Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Doomsday Clock

The Doomsday Clock is a symbolic timepiece maintained by the to indicate the perceived risk of human-induced global catastrophe, where midnight represents apocalypse from threats such as nuclear war, , and disruptive technologies. Created in by artist Martyl Langsdorf for the cover of the Bulletin's magazine, it debuted at seven minutes to midnight amid rising concerns over the U.S.-Soviet following . The clock's setting is determined annually by the Bulletin's Science and Security Board, a group of experts assessing developments in nuclear risks, —factored in since 2007—and emerging dangers like and pandemics, though the process relies on interpretive judgment rather than quantifiable metrics. Over its history, the clock has been adjusted 26 times, retreating to a record 17 minutes from midnight in 1991 after Cold War-ending arms reductions, advancing to two minutes in 1953 due to tests, and reaching its closest position of 89 seconds to midnight in 2025 amid ongoing geopolitical tensions, nuclear modernization, and stalled international cooperation on existential threats.

Origins and Development

Creation by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was established in December 1945 by a group of Manhattan Project scientists at the University of Chicago, initially as the Atomic Scientists of Chicago, to educate the public on the destructive potential of nuclear weapons and advocate for their international control. The organization's first publication appeared on December 10, 1945, emphasizing the need to address the ethical and strategic implications of atomic energy amid emerging Cold War tensions. In June 1947, the Doomsday Clock debuted on the Bulletin's magazine cover, conceptualized and illustrated by artist Martyl Langsdorf, wife of physicist Alexander Langsdorf Jr. Langsdorf designed the clockface without hands initially, but it was set at seven minutes to midnight to evoke the imminent risk of nuclear apocalypse, with midnight symbolizing humanity's destruction. She selected the clock motif for its simplicity in conveying urgency, later recalling that "it seemed the right thing to do" given the era's existential threats. This symbolic device originated as a graphic element to highlight the Bulletin's core warning: unchecked armament by superpowers could precipitate global catastrophe, rooted in the scientists' direct experience with atomic bomb development and the 1945 and bombings. The Clock's creation aligned with the Bulletin's mission to foster informed debate on , drawing from empirical assessments of proliferation risks rather than speculative fears.

Initial Symbolism and Nuclear Focus

The Doomsday Clock was first introduced on the cover of the June 1947 issue of the , designed by artist Martyl Langsdorf to symbolize the pressing threat of nuclear annihilation. Langsdorf, whose husband Alexander Langsdorf Jr. was a involved in the , conceptualized the clock as a graphic representation of humanity's proximity to self-destruction through atomic weapons, selecting seven minutes to midnight as the initial position because it intuitively conveyed urgency without specifying an exact timeline. Midnight on the clock represented the irreversible catastrophe of global nuclear war, with the position of the hands indicating the perceived time remaining before such an event, based on assessments of nuclear arsenals, geopolitical tensions, and efforts. In 1947, the setting reflected the recent atomic bombings of and in 1945, the onset of the , and the ' temporary monopoly on nuclear weapons amid the Soviet Union's rapid pursuit of its own program, which achieved its first test in 1949. Initially, the Clock's adjustments and symbolism were exclusively tied to nuclear risks, including the of atomic bombs, the lack of international safeguards, and the potential for between superpowers, without consideration of other existential threats like or biological weapons that would later be incorporated. The Bulletin's founders, many of whom had contributed to the development of the atomic bomb, intended the to warn policymakers and the public of the unprecedented dangers posed by these weapons, emphasizing the need for responsible stewardship to avert . This nuclear-centric focus persisted through the early years, with the Clock serving as a stark, minimalist visual on the magazine's cover to underscore the scientists' advocacy for and transparency.

Methodology for Adjustments

Criteria and Decision-Making Process

The Doomsday Clock's time is adjusted periodically, typically annually since the , through a deliberative process led by the ' Science and Security Board (SASB), comprising experts in nuclear policy, climate science, , and . The board assesses global conditions and recommends changes to the clock's minute hand, which symbolizes proximity to midnight—representing human-induced catastrophe—after consulting the Bulletin's Board of Sponsors, a group including Nobel laureates and other eminent figures. This process originated with Bulletin co-founder Eugene Rabinowitch setting the initial time in 1947, but responsibility shifted to the formalized SASB in 2007 to incorporate broader threats beyond nuclear risks. Adjustments are determined by qualitative evaluations of existential threats rather than a rigid algorithmic formula, emphasizing the board's consensus on whether humanity's actions have increased or mitigated dangers. Key criteria encompass nuclear weapons proliferation and escalation risks, such as arms modernization or geopolitical conflicts heightening launch probabilities; disruptions, integrated since to reflect environmental tipping points; biological hazards including pandemics and engineered pathogens; and disruptive technologies like or cyber threats that could amplify other risks through unintended escalation or loss of human control. For instance, the 2025 setting to 89 seconds to midnight cited stalled nuclear arms control, accelerating climate impacts, and AI governance failures as compounding factors. The process prioritizes empirical indicators where available, such as verifiable arms deployments or emissions data, but ultimately hinges on interpretive judgments of causal linkages to global stability, acknowledging uncertainties in complex systems. Critics have noted the subjective nature of these decisions, as the absence of transparent quantitative thresholds allows for influence by prevailing expert narratives, though the Bulletin maintains the clock as a metaphorical rather than a predictive model. Annual announcements detail the rationale, drawing on peer-reviewed data and policy analyses to justify movements, with no adjustments occurring if threats remain stable.

