http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/01/17/doomsday-clock-070117.html
Doomsday Clock to wind closer to Armageddon

Last Updated: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 | 10:47 AM ET

CBC News
The face of the Doomsday Clock will shift closer to midnight Wednesday,
symbolizing the impending destruction of humanity in a "Second Nuclear
Age."

Chicago's Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the group which has
maintained the timepiece since 1947, is winding the minute hand closer
to the grim hour for the first time since 2002, when it was frozen at
seven minutes to midnight.

The Doomsday Clock is expected to tick over to five minutes to midnight
on Wednesday. (courtesy The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists)

Now modern dangers such as global warming and the nuclear ambitions of
Iran and North Korea are expected to inch the clock two minutes forward
­ to five minutes to midnight ­ though scientists have not confirmed
the exact change.

Created in 1947
"The major new step reflects growing concerns about a 'Second Nuclear
Age' marked by grave threats," including nuclear programs in North
Korea and Iran, as well as continuing "launch-ready status" of some
2,000 to 25,000 warheads held by the U.S. and Russia, the scientists
said in a statement Tuesday.

The world has used the Doomsday Clock as a measurable way to reflect
the perils facing humanity since it was created in 1947. In its first
year, the minute hand perched at seven minutes to midnight, and it has
edged closer with each worsening nuclear and climate threat, or
backwards to indicate more secure times.

Notably, Doomsday was two minutes to midnight ­ its closest ever to
doom ­ during the Cold War in 1953, when the U.S. and Soviet Union
began testing H bombs.

Renowned physicist Stephen Hawking is expected to join the
Chicago-based scientists Wednesday to announce the clock-face change
and speak on the nuclear and climate risks facing the world.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breaking-news/world/south-america/article21554
11.ece

Hands to move forward on 'Doomsday Clock'
Monday, January 15, 2007
The keepers of the so-called 'Doomsday Clock' plan to move its hands
forward for the first time in four years, saying worsening nuclear and
climate threats have brought the world closer to atomic Armageddon.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists said now was the ``most perilous
period'' since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Since 1947 the clock, with midnight representing nuclear apocalypse,
has appeared on the cover of the magazine, which was founded by
University of Chicago scientists alarmed about the dangers of the
nuclear age.

The minute hand was last moved in February 2002, when it was pushed
forward by two minutes, to seven minutes to midnight.

Theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking will be among scientists to speak
on Wednesday when the BAS announces how far the hands will be moved
this time.

The magazine said the ``major step'' reflected growing concerns about a
``second nuclear age'' marked by grave threats including nuclear
ambitions in Iran and North Korea and unsecured nuclear materials in
Russia and elsewhere.

The continuing ``launch-ready'' status of 2,000 of the 25,000 nuclear
weapons held by the US and Russia, was also a problem, as was
escalating terrorism.

The BAS said new pressure from climate change for expanded civilian
nuclear power could increase proliferation risks.

The closest the clock has come to midnight is just two minutes away.
That was in 1953, when the US and the Soviet Union tested thermonuclear
devices within nine months of each other.

In 1991, in a wave of optimism at the end of the Cold War, it was set
the furthest away, at 17 minutes away to midnight

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/article2160315.ece
The Doomsday Clock: Nuclear threat to world 'rising'

For 60 years, it has depicted how close the world is to nuclear
disaster. Today, scientists will move its hands forward to show we are
facing the gravest threat in at least 20 years
Wednesday, January 17, 2007

By Rupert Cornwell in Washington

Five years of international headlines tell of growing turmoil in the
Middle East, international terrorism in Western capitals and more
countries seeking the ultimate national security insurance policy.

Now climate change and oil insecurity is driving countries to seek
nuclear power, bringing with it new dangers of proliferation in
volatile parts of the globe.

Today the Doomsday Clock, devised by the Chicago-based Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists in 1947 at the dawn of the nuclear age, will make
official what most thinking citizens feel in their bones - that the
world has edged closer to nuclear Armageddon than at any time since the
most precarious moments of the Cold War in the early 1980s.

At 2.30pm, simultaneous events will take place in London and Washington
at which the symbolic clock will be moved forward from its present
seven minutes to midnight, where it has stood since 2002. The reasons
for the time being advanced five years ago were crumbling arms control
treaties and a terrorist threat brought into shattering relief by 9/11.

At the start of 2007, not only is the picture darker on both those
scores. The nuclear threat has also acquired an added and
unquantifiable dimension, thanks to global warming - prompting the
Bulletin to warn of a "Second Nuclear Age". The existing dangers could
not be more obvious: the problem is where to start. What about Iran's
quest for nuclear weapons, and the thinly veiled warnings from the
undeclared but assumed nuclear power Israel that it will strike first
to remove what it sees as an existentialist threat comparable to the
Holocaust?

Or the nuclear test last year by North Korea, a member of George Bush's
"axis of evil", which could have neighbouring Japan and South Korea
seeking protection with nuclear weapons of their own? Or the nuclear
arsenal of unstable Pakistan, where Islamic extremists have staged
several assassination attempts against President Pervez Musharraf?

