The Doomsday Clock, maintained by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, is a symbolic representation of how close humanity is to self-destruction due to unchecked advances in science and technology. The clock's minute hand moves closer to midnight as global threats, like nuclear conflict, escalate. Since its creation in 1947, it has reflected the state of U.S./Russian relations, from the early days of the Cold War to the Soviet Union’s dissolution in 1991. At the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, the clock stood at 7 minutes to midnight, a critical moment in history documented in the archives that detail the intense 13 days of diplomatic negotiations.
When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991 the Doomsday Clock was at 17 minutes to midnight, the longest period ever achieved. This reflected the lost opportunity for world peace at that point when Russia, with America’s “help,” was attempting to transition their centrally planned economy to a market oriented one. Russia was even being considered for NATO and EU membership. Sadly, the shock therapy of radical reforms gave rise to severe social and economic hardships, including the rise of the oligarchs.
For the past two years, the Doomsday Clock has remained at 90 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been to global catastrophe. This alarming position reflects the escalating risk of nuclear conflict, with major powers like Russia, China, and the U.S. investing heavily in nuclear arms and tensions rising, especially due to the war in Ukraine and the broadening war and genocide in the Middle East. Additionally, climate change reached unprecedented levels over the past two years, with record-breaking temperatures and environmental disasters, while emerging technologies like AI and biological advancements raise the stakes for global security. The Clock serves as a stark warning that urgent, collective action is needed to address these interconnected threats before it's too late.
The Doomsday Clock was last set in January of this year. Late last month Vladimir Putin hinted at changes to Russian nuclear doctrine to lower the threshold for using its nuclear arsenal. The neocons at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) called this “nuclear bullying.” Some still say he’s bluffing. Russia’s new nuclear doctrine allows for a nuclear response not only to nuclear or mass destruction weapons attacks but also to conventional aggression backed by a nuclear power, including strikes on Russian territory with Western-supplied missiles like the ATACMS. This shift escalates tensions, signaling that even conventional military actions could trigger Russia's nuclear arsenal, particularly if they threaten Russia's sovereignty or strategic infrastructure.
Four days ago, on the same day Putin signed the new doctrine and two days after a near invisible Biden gave permission for the strikes, Ukraine launched attacks inside Russia using American-made ATACMS (necessarily aided by NATO member technicians) followed by salvos of UK-made cruise missiles the next day.
Two days later Russia launched a new, previously unknown medium range ballistic missile that rained bunker busting conventional hyper-sonic warheads on a target in Dnipro, Ukraine. This was a previously unknown system, code-named Oreshnik. There is no operational defense against these warheads, nor is there one in development.
Following the strike, President Putin then stated, “…a regional conflict in Ukraine previously provoked by the West has acquired elements of a global character.” In other words, World War III. Putin went on to decry the abandonment of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty by Trump in 2019. The United States has formally withdrawn from both the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty of 1987, as well as the Open Skies Treaty of 2002.
I’m sorry and I don’t give a rip for whom you voted, but I have to ask this question. Does the dying cohort of Baby Boomers in the U.S. and elsewhere translate into some kind of generational collective death wish? Is the imperative to think merely in terms of a single human lifetime…the shortsightedness, the focus on quarterly earnings, the casual disregard for future generations… Is it so ingrained in human nature that an old man can feel comfortable considering the annihilation of civilization? I’m talking about the end of everything for most creatures on the planet.
Where is our President? Who is calling the shots? Blinken? Jake “the Middle east has never been quieter” Sullivan? Perhaps it’s “retired” arch-neocon, Victoria Nuland, calling the shots from a dark place in a Ukrainian bunker.
I did not vote for Trump, nor did I vote for Biden, and I have no need of justifying my actions to any of you, dear readers, though I do have enough intelligence, integrity and curiosity to read and listen to the words of the President Putin. If you think that makes me a “Putin Puppet,” then you can leave the discussion now and return to the comfortable cocoon of corporate-sponsored state media.
There has been a lot of anti-democratic talk about “Trump-proofing” NATO and the Ukrainian conflict. Let’s unpack that. We have a lame duck 82-year old President with just weeks left to govern willing to escalate a conflict to a point of nuclear Armageddon rather than suing for peace, which was the explicit platform of the electoral victor, Donald Trump. Don’t get me wrong. Trump and his minions say many things. I fully expect to be appalled many times over the next four years, but the voters have spoken. Though many pundits downplayed the importance of foreign policy to voters, there exists a broader gestalt in America today. There is a deep sense of needing to focus our blood and treasure on the home front, rather than enriching a handful of weapon makers stoking conflicts abroad. When the per capita aid to Ukraine exceeds the aid going to survivors of natural disasters in America, it contributes to the sense that those with less are being stepped on at home, while the national debt and inflation explodes. The pain and frustration of lower wage earners struggling to feed their family is mocked by a comfortable coterie of well-off corporate shills. No wonder many hurl Trump as a “human Molotov cocktail,” as Michael Moore recently said.
Make no mistake, we are on the knife edge, but you wouldn’t know that from the mainstream corporate media. In 1962 when Russian missiles were being installed in Cuba, families throughout America were huddled around their black and white televisions and radios in rapt collective apprehension. Today life goes no. Bread, circuses, political or spiritual ideology, and decreasing attention span; all contribute to the ease with which we can ignore dire signals.
The Doomsday clock is due for a reset at the beginning of the new year. Let’s hope we make it that long, and minds become more focused. Two days ago it was reported that Rear Adm. Thomas Buchanan of the U.S. Strategic Command recently said Washington remains prepared for a nuclear exchange under “acceptable terms,” though it does not seek such a scenario. It’s time we reviewed JFK’s June 1963 speech at the commencement of American University. The idea of a “limited” nuclear exchange is folly. Recovering Ukrainian territory occupied by a population more aligned with Russia than the EU is not worth the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans in the flash of nuclear fire.