Role of the Science and Security Board

The Science and Security Board (SASB) of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists comprises experts in fields such as nuclear policy, climate science, biosecurity, and disruptive technologies, providing objective assessments of global existential risks. Established to guide the Bulletin's work on man-made threats, the board advises the organization's governing board and leadership on emerging trends and connects the Bulletin to broader expert networks. The SASB's central responsibility is determining the annual position of the Doomsday Clock, a symbolic gauge of proximity to global catastrophe, in consultation with the Bulletin's Board of Sponsors, which includes Nobel laureates. This process, formalized since 1973 following the death of Bulletin co-founder Eugene Rabinowitch, involves deliberating on factors including nuclear arsenals, geopolitical tensions, , pandemics, and artificial intelligence risks. The board evaluates empirical indicators—such as arms control treaty compliance, emissions trajectories, and technological safeguards—to adjust the clock's hands closer to or farther from midnight, with decisions announced publicly each January. Beyond clock-setting, the SASB represents the Bulletin at events, disseminates analyses on threat mitigation, and influences through reports that emphasize verifiable over speculative scenarios. For instance, in setting the clock to 89 seconds to midnight on January 28, 2025—the closest ever—the board cited escalating nuclear rhetoric, stalled , and unmitigated biological vulnerabilities as key drivers. This role underscores the board's function as a convening for interdisciplinary threat assessment, though its judgments reflect the perspectives of its members rather than unanimous .

Historical Adjustments

1947–1962: Early Cold War Period

The Doomsday Clock debuted on the cover of the June 1947 issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, set at seven minutes to midnight to convey the acute danger posed by nuclear weapons shortly after the ' atomic bombings of and . Founded by alumni, the Bulletin used the clock—designed by artist Martyl Langsdorf—as a symbolic gauge of humanity's proximity to self-inflicted annihilation, initially calibrated based on the U.S. nuclear monopoly and emerging Soviet capabilities. This early setting reflected assessments of postwar geopolitical strains, including the Doctrine's policy against Soviet expansion and the 1946 Plan's failed push for international atomic control. The clock advanced to three minutes to midnight in 1949, prompted by the Soviet Union's detonation of its first fission device, , on August 29 in Semipalatinsk, which shattered the American atomic monopoly and ignited mutual suspicions of —later confirmed by revelations of Klaus Fuchs's betrayal. U.S. President Harry Truman's public disclosure of the test on September 23 heightened global anxiety, accelerating the as both superpowers prioritized stockpiling and for expanded arsenals. The adjustment underscored the Bulletin's view that unchecked proliferation eroded deterrence stability, with U.S. tests like in 1948 further normalizing megaton-scale yields. By 1953, the clock reached its closest position to midnight in this era at two minutes, driven by the ' thermonuclear test of on November 1, 1952—at 10.4 megatons, dwarfing Hiroshima's yield—and the Soviet Union's analogous Joe-4 device on August 12, 1953. These hydrogen bomb advancements, enabled by reactions, amplified the destructive potential from city-level to continental-scale devastation, prompting the Bulletin to warn of "civilization-ending explosions" amid accelerated delivery systems like the B-47 bomber and early ICBM research. The Korean War's 1953 armistice offered scant relief, as ideological divides deepened under Eisenhower's "New Look" doctrine emphasizing . The clock held at two minutes through the mid-1950s, mirroring escalating tests—over 100 atmospheric detonations by both sides by 1960—and crises like the 1956 Suez confrontation, where nuclear rhetoric surfaced. It retreated to seven minutes in 1960, citing superpowers' restraint in proxy conflicts and collaborative scientific endeavors, including the 1957-1958 and the inaugural Pugwash Conference on in 1957, which fostered dialogue among physicists like and Soviet counterparts. This shift highlighted perceived stabilizing effects of doctrines, though underlying arsenals grew: the U.S. reached 18,000 warheads by 1962, paralleled by Soviet buildup. The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis epitomized the period's volatility, with Soviet deployment of MRBMs in Cuba prompting a U.S. naval quarantine and 13 days of brinkmanship that risked tactical nuclear exchange; the clock remained at seven minutes, as adjustments occurred post-resolution via backchannel negotiations. Throughout 1947-1962, the Bulletin's settings exclusively emphasized nuclear risks, excluding non-military factors, and relied on open-source intelligence and expert consensus rather than classified data.