Or - perhaps the greatest danger of all - that having visited
conventional terror on an unprecedented scale upon New York City on 11
September 2001, al-Qa'ida or some similar organisation will either get
hold of a ready-made nuclear device or build one of its own, and then
use it?

And why not? Grave doubts surround Russia's ability to secure its
nuclear materials, many of them dating from the Soviet era, and to
prevent its nuclear scientists from selling their skills to the highest
bidder. If a terrorist group did explode even a crude dirty bomb (and
the US claims to have disrupted such plots) the taboo that has
prevented states from using nuclear weapons in anger since 1945 might
be broken.

And in this new nuclear age, the deterrence doctrine of "mutually
assured destruction", or MAD, that kept the Cold War cold, would not
apply. The US and Russia may have 2,000 launch-ready weapons between
them - but these would be of no more use against an amorphous terrorist
group than Israel's nuclear arsenal against the Palestinians. Even so,
a threshold would have been crossed and a regional, even generalised
nuclear war, would become conceivable.

In 1947, the Doomsday Clock was first set at seven minutes to midnight,
exactly where it has stood since 2002. On the Bulletin's reckoning, the
planet's closest brush thus far with Armageddon came in 1953, when the
clock's hand moved to two minutes to midnight after the US and the
Soviet Union tested hydrogen bombs within nine months of each other.

Thereafter the clock has tracked the chills and thaws of the Cold War,
and the successive arrival of Britain, France, China, India and
Pakistan as recognised nuclear powers. The hand reached its "safest"
point - 17 minutes to Armageddon - in 1991 when the US and the
soon-to-disappear Soviet Union signed the Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaty (START), and that year's Gulf War, driving Saddam Hussein from
Kuwait, seemed to herald an era when the great powers could work
together under the auspices of the UN. The 2003 Iraq invasion destroyed
any such illusions. Once there were five proven nuclear powers. Now
there are nine.

Global warming, argues the Bulletin, indirectly increases this risk.
Civil nuclear power, which produces no greenhouse gases, is back in
fashion and hundreds of nuclear reactors will be built. Yet enriched
uranium, to power them, and plutonium are also the vital raw materials
for nuclear weapons.

In this Second Nuclear Age, there will be more of these deadly
commodities around. Small wonder the hand on the Doomsday Clock will
move towards midnight. The only question is, how close will it get?

http://www.thebulletin.org/weekly-highlight/weekly-highlight.html

5 Minutes to Midnight
http://www.thebulletin.org/minutes-to-midnight/
Overview

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Doomsday Clock conveys how
close humanity is to catastrophic destruction--the figurative
midnight--and monitors the means humankind could use to obliterate
itself. First and foremost, these include nuclear weapons, but they
also encompass climate-changing technologies and new developments in
the life sciences and nanotechnology that could inflict irrevocable
harm.

Nuclear

For four decades, the United States’ and the Soviet Union’s overt
hostility coupled with their enormous nuclear arsenals defined the
nuclear threat. The equation for nuclear holocaust was simple:
Heightened tensions between the two jittery superpowers would lead to
an all-out nuclear exchange. Today, the potential for an accidental or
inadvertent nuclear exchange between the United States and Russia
remains, with both countries anachronistically maintaining more than
1,000 warheads on high alert, ready to launch within tens of minutes.
But a deliberate attack by Russia or the United States on the other is
unthinkable.

Unfortunately, however, the possibility of a nuclear exchange between
countries remains. In 1999 and again in 2001, India and Pakistan
threatened each other with nuclear arms. And despite past successes in
limiting the spread of nuclear weapons to countries around the world,
nuclear proliferation seems to present a great danger today, with
countries such as North Korea and Iran actively pursuing the capability
to produce nuclear weapons. Nuclear terrorism also poses a new risk, as
fissile materials remain unsecured in many parts of the world, making
them more available to groups that seek destructive means.

Environmental

Fossil-fuel technologies such as coal-burning plants powered the
industrial revolution, bringing unparalleled economic prosperity to
many parts of the world. In the 1950s, however, scientists began
measuring year-to-year changes in the carbon dioxide concentration in
the atmosphere that they could relate to fossil fuel combustion, and
they began to develop the implications for Earth’s temperature and for
climate change.

Fifty years later, leading scientists agree that carbon-burning
technologies continue to make Earth warmer at an unprecedented rate.
They warn that the consequences could drastically alter both the planet
and human life. Already, ice packs in Greenland are rapidly
disappearing, which, in turn, threatens the existence of hundreds of
species such as polar bears and the traditions of whole societies such
as the Inuit. The future looks even bleaker, as scientists continue to
observe cascading effects on Earth’s complex ecosystems.

