist attacks were not the major factor in setting
the clock closer to midnight. Rather, it was the lack of
progress toward nuclear disarmament. If the U.S. actually
resumes nuclear testing, the clock will presumably be set much
closer.
(from "What's New", March 1, 2002) |
Comments
|
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists |
by Gordo
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Mar 2002
|
|
There are no "scientists" on this panel and haven't been for many years. The Doomsday Clock, originally part of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, is just a prop for a liberal "peace" group made up of your typical liberal arts professors. There are no "scientists" involved. You can look it up. |
|
Gordo Is Incorrect |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Mar 2002
|
Follow this link:
http://www.thebulletin.org/nuclear/board.html
You'll see that they have a multi-tiered organizational structure that has a variety of backgrounds represented at all levels. One should pay particular note to the number of Nobel Laureates, both living and dead, who have served or currently serve. Many well-informed people will recognize quite a few of these names as those of distinguished scientists. Those who aren't "hard" scientists are also distinguished people who are no less expert in their fields. One needs physicists to build such weapons, but one does not need to be a physicist to understand the implications of nuclear weapons
It should be pointed out that the origin of the Bulletin was from the group of scientists involved in the Manhattan Project who actually developed and built the first nuclear weapons. They were disturbed that so little thought had been given to the consequences of humankind's access to such power. With ignorant people like Gordo (and Pres. Bush) around, there obviously still is a great need for such concern.
The Bulletin is still hard at work, trying to increase knowledge about nuclear (and other national security) issues. I guess too much knowledge in the hands of the public in a (nominal) democracy bothers Gordo. One does not need to be a political scientist to figure out that Gordo doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. |
|
Doomsday and the octagenarians |
by Gordo
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Mar 2002
|
I stand by my remarks.
I encourage anyone who is reading this thread to look up the board and staff of the Union. they are an old line, octagnearian, liberal organization that get their funds from Foundations and (probably) the government. they are as worthy of defence as National Public Radio.
Its ironic that they worry about turning the clock closer to midnight. It describes their age, not our situation.
I don't think the previous poster is stupid, as he accuses us of being, but misinformed. Or, perhaps, carrying water for the old liberals.
How old are you? |
|
Old Enough To Remember |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Mar 2002
|
Gordo,
I'm old enough to remember my father in the Air Force disappearing for more than a week during the Cuban Missle Crisis. It worried the hell out of my mom. I wasn't quite old enough to fully appreciate the circumstances at the time.
I'll also point out that there are a number of scientists at the University of Illinois that feel these isssues are of grave importance. We're not talking about LAS, either, but one doesn't need to be in the physical sciences to see that there are still serious problems afoot in the world when it comes to nukes.
Are you trying to say the world is now a safe and cozy place and we should not worry about the thousands of nuclear weapons still in service, the deterioating state of Russia's early warning and command and control systems, nuclear proliferation that may well place weapons in the hands of terrorists, a Bush Administartion that wants to build whole new generations of nukes and delivery systems (at enormous cost in a tight fiscal environment) that are intended to make nuclear weapons more "useful", building an non-workable ABM system that may trigger a new arms race with China, while backing away from proven agreements that have at least kept new arms races from developing between the superpowers...?
I could go on, but if none of that worries you, you should just sleep tight. The rest of the world is not nearly so complacent.
People can draw their own conclusions about your wisdom. |
|
Its The Student Peace Union! |
by Gordo
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Mar 2002
|
OK. I get it. Its 1963 and the "Student Peace Union" is calling for "unilateral disarmament". Its "Women Strike For Peace"; it's Bertrand Russell and the pacifists; Its the "War Resisters League"; Its all the people and the organizations that made not one bit of difference in the last 50 years.
It's the past. |
|
From the Shrill Tone, Gordo |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Mar 2002
|
|
It sounds like you wish it was the past, but know it is our present, if we are to have a future. |
|
Limp Dick |
by Gordo
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Mar 2002
|
Well, there you are. A passionate pacifist. One who believes that "scientists at the University of Illinois feel these issues are of importance". The last place anyone looks for guidance in the 21st Century is towards the self-appointed "intellectuals" at Universities like UIUC.
If I were forced to make a decision about the governance of our nation I would rather choose the first 500 names out of the phonebook in Chicago rather than the faculty of UIUC. The Chicagoans would make better sense out of their lives, be more demanding and radical, and be less willing to compromise themselves in the luxury of the foundation world and the tenured professoriat. And they would haven't have such limp dicks. |
|
A Review for Those Who Came In Late |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Mar 2002
|
First, Gordo asserted that there are no "scientists" involved with the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
I proved him wrong with a link that has an enormous amount of information on it about the professional qualifications of those involved with the Bulletin.