1963–1989: Height of Nuclear Arms Race

During this period, the Doomsday Clock reflected the intensifying nuclear standoff between the and the , marked by massive arsenals—peaking at over 70,000 warheads combined by the mid-1980s—and technological advancements like multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) that multiplied delivery capabilities. The adjusted the Clock multiple times in response to efforts amid escalating tensions, including proxy wars and doctrinal shifts toward first-use policies, though the overall trajectory underscored the era's precarious balance of deterrence and risk. In 1963, following the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, the Clock advanced to 12 minutes to midnight, the farthest setting since 1953, due to the U.S.-Soviet Partial Test Ban Treaty prohibiting atmospheric, underwater, and nuclear tests, which the Bulletin viewed as a step toward curbing and averting immediate catastrophe. This adjustment signaled cautious optimism after the crisis's , with both superpowers recognizing mutual assured destruction's logic, though underground testing continued unabated. The Clock retreated to 7 minutes in 1968 amid regional conflicts—such as the , Indo-Pakistani War, and —and , as and joined the nuclear club, heightening fears of horizontal spread beyond bipolar control. It advanced slightly to 10 minutes in 1969 with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), ratified by over 50 nations, committing nuclear states to eventual while aiding peaceful energy pursuits, though skeptics noted enforcement weaknesses. Further progress came in 1972, returning the Clock to 12 minutes via the (SALT I) accords and (ABM) Treaty, which froze (ICBM) launchers and limited defensive systems to preserve deterrence stability without favoring offense. However, by 1974, it moved to 9 minutes after India's "peaceful" nuclear explosion and the deployment of MIRV technology by both superpowers, enabling single missiles to strike multiple targets and complicating verification of future limits. Tensions escalated in the late 1970s and 1980s as détente eroded. The Clock shifted to 7 minutes in 1980, citing stalled talks and mutual addiction to nuclear buildup, with arsenals expanding despite SALT constraints. In 1981, it plunged to 4 minutes following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and U.S. President Ronald Reagan's rejection of parity in favor of superiority, including rhetoric on winning a nuclear exchange. By 1984, at 3 minutes—the closest until 1991—relations hit nadir with halted dialogues, U.S. pursuit of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI, or "Star Wars"), and Soviet walkouts from Geneva talks, risking an offensive-defensive spiral. A modest recovery occurred in 1988, advancing to 6 minutes after the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty eliminated an entire class of ground-launched missiles (300-3,400 km range), verified by on-site inspections, amid Gorbachev's and public protests influencing policy. The period closed in 1989 without adjustment, as the Berlin Wall's fall presaged Soviet reforms, though strategic arsenals remained vast and unaddressed by INF's scope.
YearSetting (Minutes to Midnight)Key Rationale
196312Partial Test Ban Treaty ends atmospheric tests.
19687Proliferation (, ); regional wars.
196910NPT signing.
197212SALT I and ABM Treaty.
19749India's test; MIRV deployment.
19807Stalled disarmament; arsenal expansion.
19814Afghanistan invasion; .
19843Frozen talks; SDI pursuit.
19886INF Treaty.

1990–2011: Post-Cold War Optimism and Expansion

In 1990, the Doomsday Clock was set to 10 minutes to midnight, reflecting progress in U.S.-Soviet arms control negotiations toward a follow-on Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and initial steps in addressing global challenges. The following year, on December 1991, the Bulletin moved the Clock to 17 minutes to midnight—its farthest setting ever—citing the dissolution of the Soviet Union, signing of the START I treaty reducing U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals by about 30%, and unilateral de-alerting of intercontinental ballistic missiles and bombers from hair-trigger status. These developments symbolized post-Cold War optimism, with superpower cooperation diminishing the immediate risk of nuclear war. By 1995, the Clock advanced to 14 minutes to midnight as expectations for a sustained waned amid perceptions of a resurgent threat, persistence of over 40,000 warheads globally, and vulnerabilities from unsecured materials in former Soviet states potentially accessible to terrorists. In 1998, following tests by in May and in response, the setting shifted to 9 minutes to midnight, underscoring failures in non-proliferation efforts and the continued readiness of over 7,000 U.S. and warheads for launch within 15 minutes. The September 11, 2001, attacks prompted further concern, leading to a 2002 adjustment to 7 minutes to midnight due to risks of nuclear materials reaching terrorists, U.S. pursuits of new designs, and withdrawal from the , which the Bulletin viewed as undermining . By 2007, North Korea's nuclear test, stalled U.S.- diplomacy, ongoing U.S.- launch readiness, and emerging climate change impacts—such as ecosystem disruptions and ice melt—pushed the Clock to 5 minutes to midnight, marking the first explicit inclusion of environmental factors alongside nuclear threats. In 2010, modest reversals in U.S.-Russia negotiations for a treaty, commitments to arsenal reductions, and the Copenhagen Accord's framework for limiting to 2 degrees moved the Clock back to 6 minutes to midnight. It remained at this position through 2011, balancing incremental risk mitigations against persistent proliferation challenges and broadening threat assessments. This era highlighted initial post-Cold War de-escalation followed by renewed apprehensions over non-state actors, regional programs, and the Clock's evolving scope to encompass risks.