Emerging Technologies

Advances in genetics and biology over the last five decades have
inspired a host of new possibilities--both positive and troubling. With
greater understanding of genetic material and of how physiological
systems interact, biologists can fight disease better and improve
overall human health. But this knowledge may also afford opportunities
to program organisms to do our bidding for malign purposes by
manipulating brain functions, compromising bioregulation, and even by
altering our reproductive capabilities. Complicating matters further,
more groups and more individuals possess these high-consequence
technologies than in the past--and more and more people will acquire
them in the future. The emergence of nanotechnology--manufacturing at
the molecular or atomic level--presents similar concerns, especially if
coupled with chemical and biological weapons, explosives, or missiles.
Such combinations could result in highly destructive missiles the size
of an insect and microscopic delivery systems for dangerous pathogens.

http://www.thebulletin.org/minutes-to-midnight/board-statements.html
Board Statement

17 January 2007

We stand at the brink of a second nuclear age. Not since the first
atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has the world faced
such perilous choices. North Korea’s recent test of a nuclear weapon,
Iran’s nuclear ambitions, a renewed U.S. emphasis on the military
utility of nuclear weapons, the failure to adequately secure nuclear
materials, and the continued presence of some 26,000 nuclear weapons in
the United States and Russia are symptomatic of a larger failure to
solve the problems posed by the most destructive technology on Earth.

As in past deliberations, we have examined other human-made threats to
civilization. We have concluded that the dangers posed by climate
change are nearly as dire as those posed by nuclear weapons. The
effects may be less dramatic in the short term than the destruction
that could be wrought by nuclear explosions, but over the next three to
four decades climate change could cause drastic harm to the habitats
upon which human societies depend for survival.

This deteriorating state of global affairs leads the Board of Directors
of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists--in consultation with a Board
of Sponsors that includes 18 Nobel laureates--to move the minute hand
of the “Doomsday Clock” from seven to five minutes to midnight.

Nuclear weapons present the most grave challenge to humanity, enabling
genocide with the press of a button. In 1945, scientists warned the
world about the nearly unimaginable destructive power of the atomic
bombs they had created. As Eugene Rabinowitch, one of the cofounders of
the Bulletin, wrote, “The Bulletin’s Clock is not a gauge to register
the ups and downs of the international power struggle; it is intended
to reflect basic changes in the level of continuous danger in which
mankind lives in the nuclear age, and will continue living, until
society adjusts its basic attitudes and institutions.” As inheritors
and trustees of the Clock, we seek to warn the world that this level of
danger has escalated precipitously.

The second nuclear era, unlike the dawn of the first nuclear age in
1945, is characterized by a world of porous national borders, rapid
communications that facilitate the spread of technical knowledge, and
expanded commerce in potentially dangerous dual-use technologies and
materials. The Pakistan-based network that provided nuclear
technologies to Libya, North Korea, and Iran is an example of the new
challenges confronting the international community.

The current period of globalization coincides with an erosion of the
global agreements and norms that have constrained the spread of nuclear
weapons since 1970 when the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) came
into force. The NPT provided standards, set up protocols for
inspections and regulation through the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA), and held out a promise of disarmament by the nuclear
powers in exchange for restraint by those countries that did not have
nuclear weapons. Compliance has always been voluntary, and until the
last five years, nearly all governments felt that their interests were
served by adhering to the NPT provisions. The 2005 NPT Review
Conference, however, ended in failure, without any consensus on the
core issues of verification of safeguards on national nuclear programs,
the peaceful use of nuclear power, and disarmament.

Iran, which is a signatory state of the NPT, has violated its IAEA
obligations and obstructed efforts to determine the extent of its
activities. North Korea, which withdrew from the NPT in 2003, followed
through on its declared intention to test a nuclear weapon three years
later. Although this test prompted stern global condemnation, the
international community essentially acquiesced. The dominant concern
was that North Korea might sell its nuclear weapons abroad. In effect,
the message from the international community was “don’t proliferate”
rather than “don’t become a nuclear power.” In this regard, the
North Korean test was doubly dangerous and sets an unfortunate example
for other would-be nuclear powers.

The five NPT-recognized nuclear weapon states have failed in their
obligation to make serious strides toward disarmament--most notably,
the United States and Russia, which still possess 26,000 of the 27,000
nuclear warheads in the world. By far the greatest potential for
calamity lies in the readiness of forces in the United States and
Russia to fight an all-out nuclear war. Whether by accident or by
unauthorized launch, these two countries are able to initiate major
strikes in a matter of minutes. Each warhead has the potential
destructive force of 8 to 40 times that of the atomic bomb dropped on
Hiroshima, Japan, on August 6, 1945. In that relatively small nuclear
explosion, 100,000 people were killed and a city destroyed; 50 of
today’s nuclear weapons could kill 200 million people.

While the possibility of launching these powerful weapons may seem
remote, experts in Russia and the United States are concerned about
command and control systems that depend on complex electronic
communications and information. Past incidents suggest that technical
failures, misperception, and miscommunication happen in even the
best-maintained systems. Such errors could lead to an accidental launch
already programmed in the event of attack. Experts have documented four
nuclear false alarms--in 1979, 1980, 1983, and 1995--where either the
United States or Soviet/Russian forces were placed on the highest alert
and missile launch crews were given preliminary launch warnings.

