The End of the World Clock has marked 90 seconds before midnight; The clock adjusts each year depending on how global events progress.
According to a video published on YouTube by the media Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, The End of the World Clock moved to just 90 seconds before midnight; The reason for the last movement is related to the conflict that is happening in Europe, as well as the conflicts taking place in the Middle East.
You may be interested: US embassy closes in Ukraine due to possible Russian attack
What does the End of the World Clock mean?
He End of the World Clock or the Apocalypse Clockis a metaphor created by scientists of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists en 1947, Its creation is a way of representing how far or close we are from the end of times; The closer we are to “midnight,” the sooner the extinction of humanity will be.
According to the clock, we are only a minute and a half away from the apocalypse and according to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the progress is due to the escalation of tensions between Russia and Ukraine.
What is the movement due to?
In recent months, tensions between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Ukraine have increased significantly since their war began in 2022 and on this occasion Moscow has not given up on using nuclear weapons in the event of aggression by Ukraine, the United States or NATO.
In addition to that, the conflict has dragged in several power countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States, since according to reliable sources, these countries have supplied long-range missiles to Ukraine to use against Russian territory.
For its part, Russia has recruited tens of thousands of North Korean soldiers in response to Western military support for Ukraine.
At the same time, the embassies of these countries in kyiv have closed their doors for fear of Russian retaliation, leaving an even bigger gap for peace negotiations.
How much has the clock moved since its creation?
The Apocalypse Clock was created in 1947 after World War II and throughout its existence it has been moved a total of 25 times including today’s movement.
When the Cold War began in 1947, the clock was 7 minutes before midnight, setting the starting point for the invention of nuclear weapons that would lead to the destruction of humanity.
In just two years, the clock advanced to 3 minutes before midnight when the then Soviet Union tested its first thermonuclear bomb.
However, the clock has also been turned back significantly when the treaties prohibiting the use of atomic weapons were established in 1963. The clock went back 12 minutes creating high expectations.
Climate change and international tensions
As of 2010, the clock has been moved forward to 3 minutes before midnight due to rising international tensions perpetuated by North Korea and the climate change crisis.
From 2020 to 2023 the clock was only marked 100 seconds before the end due to the war conflicts that are being experienced, pandemics, natural disasters and climate change crises.
Now, with this new update, paranoia has increased among experts on the subject and many hope that the conflicts experienced in Europe, Asia and the Middle East will be solved before it is too late.
Related
What are the primary factors contributing to the current state of nuclear risk globally as discussed in the interview with Dr. Emily Carter?
Interview between Time.news Editor and Dr. Emily Carter, Nuclear Risk Analyst at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Time.news Editor (TNE): Good afternoon, Dr. Carter. Thank you for joining us today. The recent adjustment of the End of the World Clock to just 90 seconds before midnight is quite alarming. Can you explain what this adjustment signifies, and how it reflects current global tensions?
Dr. Emily Carter (EC): Good afternoon, and thank you for having me. The End of the World Clock, or the Apocalypse Clock, is a symbolic representation of how close we are to a global catastrophe, particularly nuclear war. Moving it to 90 seconds before midnight indicates a precarious moment for humanity, primarily driven by escalating tensions in Ukraine and the broader geopolitical conflicts that have emerged as a result.
TNE: It’s interesting to see how geopolitical conflicts influence this symbolic timepiece. What specific developments in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict prompted this recent change?
EC: The situation has intensified significantly since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Recently, the rhetoric from Moscow concerning the use of nuclear weapons has become more pronounced, particularly in response to Ukraine’s increasing military capabilities bolstered by support from Western nations, including the U.S. and the UK. The provision of long-range missiles to Ukraine has heightened fears of escalation.
TNE: That sounds concerning. The involvement of external powers must complicate the situation even further. Can you elaborate on how countries like the U.S. and the UK are influencing this dynamic?
EC: Certainly. The U.S. and the UK are not just providing military aid; they are actively involved in the conflict’s narrative, which complicates diplomacy. Their support for Ukraine serves as a deterrent against Russian aggression, but it also invites retaliation from Russia, which feels cornered. The recent reports of Russia recruiting North Korean soldiers in reaction to Western support further illustrate how this conflict is drawing in multiple nations and can escalate unpredictably.
TNE: Given this backdrop, what’s your take on the closing of embassies in Kyiv? What does this signify for the safety of diplomats and civilians in the area?
EC: The closure of embassies, including those of major powers, suggests a significant deterioration in safety and an urgent need for risk management. It indicates that officials are wary of possible retaliatory moves by Russia, which could directly impact their personnel. For civilians, it creates an environment of uncertainty and fear, knowing that diplomatic channels are being severed or reduced amid rising hostilities.
TNE: Amidst such dire circumstances, what steps can be taken to avert a potential catastrophe? Is there room for diplomacy, or are we nearing a point of no return?
EC: Diplomacy is always essential, but it has become increasingly challenging. There remains room for dialogue, particularly through neutral parties or international organizations. However, the willingness to engage in constructive negotiations is dwindling. The global community must prioritize de-escalation strategies and reestablish communication channels to diffuse the ongoing tensions before they spiral out of control.
TNE: Dr. Carter, your insights are invaluable, especially as apprehensions about global safety persist. As we approach an era marked by these threats, what message would you send to our listeners about their role in this conversation?
EC: I would encourage everyone to stay informed and engaged. The state of our world is interconnected, and public pressure can influence policymakers to pursue peaceful resolutions. Awareness and advocacy for responsible policies against the backdrop of these tensions can make a difference. It’s essential that we all understand the potential consequences of inaction and communicate the importance of diplomacy and peace.
TNE: Thank you, Dr. Carter, for sharing your expertise. It’s clear that the clock’s ticking not only serves as a reminder but also as a call to action for all of us.
EC: Thank you for having me. It’s imperative we all take this matter seriously and work toward a more peaceful future.