2012–2025: Modern Escalations and Closest Settings

In January 2012, the advanced the Doomsday Clock from six minutes to five minutes to midnight, attributing the change to stalled global efforts on , escalating rhetoric from and concerns over Iran's program, and insufficient international action on despite agreements like the . The adjustment reflected perceived failures in multilateral diplomacy, including U.S. Senate rejection of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and modernization of arsenals by major powers. The clock remained at five minutes to midnight through 2014, with no further adjustments amid ongoing risks and modest diplomatic gains, such as the treaty's implementation between the U.S. and . In January 2015, it was moved to three minutes to midnight—the closest since —explicitly incorporating as a core threat alongside nuclear risks and emerging technologies like , which the Bulletin warned could enable engineered pandemics. This shift marked an expansion of the clock's criteria beyond nuclear issues, citing empirical data on rising global temperatures and biosecurity vulnerabilities. Subsequent years saw incremental escalations: the clock stayed at three minutes in 2016 amid North Korean missile tests and U.S.- tensions, then advanced to two and a half minutes in 2017 due to renewed modernization, North Korea's claim, and perceived erosion of norms. By January 2018, it reached two minutes to midnight—the closest in the post-Cold War era—driven by cyber-enabled vulnerabilities, inaction, and breakdowns in U.S.- dialogues. It held at two minutes through 2019, with added emphasis on hypersonic weapons and disinformation campaigns undermining public support for . In January 2020, the clock shifted to 100 seconds to midnight, reflecting accelerated nuclear arsenal expansions (e.g., Russia's deployment of the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle), worsening climate indicators like record CO2 emissions, and disruptive technologies including AI's potential for autonomous weapons. This setting persisted through 2022, as the Bulletin highlighted India's and Pakistan's nuclear buildups, Iran's uranium enrichment to near-weapons-grade levels (over 60% purity by 2022), and global failure to limit warming to 1.5°C under the Paris Agreement.
YearSettingKey Cited Factors
20125 minutes (NK, ); inaction
20153 minutes integration; risks
20172.5 minutesNK tests; erosion
2018–20192 minutesCyber threats; hypersonics
2020–2022100 seconds/disruptive tech; modernization
202390 secondsRussia- war; saber-rattling
202490 seconds (unchanged)Ongoing Ukraine conflict; extremes (e.g., 2023's record heat)
202589 secondsEscalating risks; persistent / threats; tensions
The period's trend culminated in the closest settings ever: 90 seconds to midnight in 2023, primarily due to Russia's February 2022 invasion of and threats to use tactical weapons, alongside heightened U.S.- frictions over . It remained there in 2024, with the Bulletin pointing to a "new " evidenced by U.S. plans for 1,000+ new warheads and Russia's suspension of inspections. In January , the clock advanced to 89 seconds—the nearest to in its —citing unmitigated factors like AI's dual-use potential for bioweapons, failure to curb greenhouse gases (global emissions rose 1.1% in 2023), and ongoing conflicts including and . These adjustments underscore the Bulletin's view of interconnected risks, though empirical trends like declining stockpiles (from 70,000 warheads in 1986 to ~12,100 in 2024) were outweighed by perceived escalatory dynamics in their assessments.