Sixteen years after the end of the Cold War, following substantial
reductions in nuclear weapons by the United States and Russia, the two
major powers have now stalled in their progress toward deeper
reductions in their arsenals. Equally worrisome, the United States, in
its 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, declared that nuclear weapons
“provide credible military options to deter a wide range of threats,”
including chemical and biological weapons, as well as “surprising
military developments.” In early 2004, this new concept, which
espouses the quick use of even nuclear weapons to destroy “time urgent
targets,” was put into operation. That the United States--a nation
with unmatched superiority in conventional weapons--would place renewed
emphasis on the need for nuclear weapons suggests to other nations that
such arsenals are necessary to their security.

In the face of the major powers’ continued reliance on nuclear
weapons, other nations are following suit. Since the end of the Cold
War, three countries have announced the possession of nuclear
weapons--India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Israel possesses weapons but
chooses not to declare them. The director of the IAEA, Mohamed
ElBaradei, believes up to 30 countries have the capacity, and
increasingly the motivation, to develop nuclear weapons in a very short
time span.

Such developments have prompted some to declare the NPT a “failure.”
Yet this assessment ignores the decades-long success of the treaty in
stemming nuclear proliferation. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy
warned of the possibility of the United States facing a world “in
which 15 or 20 or 25 nations” would have nuclear weapons. In the
decades following the entry into force of the NPT, only six countries
have embarked on nuclear weapons programs and many others have shut
down their programs, including Argentina, Brazil, Libya, and South
Africa.

Even at the height of the Cold War, President Kennedy worried about
U.S. allies’ acquisition of nuclear weapons technology. In recent
years, however, the United States appears focused on denying nuclear
weapons only to its adversaries, while accommodating its friends. Yet,
as history demonstrates, countries that are deemed allies can quickly
become adversaries. And the success of the illicit, Pakistan-based
nuclear procurement network, which extended into Europe, shows how even
friendly governments can fail to guard against the theft and smuggling
of sensitive nuclear technology.

Reducing global nuclear arsenals is a key to keeping such weapons out
of the hands of terrorists. Through the Cooperative Threat Reduction
program, the United States and Russia have succeeded in finding,
consolidating, and securing about half of Russia’s nuclear bombs and
fissile material in just over a decade. European countries have also
pledged to aid this effort to ensure that existing nuclear materials
are kept out of the hands of terrorist groups. But bureaucratic and
legal disputes, as well as inadequate funding, have frequently slowed
the process.

The problem of unsecured fissile material is not confined to Russia,
however. More than 1,400 metric tons of highly enriched uranium and
approximately 500 tons of plutonium are distributed worldwide at some
140 sites, in unguarded civilian power plants and university research
reactors, as well as in military facilities. The first report of the
International Panel on Fissile Materials in September 2006 focused on
the ease with which unauthorized groups, including terrorist groups,
could obtain sufficient highly enriched uranium to make nuclear or
radiological bombs.

The prospect of civilian nuclear power development in countries around
the world raises further concerns about the availability of nuclear
materials. Growth in nuclear power is anticipated to be especially high
in Asia, where Japan is planning to bring on line five new plants by
2010, and China intends to build 30 nuclear reactors by 2020. Over the
next five years, some two-dozen nuclear power plants are scheduled to
be refurbished or rebuilt worldwide, and countries as diverse as
Nigeria, Poland, and Vietnam have expressed interest in nuclear energy.
In November 2006, the IAEA announced that four Mideast
nations--Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia--had declared their
intentions to embark on nuclear energy programs.

Several factors are driving the turn to nuclear power--aging nuclear
reactors, rising energy demands, a desire to diversify energy
portfolios and reduce reliance on fossil fuels, and the need to reduce
carbon emissions that cause climate change. Yet expansion of nuclear
power increases the risks of nuclear proliferation. Enrichment
facilities that produce low-enriched uranium for reactor fuel can be
easily modified to produce weapons-usable, highly enriched uranium.
Moreover, spent plutonium fuel from reactors is weapons-usable after
reprocessing. It does not require much nuclear material to construct a
fissile weapon: 1 to 3 kilograms of plutonium or 5 to 10 kilograms of
highly enriched uranium is all that is needed for a single bomb.

The international community faces a dilemma: How to mitigate climate
change without increasing the dangers of nuclear materials
proliferation.

Global warming poses a dire threat to human civilization that is second
only to nuclear weapons. The most authoritative scientific group on
these issues, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has
concluded, “Most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is
attributable to human activities.” Carbon dioxide, principally from
fossil fuel burning, has been accumulating in the atmosphere, where it
acts like a blanket keeping Earth warm and heating up its surface,
ocean, and atmosphere. As a result, current levels of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere are higher than at any time during the last 650,000
years.

Observations of changes in the atmosphere, on land, in the oceans, in
glaciers, and in polar ice cores have led to worldwide scientific
consensus about the causes of climate change. The most distinguished
scientific bodies in the United States, including the National Academy
of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, and the American
Association for the Advancement of Science have come to conclusions
similar to those of the IPCC.