I'm still not quite sure why Gordo figured that only a "scientist" was qualified to comment on the subject of nuclear weapons.
Is Gordo a "scientist'?
I don't think so, based on what we've seen so far. That would make him unqualified by his own standards to be engaging in this discussion, of which there is little doubt anyway at this point.
BTW, Gordo's standard would also certainly make the current occupant of the White House/"president" unqualified to engage in any discussion on nuclear weapons, but I think most people are aware of that person's general lack of qualification anyway.
As for Gordo's idea that arms control via verifiable international agreements is solely a "liberal" agenda, need I remind him that Nixon and Kissinger negotiated the ABM treaty and subsequent, related agreements with the Soviet Union, building on the legacy of trust from the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty. Reagan added to this legacy by coming to agreements with the Soviets that paved the way for the end of the Cold War. I agree with practically nothing that this trio did otherwise, but their legacy in arms control is one that a lesser man, such as Gordo or W, could do well to emulate.
Then there is the issue of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. How about its endorsement by four former Joint Chiefs of Staff? None of these fellows is considered a "liberal" as far as I know. Here is their statement:
"On September 22, 1997, President Clinton submitted the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty to the United States Senate for its advice and consent, together with six Safeguards that define the conditions under which the United States will enter into this Treaty. These Safeguards will strengthen our commitments in the areas of intelligence, monitoring and verification, stockpile stewardship, maintenance of our nuclear laboratories, and test readiness. They also specify the circumstances under which the President would be prepared, in consultation with the Congress, to exercise our supreme national interest rights under the CTB to conduct necessary testing if the safety or reliability of our nuclear deterrent could no longer be certified. With these Safeguards, we support Senate approval of the CTB Treaty."
John Shalikashvili
Colin Powell
William Crowe
David Jones
January 28, 1998
My father worked for Gen. Jones. He's no liberal. Adm. Crowe is known for his conservatism. Powell and Shalikashvili might be considered somewhat liberal Republicans, but that is not how Gordo qualified his answer, now was it?
Although I know some people, including some who post here at IMC, believe in nothing but unilateral disarmament, I and those who I work with at the U of I believe that we will have nukes around for many years. The point is that we must work toward a future that may someday see enough trust built that it might be possible to envision actually having little if any reliance on nuclear weapons. The U.S. is formally committed to such a goal by treaties that it has signed and had ratified by the Senate. In the meantime, a safer world would emerge.
I think Gordo has watched "Dr. Strangelove" a few times too many and has begun to lose touch with reality. I'm not a pacifist myself, but I believe there are concrete steps that can be taken to build a safer and more secure future. Gordo must prefer living in fear. Some people are like that. The majority of Americans are not. A July 1999 poll found that 82 % of Americans, regardless of their political affiliation, favor prompt CTBT ratification by the United States.
Gordo, I'm afraid you are not only wrong, but you are in the minority. But that is the wonder of IMC. You are brought to all of us by the ultra liberal, nay, even radical IMC. If this was some right-wing board and I was visiting you there, the censors would have stepped in long before, right about the time I first upset you with the facts. You should just be glad that facts are not as upsetting as nuclear weapons.
|
|
they're scientists, and they're not octogenerians |
by JF
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Mar 2002
|
Here are some members of the board.
Don Q. Lamb | Vice Chairman
Professor of astronomy and astrophysics, University of Chicago.
Lamb is 57 years old.
http://server-mac.pas.rochester.edu/yigal/DeptNews/Lamb/Lamb.html
Lisbeth Gronlund
Senior Staff Scientist, Union of Concerned Scientists; Research Fellow, Security Studies Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Lisbeth appears to be in her 40's.
http://www.physicscentral.com/people/people-02-3.html
Cindy Williams
Principal Research Scientist with the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Former Assistant Director for national security at the Congressional Budget Office; formerly associated with the MITRE and the RAND Corporation.
I don't know how old she is, but the charge that she is some sort of peacenik is unsupportable given her C.V. which includes service in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and her leadership of the National Security Division of the Congressional Budget Office.
Members of the board of sponsors include ten Nobel Laureates. Previous members of that board include Albert Einstein, Robert Oppenheimer, and Linus Pauling.