Assessed Threats

Nuclear Weapons and Geopolitical Risks

The identifies nuclear weapons as a core existential threat in its Doomsday Clock assessments, emphasizing the combination of enduring large-scale arsenals, technological advancements in delivery systems, and deteriorating frameworks amid rising geopolitical frictions. As of January 2025, nine nuclear-armed states maintain a global inventory of approximately 12,241 warheads, with about 9,614 in military stockpiles available for potential use, predominantly held by (around 5,580 stockpiled warheads) and the (3,700 stockpiled warheads). These figures represent a decline from peaks exceeding 70,000 warheads but are offset by ongoing modernization programs across all possessor states, including hypersonic missiles, multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles, and expansions, which the Bulletin views as fueling a new . Geopolitical escalations have amplified perceived nuclear dangers, particularly in regions involving nuclear-armed actors. Russia's invasion of , entering its third year in 2024, prompted to suspend participation in the treaty—limiting deployed strategic warheads to 1,550 per side—deploy tactical nuclear weapons to , lower its nuclear use threshold via doctrinal revisions, and launch an at Ukrainian targets in 2024, actions the Bulletin cites as eroding deterrence stability and raising inadvertent escalation risks. Similarly, , estimated to possess 50 warheads with ambitions for exponential growth, conducted multiple tests in 2025, including hypersonic systems and ICBM variants capable of multiple warheads, while advancing enrichment and reactor operations to bolster its arsenal toward 100-150 weapons. China's rapid buildup, reaching approximately 600 warheads by early 2025 through new fields, road-mobile ICBMs, and a September 2024 intercontinental ballistic missile test spanning 11,700 kilometers, signals a shift toward with major powers, though Beijing's no-first-use proposal at the 2024 NPT Review Conference received no reciprocal commitments. Proliferation concerns persist, with accumulating sufficient for potential weaponization in 1-2 weeks as of July 2024, per U.S. assessments, amid strikes and regional conflicts that risk broader entanglement. The Bulletin's Science and Security Board, in justifying the 2025 clock adjustment to 89 seconds to midnight—the closest ever—attributes these dynamics to a collapse in high-level dialogues and adherence, warning of heightened probabilities for deliberate, accidental, or miscalculated employment in ongoing conflicts. Despite verifiable reductions in total warheads since 1990, the interplay of arsenal enhancements and flashpoints like has, in the Bulletin's view, outweighed progress, though critics note that actual deployment readiness and doctrinal constraints mitigate immediate catastrophe odds.

Climate Change and Environmental Factors

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists first incorporated into Doomsday Clock deliberations in 2007, recognizing it as a potential driver of global catastrophe through disruptions like ecosystem damage, flooding, storms, , and polar melt, which threaten human life and stability. This marked the clock's expansion beyond nuclear risks to include environmental threats, advancing the hand from seven to five minutes to midnight due to insufficient international action on both climate and nuclear proliferation. In subsequent adjustments, climate factors repeatedly contributed to moving the clock closer to midnight. The 2012 setting at five minutes cited inadequate political responses to climate disruptions, warning that technological fixes alone could not avert hardships from warming. The 2015 adjustment to three minutes highlighted unchecked alongside nuclear modernization, deeming current mitigation efforts insufficient to prevent catastrophic warming. By 2017 and 2018, the board described as an unchecked existential threat, advancing the clock to 2.5 and then two minutes to midnight, emphasizing the need for urgent global action amid rising emissions and policy failures. More recent statements continue to weigh risks heavily, though often alongside and technological threats. The shift to 100 seconds to integrated dangers with failures in leadership to curb emissions or adapt to impacts like . In the 2025 assessment, setting the clock at 89 seconds to , the board noted as the warmest year on record with record ocean heat, sea levels, and low , while January–September 2024 saw global temperatures 1.54°C above pre-industrial levels, temporarily exceeding the Agreement's 1.5°C threshold. Despite additions of 473 gigawatts of renewable capacity in (86% of new power), the board argued that persistent investments, inadequate (requiring a fivefold increase for 1.5°C pathways), and disproportionate impacts on low-emission developing nations signal escalating risks without systemic policy shifts. The board's evaluations draw from mainstream climate science , which posits as the primary driver of observed warming and future projections, but critics note that such assessments often prioritize high-end scenarios over empirical trends like declining weather-related death rates due to or overestimations in past climate models. Environmental factors beyond direct warming, such as , receive less emphasis in clock statements compared to emissions trajectories and extreme events, reflecting the board's focus on rapid, human-induced changes amenable to policy intervention.

Disruptive Technologies and Biosecurity

The has increasingly incorporated risks from disruptive technologies, particularly (AI) and , into Doomsday Clock deliberations since the early 2010s, categorizing them alongside and threats as existential hazards lacking adequate governance. These technologies are assessed for their potential to amplify other dangers, such as enabling autonomous weapons, campaigns, or engineered pathogens that could precipitate global instability or mass casualties. In the 2024 statement, AI's role in exacerbating risks through deepfakes and decision-making automation was highlighted, noting that unchecked deployment could erode human oversight in critical systems. Biosecurity concerns center on biotechnology's dual-use nature, where advances like and lower barriers to creating virulent , potentially via state programs or non-state actors. The 2023 Clock statement emphasized vulnerabilities exposed by the , including inadequate global surveillance and the risks of high-containment lab accidents or deliberate releases, with over 1,000 biosafety incidents reported in U.S. labs alone between 2003 and 2017. , which enhances transmissibility or lethality for study, remains contentious due to its potential for misuse; proponents argue it aids development, but critics cite incidents like the 2014 CDC exposure affecting 75 personnel as evidence of systemic oversight failures. AI intersects with biosecurity through accelerated design of biological weapons, as generative models could optimize engineering or simulations without physical labs. The 2025 statement warned that AI progress has heightened the feasibility for terrorists or adversarial states to develop novel agents, citing models like those from and that already assist in predictions, a step toward creation. Despite calls for international norms, such as the 2023 BWC working group on , enforcement remains weak, with no binding verification mechanisms; Russia's 2024 withdrawal from related dialogues further erodes restraints. These factors contributed to the Clock's advancement to 89 seconds to midnight in 2025, reflecting perceived governance lags amid exponential tech scaling. Empirical data underscores the stakes: AI training compute has grown 4-5 orders of magnitude since 2010, per Epoch AI estimates, while biotech patents surged 300% from 2000 to 2020, per WIPO records, outpacing regulatory frameworks. The Bulletin's Science and Security Board, drawing on expert inputs, weighs these against mitigation efforts like the U.S. Safety of October 2023, which mandates risk assessments but lacks global teeth. lapses, including China's underreporting of early COVID cases in 2019, highlight causal chains from lab containment failures to worldwide disruption, with economic costs exceeding $16 trillion by IMF 2022 estimates.