Disruptions in climate already appear to be happening faster in some
regions than earlier predicted. In some areas warming has interrupted
normal patterns, allowing insects to spread into new habitats, carrying
diseases and destroying flora and fauna in zones that have no
evolutionary protection. Through flooding or desertification, climate
change threatens the habitats and agricultural resources that societies
depend upon for survival. Coral reefs will disappear, forest fires will
be more intense and more frequent, and heat waves and storms more
damaging. In coming years, coastal cities will bear the brunt of
sea-level rise, as we have already witnessed in New Orleans, compelling
major shifts in human settlement patterns. As such, climate change is
also likely to contribute to mass migrations and even to wars over
arable land, water, and other natural resources.

Indeed, a “business as usual” scenario--wherein we take no further
measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions--would raise the global
temperature 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of
the century, causing a sea-level rise of about 80 feet. The United
States would lose most of its cities on the East Coast: Boston, New
York, Philadelphia, Washington, and Miami, and nearly the whole state
of Florida. China would have 250 million displaced people; India, 150
million.

Because climate change is a global problem, it will require global
action. As China and India develop their economies, for example, they
will need to find ways to reduce or neutralize their contributions of
carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Currently, however, the United States
is the single largest producer of carbon dioxide emissions in the
world. Efforts in this one country would have disproportionately large
effects on world climate. As a wealthy and technologically advanced
country, the United States is well positioned to reduce its carbon
emissions.

Such reductions do not necessarily depend upon nuclear power as a
panacea. Carbon emissions can be cut by implementing auto emissions
limits, reducing subsidies for oil and coal production, supporting
carbon-trading regimes, increasing taxes on gasoline, increasing energy
efficiency by establishing manufacturing standards for appliances and
lightbulbs, subsidizing solar and wind power development, and planting
more trees, among others. Government funding and private investments
are required to develop innovative technologies, such as fuel cells,
biomass, and carbon sequestration. If we do not take measures in the
next several years to reduce carbon emissions, the costs of disruption
from climate change could be as high as 5 percent of global gross
domestic product (GDP) each year, according to the October 2006 report
authored by British economist Nicholas Stern. By contrast, the costs of
mitigating climate change could be limited to about 1 percent of global
GDP each year.

Turning back the Clock will depend on humanity’s ability to think in
new ways about how to cooperate to achieve common goals. We ask
scientists, in the words of Eugene Rabinowitch, not to "retire in
resignation and despair to their laboratories" but to publicly engage
these issues and make their voices heard. And we implore governments to
actively engage the scientific community for sound, nonpartisan
technical advice. We urge immediate attention to climate change and
caution those who believe nuclear energy is a problem-free solution.
Finally, and most importantly, we call upon policy and opinion leaders,
business and civic leaders, and the public to place the dangers of
nuclear weapons at the top of their agendas for action.

More specifically, major progress toward a safer world would include:
Reducing the launch readiness of U.S. and Russian nuclear forces, and
completely removing nuclear weapons from the day-to-day operations of
their militaries;
Reducing the number of nuclear weapons by dismantling, storing, and
destroying more than 20,000 warheads over the next 10 years;
Greatly increasing efforts to locate, store, and secure nuclear
materials in Russia, the United States, and elsewhere. The Cooperative
Threat Reduction program has provided an example of how even former
adversaries can cooperate to reduce the dangers of nuclear weapons.
Extending the principles of that program, including working side by
side with other countries, establishing transparency, and initiating
partnerships between government and the private sector to downblend
highly enriched uranium, would be constructive;
Disavowing the development of new nuclear weapons and ratifying the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). To date, the CTBT has been
ratified by 137 nations, but notable holdouts include the United
States, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel;
Stopping production of nuclear weapons material, including highly
enriched uranium and plutonium--whether in military or civilian
facilities. The proposed Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty should be taken
up by the nuclear powers as a major step toward achieving this goal;
Engaging in serious and candid discussion about the potential expansion
of nuclear power worldwide. As a means of addressing the threats from
climate change, nuclear power should be considered as an alternative
energy source. While nuclear energy production does not produce carbon
dioxide, it does raise other significant concerns, such as the health
and environmental hazards of nuclear waste, the production of nuclear
materials that can be diverted to the production of weapons, and the
safety and security of the plants themselves. As such, any
contemplation of the expansion of nuclear power must be predicated upon
a thorough assessment of the technological and legislative safeguards
required to curb these risks;
Providing nuclear fuel for energy production in ways that drastically
reduce the risk of spreading nuclear weapons. A number of arrangements
have been proposed, beginning with the Acheson-Lilienthal Plan of 1946.
More recent plans have called for international consortia that would
oversee the production, distribution, storage, and disposal of nuclear
materials;
Implementing stricter controls over trade in and shipment of nuclear
technologies and materials. Harmonizing domestic laws across countries
and enforcing these uniformly, as required under U.N. Security Council
Resolution 1540, would be a step in the right direction;
Building on the strengths and successes of the IAEA by giving more
authority to the agency to monitor and inspect nuclear facilities
worldwide and by providing more financial and staff resources. The
agency already has shown that it can effectively dismantle nuclear
weapons programs and monitor internal developments over a period of
years, as it did in Iraq from 1991 to 2001. It has proven its capacity
and should be rewarded and its programs expanded;
Providing meaningful international fora to spur innovative solutions
that halt nuclear proliferation and provide blueprints for radical
reductions in nuclear weapons worldwide. The NPT Review Conferences
could provide such an ongoing forum, if nuclear weapon countries would
recognize the benefits of this institution for impeding the spread of
lethal technologies.