Gordo, I admit that I'm a pacifist, but I'm not going to deny that hawks like Edward Teller are scientists, just because I don't agree with them. Better that we should discuss the issues, rather than limit our efforts to pointless name-calling.
But while we're at it, let me just weigh in on the extremely significant subject of dick-limpness. Like most men, I prefer that my dick be limp, except when I'm having sex or masturbating. Having a constant erection would not only be uncomfortable, but would make it impossible to pee. And anyway, Gordo, how do you know how limp people's dicks are? And are you claiming that the *female* Chicagoans have limp dicks? If so, I recommend a refresher course in anatomy. |
|
Are you listening to yourselves? |
by You're stupid. No, YOU'RE stupid ...
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Mar 2002
|
|
Regardless of whether there are any scientists on the Board of the Make-Believe Clock, the denigrating tone almost immediately adopted by ML, then taken underwing by JF (who likes his dick limp, thankyouverymuch), reveals a lot of contempt for any differing opinion. Why the information about the panel couldn't have been provided minus the character assassination is beyond me. |
|
a fair cop |
by JF
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Mar 2002
|
|
To be fair, I don't have any contempt for opinions that differ from mine. But I don't have any respect for people who lie, and then back it up with sexist insults. |
|
Duly Noted |
by xyz
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Mar 2002
|
But why do you assume he was lying and not just misinformed? Plus, do you notice that the sexist insults followed numerous personal attacks on him? Do you see a pattern?
"With ignorant people like Gordo (and Pres. Bush) around, there obviously still is a great need for such concern."
"One does not need to be a political scientist to figure out that Gordo doesn't know what the hell he's talking about."
In fact, Gordo makes a stab at civility even after being insulted: "I don't think the previous poster is stupid, as he accuses us of being, but misinformed."
After that, you're right, the dialogue devolves. I just think, if IMC really does want constructive conversations, it needs to think about leading by example. Thus far, I have seen some consistently poor examples. |
|
Follow The Conversation |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Mar 2002
|
The replies from Gordo immediately aussumed an insulting tone. We tried to enlighten him as best as possible, and he only got more insulting. People who conduct themselves as Gordo did reapeatedly lose the possibly of respect by their lack of respect of others. He was trying to pick and fight and he got one. Then he lost.
Now there is some whining. Is it Gordo under different identities? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised, after making a fool of himself, that he would just rather lay low.
It also points out the fact that trying to base an assertion on bad info is a rather pointless excerise. I doubt if he learned anything from it, but others may have. I have no sympathy for the purposely ignorant when the facts are easily available. Ignoring them and then getting miffed about it smacks of someone intentionally spreading disinformation. |
|
ML, I think you need some help |
by only one person in the world dissents w/ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Mar 2002
|
Yes, of course, everyone who disagrees with you ... oh, I'm sorry, that's called *whining* ... is the same person, or of inferior intellect, or lying, or intentionally blah blah blah ...
Your description of Gordo's conduct fits precisely with your own conduct. Your tone was definitely not enlightening and did no justice to what may be valuable content. If you find yourself losing the respect of people on IMC and around you, try evaluating your own responses truthfully for an answer as to why your opinion is no longer valued. |
|
Are We Arguing Facts or Hurt Feelings? |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Mar 2002
|
I can take the heat. People disagree with me all the time. It does not concern me, except when facts are being twisted. You want to address the facts or just diss people, based on your line of reasoning.
That was/is Gordo's problem. If you sling shit and you're off target, people will call you on it. People have the right to be ignorant if they choose, but they have to face the consequences if they want to peddle their ignorance to the world on IMC. The consequences here are that the facts will find you out if you put you ignorance on display. That is exactly what happened. Whining about how you got your feelings hurt seems rather childish. If you're going to dish it out, you should be able to handle eating crow. |
|
misinformed is generous |
by JF
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Mar 2002
|
The original assertion was:
"There are no 'scientists' on this panel and haven't been for many years. The Doomsday Clock, originally part of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, is just a prop for a liberal 'peace' group made up of your typical liberal arts professors. There are no 'scientists' involved. You can look it up."
I looked it up, and it didn't take me more than a couple of clicks in my web browser to locate scientists, not liberal arts professors, on the panel, at least one of whom is a former DOD appropriator.
It's one thing to be misinformed, but it's another thing to tell someone to "look it up" when you know damn well that if they looked it up, they would find out you were at best distorting and at worst deliberately misrepresenting the facts. |
|