Criticisms and Controversies

Methodological Flaws and Lack of Transparency

The Doomsday Clock's adjustment process relies on subjective assessments by the ' Science and Security Board, a group of approximately 15 experts, without employing quantifiable metrics or probabilistic risk models to evaluate global threats. This approach contrasts with actuarial or scientific forecasting methods that incorporate empirical data and statistical validation, leading critics to describe the mechanism as inherently arbitrary since its inception in 1947. For instance, decisions to advance or retreat the minute hand—such as the 2020 move to 100 seconds to midnight—stem from consensus deliberations informed by briefings but lack disclosed weighting for factors like , climate disruption, or , rendering reproducibility impossible. Transparency deficits further undermine the Clock's credibility, as the Bulletin does not publish detailed criteria, internal deliberations, or peer-reviewed protocols for settings, despite annual statements outlining broad rationales. The board's , drawn predominantly from and backgrounds with institutional ties to causes, introduces potential ideological skew without mechanisms for external or diverse viewpoints, as evidenced by the absence of formal methodological documentation subjected to scrutiny. Critics, including security analysts, argue this opacity facilitates politicized adjustments, such as the Clock's advancement under U.S. administrations perceived as hawkish on defense, while ignoring countervailing trends like verifications or technological safeguards. Empirical evaluations of past predictions highlight methodological inconsistencies; for example, the Clock has signaled imminent catastrophe repeatedly—reaching two minutes to midnight in and —yet global arsenals declined from over 70,000 warheads in 1986 to approximately 12,100 by 2023, with no corresponding retreat in alarmism despite verifiable de-escalations like the INF Treaty in 1987. This pattern suggests a toward threat amplification over balanced , as the process eschews falsifiable benchmarks in favor of narrative-driven . Proponents counter that the Clock serves as a communicative rather than a precise instrument, but detractors maintain that without transparent, data-driven , it functions more as advocacy than analysis.

Accusations of Alarmism and Political Influence

Critics have accused the Doomsday Clock of alarmism for consistently portraying existential threats as worsening despite of risk mitigation, such as the global arsenal's reduction from approximately 70,000 warheads at the peak to around 12,500 in military stockpiles today. For example, the Clock was set to 100 seconds to midnight in —the closest since its inception—overlooking the absence of major accidents since in 1986 and North Korea's moratorium on tests for over two years prior, trends that were not similarly weighed in earlier settings like 2016 when tests occurred without adjustment. This selective emphasis, detractors argue, fosters fearmongering and public desensitization rather than balanced awareness, as repeated dire warnings blur distinctions between genuine risks and exaggeration, ultimately undermining the metric's credibility. Accusations of political influence center on the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' perceived left-center bias, with the Clock allegedly functioning more as a gauge of ideological discontent than objective peril. Analysis shows the hands averaging 6.4 minutes to midnight under presidents versus 8.3 minutes under Democrats, exemplified by advancements during the administration citing U.S. from the deal and accord as escalatory, while downplaying diplomatic overtures like summits with and overlooking adversaries' violations, such as Russia's development of new systems. The 2019 statement's condemnation of "nationalist leaders" and "" has been interpreted as a partisan screed against , reflecting a pattern where U.S. policy shifts under conservative leadership are disproportionately faulted, potentially advancing agendas that prioritize over unilateral security measures. The opaque process exacerbates these concerns, allowing subjective interpretations to align with institutional leanings rather than transparent, data-driven assessments. Despite the Doomsday Clock's progression toward midnight in recent decades, global nuclear arsenals have substantially declined since the peak, reducing the raw destructive potential available for escalation. In the 1980s, the world possessed approximately 70,000 nuclear warheads, whereas current estimates place the total at around 12,100, reflecting an over 80% reduction driven by agreements and unilateral dismantlements. The and , holding over 90% of these, have verifiably reduced stockpiles from over 60,000 combined in 1986 to fewer than 9,000 operational warheads today, with no detonated in conflict since 1945. Long-term trends in armed further undermine narratives of inexorable escalation, as battle-related death rates have fallen dramatically over the past century when adjusted for . deaths from state-based conflicts peaked during mid-20th-century world wars and have since declined by over 95% from 1953 levels, with global fatalities in recent decades representing a small fraction—around 1 in 700 deaths in 2019—compared to historical norms. While absolute numbers rose in to approximately 170,700 due to localized conflicts, this remains below War-era peaks and reflects improved mechanisms, , and democratic expansions that correlate with lower interstate war incidence. Advancements in climate adaptation and disruptive technologies also demonstrate resilience against existential threats emphasized by the Clock. Innovations in AI-driven , blockchain for supply chain resilience, and have enhanced agricultural yields and , enabling regions to mitigate impacts like without the catastrophic disruptions forecasted in earlier models. In , post-20th-century improvements in , coverage, and rapid diagnostic tools have curbed mortality rates, with modern standards and networks averting the scale of historical plagues despite emerging pathogens. These empirical developments suggest that human ingenuity and institutional learning have outpaced risk accumulation, countering the Clock's implication of unidirectional peril.