The terrible and still unprecedented destructive power of nuclear
weapons led Albert Einstein to observe, “With nuclear weapons,
everything has changed, save our way of thinking.” As we stand at the
brink of a second nuclear age and at the onset of an era of
unprecedented climate change, our way of thinking about the uses and
control of technologies must change to prevent unspeakable destruction
and future human suffering.

The Clock is ticking.

http://www.thebulletin.org/minutes-to-midnight/timeline.html
5 Minutes to Midnight > Clock Timeline

Clock Timeline

IT IS 5 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
2007
The world stands at the brink of a second nuclear age. The United
States and Russia remain ready to stage a nuclear attack within
minutes, North Korea conducts a nuclear test, and many in the
international community worry that Iran plans to acquire the Bomb.
Climate change also presents a dire challenge to humanity. Damage to
ecosystems is already taking place; flooding, destructive storms,
increased drought, and polar ice melt are causing loss of life and
property.

IT IS 7 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
2002
Concerns regarding a nuclear terrorist attack underscore the enormous
amount of unsecured--and sometimes unaccounted for--weapon-grade
nuclear materials located throughout the world. Meanwhile, the United
States expresses a desire to design new nuclear weapons, with an
emphasis on those able to destroy hardened and deeply buried targets.
It also rejects a series of arms control treaties and announces it will
withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

IT IS 9 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1998
India and Pakistan stage nuclear weapons tests only three weeks apart.
“The tests are a symptom of the failure of the international community
to fully commit itself to control the spread of nuclear weapons­and to
work toward substantial reductions in the numbers of these weapons,” a
dismayed Bulletin reports. Russia and the United States continue to
serve as poor examples to the rest of the world. Together, they still
maintain 7,000 warheads ready to fire at each other within 15 minutes.

IT IS 14 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1995
Hopes for a large post-Cold War peace dividend and a renouncing of
nuclear weapons fade. Particularly in the United States, hard-liners
seem reluctant to soften their rhetoric or actions, as they claim that
a resurgent Russia could provide as much of a threat as the Soviet
Union. Such talk slows the rollback in global nuclear forces; more than
40,000 nuclear weapons remain worldwide. There is also concern that
terrorists could exploit poorly secured nuclear facilities in the
former Soviet Union.

IT IS 17 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1991
With the Cold War officially over, the United States and Russia begin
making deep cuts to their nuclear arsenals. The Strategic Arms
Reduction Treaty greatly reduces the number of strategic nuclear
weapons deployed by the two former adversaries. Better still, a series
of unilateral initiatives remove most of the intercontinental ballistic
missiles and bombers in both countries from hair-trigger alert. “The
illusion that tens of thousands of nuclear weapons are a guarantor of
national security has been stripped away,” the Bulletin declares.

IT IS 10 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1990
As one Eastern European country after another (Poland, Czechoslovakia,
Hungary, Romania) frees itself from Soviet control, Soviet General
Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev refuses to intervene, halting the
ideological battle for Europe and significantly diminishing the risk of
all-out nuclear war. In late 1989, the Berlin Wall falls, symbolically
ending the Cold War. “Forty-four years after Winston Churchill’s
‘Iron Curtain’ speech, the myth of monolithic communism has been
shattered for all to see,” the Bulletin proclaims.

IT IS 6 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1988
The United States and Soviet Union sign the historic Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces Treaty, the first agreement to actually ban a whole
category of nuclear weapons. The leadership shown by President Ronald
Reagan and Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev makes the treaty a reality,
but public opposition to U.S. nuclear weapons in Western Europe
inspires it. For years, such intermediate-range missiles had kept
Western Europe in the crosshairs of the two superpowers.

IT IS 3 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1984
U.S.-Soviet relations reach their iciest point in decades. Dialogue
between the two superpowers virtually stops. “Every channel of
communications has been constricted or shut down; every form of contact
has been attenuated or cut off. And arms control negotiations have been
reduced to a species of propaganda,” a concerned Bulletin informs
readers. The United States seems to flout the few arms control
agreements in place by seeking an expansive, space-based anti-ballistic
missile capability, raising worries that a new arms race will begin.

IT IS 4 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1981
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan hardens the U.S. nuclear posture.
Before he leaves office, President Jimmy Carter pulls the United States
from the Olympics Games in Moscow and considers ways in which the
United States could win a nuclear war. The rhetoric only intensifies
with the election of Ronald Reagan as president. Reagan scraps any talk
of arms control and proposes that the best way to end the Cold War is
for the United States to win it.

IT IS 7 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1980
Thirty-five years after the start of the nuclear age and after some
promising disarmament gains, the United States and the Soviet Union
still view nuclear weapons as an integral component of their national
security. This stalled progress discourages the Bulletin: “[The Soviet
Union and United States have] been behaving like what may best be
described as ‘nucleoholics’--drunks who continue to insist that the
drink being consumed is positively ‘the last one,’ but who can always
find a good excuse for ‘just one more round.’”

