But it sure can help their "political" friends to show the clock and argue that the end is near. If you say, this shit is stunt, you will be labeled anti-science because they moved the clock in lab coats.

> Does anyone think we're in a more dangerous moment now than we were then?

Yes. Then, we had world leaders whose philosophies and policies almost led to war, but who personally didn't really want to go there. Now we have a couple world leaders who don't seem to grasp the significance of their fights, and are just driving their decisions with their own egos.

“A statesman is a politician who’s been dead ten or fifteen years.” - Harry S. Truman

This "warmongering" was the rationale for advancing the clock dramatically under Reagan, but Reagan's policies led to the collapse of the soviet union, so two years after Reagan's term, the clock was moved to its safest ever levels (17 minutes to midnight).

https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/the-doomsday-c...

Publicly. I highly doubt either of the two leaders you are thinking about really believe nuclear war is an actual option. Mutual assured destruction is still a thing.

Regarding the saber rattling from current POTUS, stating our nuclear arsenal is the most powerful in the world is a non-statement. It changes nothing other than public perception of his political position. It doesn't reduce or increase the power he wields nor does it reduce or increase the power held by NK.

There's no mutually assured destruction between the US and NK. The US can destroy NK, but NK cannot annihilate the US, even if it can severely damage many of its urban centers.

>I highly doubt either of the two leaders you are thinking about really believe nuclear war is an actual option.

...ummm....

"North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the “Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.” Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!"

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 2, 2018

Maybe that was the conventional wisdom at the time. Later we found out that wasn’t as true as we would hope. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CtUfBc4qQMg The movie this clip is from and the companion book are much more detailed about the realities of the time and the though processes of those world leaders.

CIA says Kim Jong Un is still a rational actor.

He may well be, but consider three things. One, what is the chance that North Korea might undergo a political crisis, precipitated by either internal or external events during his lifetime? Secondly, is there anything he would not do or threaten to do in order to avert that? Finally, to our knowledge there have been several technical errors or accidents that came close to detonating or launching nuclear weapons, both in the US and in Russia. What are the chances that North Korea's technical and procedural controls are better than both, and does his behaviour increase or decrease the associated risks?

I'd say no one knows and that's kind of what really makes the clock ridiculous. It's a symbolic representation of one group of people's guess at an unknowable.

Not only that, the metaphor doesn't make sense. If we were at 2 minutes to midnight 1953, either we're dead now or the clock doesn't work like a clock. It should be the doomsday pressure gauge.

+1.

Weirdly, I don't remember The Doomsday Clock being advanced like this during the last decade, when North Korea was furiously and successfully building its store of warheads. That was evidently a time of perfect pacificity.

There is a saying in English, It takes two to tango. Perhaps the change reflects the arrival of the dance partner.

Also of concern is the new Russian coastal city killer drone submarines and their new generation of hypersonic reentry ICBMs. It is clear evidence that they do not wish to accept a world where the largest military power has anti missile technology capable of diminishing the effectiveness of the Russian offensive nuclear capability.

I wouldn't agree with moving it ahead as much as 30 seconds for North Korea. NK resulting in a doomsday scenario (which is different to mass casualties) requires a substantial chain of unfortunate events after the two idiots push their buttons.

A nuclear arsenal isn't the only deterrent between US and Russia. Both countries have decades of experience with nuclear defense. NK is relatively (or possibly absolutely) defenseless. While there would be enormous casualties (which is horrific and sad but is not doomsday), the fight would be extremely one-sided. Nobody else, including Putin, wants to get involved in a global nuclear catastrophe. At worst, US would be slapped with consequences six-ways-from-Sunday: think Germany after WW2. With a sane president, US wouldn't even have to use nukes to quash NK and, you never know, someone might actually calm the president if that time comes.

However, there is always a possibility - a nuke is sabotaged and lands in Russia, or something.

I do! The world did not erupt into nuke Armageddon in the 1960s because at the end of the day cooler heads prevailed and wound up doing nothing. Inaction saved the day.

In contrast, inaction is now precisely what will doom us.

Even worse, it made it to the front page of HN.

Maybe if they could say something like "until recently we over-estimated how close we were, but now we are approximately how close we previously thought we were" they could better emphasize problems by being able to correct recent hyperbole, and this could maybe help address the inconsistency you mention?