[seanicus]

The Doomsday Clock really strains credulity; I'd love to see a case for how we're closer to (as defined in this article) total nuclear annihilation or even a limited exchange than we were at any point in the cold war. The case is not convincingly made by any of the subjects in the article.

Nuclear proliferation is still something to be taken with deadly seriousness but the Bulletin of Atomic Sciences needs to cut the hyperbole and present their case more convincingly.

[kbelder]

Absolutely true. I could certainly see an argument that we're closer now than 10 or 20 years ago. But closer than 1980? 1970? It's ludicrous to think so. It makes itself a measure that is obviously untrustworthy.

[Spooky23]

By what standard? You basically had side A and B. Now you have a dozen countries that can kick off a nuclear exchange.

There’s alot more factors now. The order we have today is really fragile. Especially as Ukraine has bared that the Russians are tiger with rotten teeth.