Cultural and Policy Impact

Representation in Media and Public Discourse

The Doomsday Clock has garnered extensive media attention, particularly through annual announcements from the , which frequently generate headlines framing global risks in stark, urgent terms. For example, the January 2025 update was described in public radio coverage as signaling "unprecedented risk" and a path tantamount to "madness," reinforcing its role as a for humanity's flirtation with self-destruction. Such reporting often emphasizes symbolic proximity to "" without delving into the subjective methodologies behind adjustments, contributing to a of perpetual despite historical fluctuations away from . In , the Clock serves as a recurring trope symbolizing impending , most notably in and ' Watchmen (1986–1987) and its 2009 , where it advances chapter by chapter toward midnight amid . This fictional integration has permeated broader discourse, with real-world settings post-2016—such as 2.5 minutes to midnight—prompting comparisons to Watchmen's dystopian timeline, amplifying perceptions of inevitability in films, comics, and television. References extend to non-apocalyptic contexts, including celebrity mentions and , where the metaphor is invoked for dramatic effect, sometimes diluting its original focus. Public discourse treats the Clock as both a rallying symbol for existential threats—like nuclear proliferation and climate disruption—and a target for skepticism regarding its alarmist tendencies. Proponents in academic and activist circles view it as a macrosecuritization device that evokes emotional urgency alongside rational appeals, fostering global conversations on technology's dual-use perils since 1947. Critics, including commentators in independent outlets, contend that media amplification fosters fear-mongering, portraying the Clock as a "sensationalist gimmick" that prioritizes attention over empirical precision, potentially eroding trust by ignoring countervailing trends such as arms reductions. This polarization reflects broader debates, where mainstream coverage—often aligned with institutional narratives—tends to uncritically echo advancements toward midnight while underreporting retreats, as seen in less prominent acknowledgments of the Clock's 1991 move to 17 minutes post-Cold War.

Influence on International Policy and Debate

The Doomsday Clock has been invoked by international leaders to underscore existential risks and advocate for policy responses. On February 6, 2023, Secretary-General described the Clock—then set at 90 seconds to midnight—as "a global " during a UN address, linking its position to the , escalating threats, and climate inaction, thereby framing these issues as urgent imperatives for multilateral . Similarly, in UN discussions on global , delegates have referenced the Clock's settings to emphasize the need for norms on responsible state behavior in and domains, as noted in October 2023 debates. In contexts, the , which maintains the Clock, has used its annual statements to critique treaty erosions and call for renewed negotiations. For instance, the 2020 statement highlighted the U.S. withdrawal from the and erosion of other agreements, positioning the Clock's advancement as evidence of heightened risks and urging leaders to prioritize verifiable reductions in nuclear arsenals. The 2025 statement similarly warned of Russia's backtracking from commitments, influencing debates on stabilizing great-power relations amid ongoing conflicts. These pronouncements have informed advocacy by organizations like for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, which in 2023 endorsed the Clock's 90-second setting as a signal for bolstering verification regimes. While the Clock symbolizes vulnerability to catastrophe from nuclear weapons, , and disruptive technologies, its direct causal impact on policy outcomes remains debated, often serving more as a rhetorical tool in elite discourse than a driver of binding agreements. Events like University's 2023 symposium, featuring global policymakers, have leveraged Clock settings to dissect threats and propose countermeasures, yet critics note that advancements (e.g., post-Cold War improvements from 17 to 3 minutes to midnight between 1991 and 1995) correlated with rather than originating from the metaphor itself. The Clock's persistence in policy rhetoric, however, sustains pressure for transparency in threat assessments, as evidenced by its role in highlighting gaps in treaties like the lacking verification provisions.