IT IS 9 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1974
South Asia gets the Bomb, as India tests its first nuclear device. And
any gains in previous arms control agreements seem like a mirage. The
United States and Soviet Union appear to be modernizing their nuclear
forces, not reducing them. Thanks to the deployment of multiple
independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRV), both countries can
now load their intercontinental ballistic missiles with more nuclear
warheads than before.

IT IS 12 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1972
The United States and Soviet Union attempt to curb the race for nuclear
superiority by signing the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) and
the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. The two treaties force a
nuclear parity of sorts. SALT limits the number of ballistic missile
launchers either country can possess, and the ABM Treaty stops an arms
race in defensive weaponry from developing.

IT IS 10 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1969
Nearly all of the world’s nations come together to sign the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty. The deal is simple­the nuclear weapon states
vow to help the treaty’s non-nuclear weapon signatories develop
nuclear power if they promise to forego producing nuclear weapons. The
nuclear weapon states also pledge to abolish their own arsenals when
political conditions allow for it. Although Israel, India, and Pakistan
refuse to sign the treaty, the Bulletin is cautiously optimistic: “The
great powers have made the first step. They must proceed without delay
to the next one­the dismantling, gradually, of their own oversized
military establishments.”

IT IS 7 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1968
Regional wars rage. U.S. involvement in Vietnam intensifies, India and
Pakistan battle in 1965, and Israel and its Arab neighbors renew
hostilities in 1967. Worse yet, France and China develop nuclear
weapons to assert themselves as global players. “There is little
reason to feel sanguine about the future of our society on the world
scale,” the Bulletin laments. “There is a mass revulsion against war,
yes; but no sign of conscious intellectual leadership in a rebellion
against the deadly heritage of international anarchy.”

IT IS 12 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1963
After a decade of almost non-stop nuclear tests, the United States and
Soviet Union sign the Partial Test Ban Treaty, which ends all
atmospheric nuclear testing. While it does not outlaw underground
testing, the treaty represents progress in at least slowing the arms
race. It also signals awareness among the Soviets and United States
that they need to work together to prevent nuclear annihilation.

IT IS 7 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1960
Political actions belie the tough talk of “massive retaliation.” For
the first time, the United States and Soviet Union appear eager to
avoid direct confrontation in regional conflicts such as the 1956
Egyptian-Israeli dispute. Joint projects that build trust and
constructive dialogue between third parties also quell diplomatic
hostilities. Scientists initiate many of these measures, helping
establish the International Geophysical Year, a series of coordinated,
worldwide scientific observations, and the Pugwash Conferences, which
allow Soviet and American scientists to interact.

IT IS 2 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1953
After much debate, the United States decides to pursue the hydrogen
bomb, a weapon far more powerful than any atomic bomb. In October 1952,
the United States tests its first thermonuclear device, obliterating a
Pacific Ocean islet in the process; nine months later, the Soviets test
an H-bomb of their own. “The hands of the Clock of Doom have moved
again,” the Bulletin announces. "Only a few more swings of the
pendulum, and, from Moscow to Chicago, atomic explosions will strike
midnight for Western civilization."

IT IS 3 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1949
The Soviet Union denies it, but in the fall, President Harry Truman
tells the American public that the Soviets tested their first nuclear
device, officially starting the arms race. “We do not advise Americans
that doomsday is near and that they can expect atomic bombs to start
falling on their heads a month or year from now,” the Bulletin
explains. “But we think they have reason to be deeply alarmed and to
be prepared for grave decisions.”

IT IS 7 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1947
As the Bulletin evolves from a newsletter into a magazine, the Clock
appears on the cover for the first time. It symbolizes the urgency of
the nuclear dangers that the magazine’s founders--and the broader
scientific community--are trying to convey to the public and political
leaders around the world.

http://www.thebulletin.org/media-center/announcements/20070115.html
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Doomsday Clock Hand to Move

16 January 2007 | 12:55 PM

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (BAS) will move the minute hand of
the "Doomsday Clock" on January 17, 2007, the first such change to the
Clock since February 2002. The major new step reflects growing concerns
about a "Second Nuclear Age" marked by grave threats, including:
nuclear ambitions in Iran and North Korea, unsecured nuclear materials
in Russia and elsewhere, the continuing "launch-ready" status of 2,000
of the 25,000 nuclear weapons held by the U.S. and Russia, escalating
terrorism, and new pressure from climate change for expanded civilian
nuclear power that could increase proliferation risks.

The BAS news event will take place simultaneously on January 17 at 9:30
ET at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in
Washington, D.C., and at 2:30 GMT in London at the Royal Society in
London.

News event speakers will include:
Stephen Hawking, professor of mathematics at the University of
Cambridge, and a fellow of The Royal Society
Kennette Benedict, executive director, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
Sir Martin Rees, president of The Royal Society, and professor of
cosmology and astrophysics and master of Trinity College at the
University of Cambridge
Lawrence M. Krauss, professor of physics and astronomy at Case Western
Reserve University
Ambassador Thomas Pickering, a BAS director and co-chair of the
International Crisis Group
A live, two-way satellite feed (with full Q&A) will connect the
Washington, D.C., and London news events

To Participate In Person: You can join us for the simultaneous,
two-site news event taking place on January 17, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. ET,
American Association for the Advancement of Science, Auditorium, 1200
New York Avenue NW, Washington, D.C.; and 2:30 p.m. GMT, The Royal
Society, Wellcome Trust Lecture Hall, 6-9 Carlton House Terrace,
London. Please RSVP in advance by contacting Patrick Mitchell, (703)
276-3266, or pmitchell@hastingsgroup.com.

Can't Participate In Person?: In the U.S., reporters can join this
live, phone-based global news conference at 9:30 a.m. ET on January 17,
2007 by dialing 1 (800) 860-2442 (Media in and around London should
dial 0800-028-0531. All other reporters outside of the U.S. and the
London area should dial 001-412-858-4600, which is not a toll-free
line.) Ask for the "Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Doomsday Clock" news
event. A streaming audio replay of the news event will be available on
the Web at http://www.thebulletin.org as of 6 p.m. ET/11:00 GMT on
January 17, 2007.

Contact: Patrick Mitchell, (703) 276-3266 or
pmitchell@hastingsgroup.com.

http://www.thebulletin.org/media-center/announcements/20070117.html
Clock Moves Forward Two Minutes

15 January 2007 | 10:27 PM

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) is moving the minute hand
of the Doomsday Clock on January 17, 2007, from 7 to 5 minutes to
midnight.

BAS announced the Clock change at an unprecedented joint news
conference at the American Association for the Advancement of Science
in Washington, DC, and the Royal Society in London. In a statement
supporting the decision to move the hand of the Doomsday Clock, the BAS
Board focused on two major sources of catastrophe: the perils of 27,000
nuclear weapons, 2000 of them ready to launch within minutes; and the
destruction of human habitats from climate change.

Fourteen leading scientists and security experts writing in the
January-February issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,
explore further the potential for catastrophic damage from human-made
technologies.

Created in 1947 by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the Doomsday
Clock has been adjusted only 17 times prior to today, most recently in
February 2002 after the events of 9/11. At that time, BAS underscored
the slow progress on global nuclear disarmament.

By moving the hand of the Clock closer to midnight­the figurative end
of civilization­the BAS Board is drawing attention to the increasing
dangers from the spread of nuclear weapons in a world of violent
conflict, and to the catastrophic harm from climate change that is
unfolding.

At the announcement from London, Stephen Hawking, BAS Sponsor,
professor of mathematics at the University of Cambridge, and a fellow
of the Royal Society, said: "As scientists, we understand the dangers
of nuclear weapons and their devastating effects, and we are learning
how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in
ways that may forever change life on Earth. As citizens of the world,
we have a duty to alert the public to the unnecessary risks that we
live with every day, and to the perils we foresee if governments and
societies do not take action now to render nuclear weapons obsolete and
to prevent further climate change."

said: "As we stand at the brink of a Second Nuclear Age and at the
onset of unprecedented climate change, our way of thinking about the
uses and control of technologies must change to prevent unspeakable
destruction and future human suffering."

Sir Martin Rees, president of The Royal Society, professor of cosmology
and astrophysics, master of Trinity College at the University of
Cambridge, and BAS Sponsor said: "Nuclear weapons still pose the most
catastrophic and immediate threat to humanity, but climate change and
emerging technologies in the life sciences also have the potential to
end civilization as we know it."

Lawrence M. Krauss, another BAS Sponsor and professor of physics and
astronomy at Case Western Reserve University, said: "In these dangerous
times, scientists have a responsibility to speak truth to power
especially if it might provoke actions to reduce threats from the
preventable technological dangers currently facing humanity. To do
anything else would be negligent."

Ambassador Thomas Pickering, a BAS director and co-chair of the
International Crisis Group, said: "Although our current situation is
dire, we have the means today to successfully address these global
problems. For example, through vigorous diplomacy and international
agencies like the International Atomic Energy Agency, we can negotiate
and implement agreements that could protect us all from the most
destructive technology on Earth­nuclear weapons."

The BAS statement outlines a number of steps that, if taken
immediately, could help to prevent disaster, including the following:

Reduce the launch readiness of U.S. and Russian nuclear forces and
completely removing nuclear weapons from the day-to-day operations of
their militaries
Reduce the number of nuclear weapons by dismantling, storing, and
destroying more than 20,000 warheads over the next 10 years, as well as
greatly increasing efforts to locate, store, and secure nuclear
materials in Russia and elsewhere
Stop production of nuclear weapons material, including highly enriched
uranium and plutonium--whether in military or civilian facilities
Engage in serious and candid discussion about the potential expansion
of nuclear power worldwide

Contact: Patrick Mitchell, (703) 276-3266 or
pmitchell@hastingsgroup.com.

Editor's Note: A streaming audio replay of the news event will be
available on this site ( http://www.thebulletin.org) as of 6 p.m. ET
and 11 p.m. in London/2300 GMT on January 17, 2007.