References

  1. [1]
    Doomsday Clock - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
    The Doomsday Clock is a design that warns the public about how close we are to destroying our world with dangerous technologies of our own making.Read the 2025 statement90 seconds to midnightTimelineIt is 90 seconds to midnightFAQ
  2. [2]
    Doomsday Clock Timeline - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
    A visual history of the Clock's shifts and cultural impact since 1947. The Clock was first set to seven minutes to midnight.
  3. [3]
    FAQ - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
    The Bulletin has reset the minute hand on the Doomsday Clock 26 times since its debut in 1947, most recently in 2025 when we moved it from 90 seconds to ...
  4. [4]
    PRESS RELEASE: Doomsday Clock set at 89 seconds to midnight ...
    Jan 28, 2025 · The Doomsday Clock was set at 89 seconds to midnight, the closest the Clock has ever been to midnight in its 78-year history.
  5. [5]
    How the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists got its start
    They founded the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in December 1945 to inform people about the “horrible effects of nuclear weapons and the consequences of ...
  6. [6]
    The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists begins publishing in 1945
    A brief history: September 26, 1945: A group of Manhattan Project scientists from the University of Chicago forms the “Atomic Scientists of Chicago.”.
  7. [7]
    Guide to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Records 1945-1984
    The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists initiated publication December 10, 1945, with the purpose as defined in their constitution: 1. to explore, clarify, and ...
  8. [8]
    Martyl Langsdorf, designer of the Doomsday Clock
    Artist and designer Martyl Langsdorf, wife of Manhattan Project physicist Alexander Langsdorf, Jr., was hired to design a new cover for the Bulletin.
  9. [9]
    Martyl Langsdorf - Nuclear Museum - Atomic Heritage Foundation
    The idea of using a clock for the cover was meant to signify urgency, with the hands counting down to midnight. The Doomsday Clock was drawn for the June 1947 ...
  10. [10]
    The Doomsday Clock, explained - UChicago News
    Jan 26, 2021 · When it was created in 1947, the placement of the Doomsday Clock was based on the threat posed by nuclear weapons, which Bulletin scientists ...
  11. [11]
    Who sets the Doomsday Clock? - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
    The Doomsday Clock is set once a year by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. For the first several decades, Manhattan Project scientist and Bulletin editor ...
  12. [12]
    2025 Doomsday Clock Statement - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
    Jan 28, 2025 · Timeline. The Doomsday Clock set at 89 seconds to midnight. Closer than ever: It is now 89 seconds to midnight. 2025 Doomsday Clock Statement.
  13. [13]
    2024 Doomsday Clock Statement - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
    Jan 23, 2024 · We once again set the Doomsday Clock at 90 seconds to midnight because humanity continues to face an unprecedented level of danger.Missing: criteria | Show results with:criteria
  14. [14]
    Science and Security Board - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
    Members of Bulletin leadership watch the 2023 Doomsday Clock announcement. Advising the governing board and the President and CEO on man-made existential ...
  15. [15]
    [PDF] Chief Executive Officer - DSG Global
    The SASB's responsibilities include: (1) setting the hands of the Doomsday Clock, (2) representing the Bulletin at public events, especially to broadcast, ...
  16. [16]
  17. [17]
  18. [18]
  19. [19]
  20. [20]
  21. [21]
    [PDF] The Hands Move Closer to Midnight - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
    Accordingly, we have decided to move the hands of the. Bulletin's Clock-symbol of the world's approach to a nuclear doomsday-forward from 9 to 7 minutes before.Missing: 1970s race
  22. [22]
    [PDF] The Hands Move Closer to Midnight - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
    For the past 12 months, the Bulletin Clock has stood at 7 minutes before midnight but events have not stood still. As the year 1980 drew to a close, ...Missing: 1970s | Show results with:1970s
  23. [23]
  24. [24]
  25. [25]
  26. [26]
  27. [27]
    [PDF] Nine minutes to midnight - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
    The movement of the minute hand follows the unfortu- nate May tests of nuclear devices by India and Pakistan. The consequences of a possible nuclear exchange ...
  28. [28]
  29. [29]
  30. [30]
  31. [31]
    Doomsday Clock moves to five minutes to midnight
    Jan 10, 2012 · It is five minutes to midnight. Two years ago, it appeared that world leaders might address the truly global threats that we face.Missing: adjustment | Show results with:adjustment
  32. [32]
    Press release: It is now 3 minutes to midnight
    Jan 22, 2015 · The Clock has become a universally recognized indicator of the world's vulnerability to catastrophe from nuclear weapons, climate change, and emerging ...
  33. [33]
    PRESS RELEASE: Doomsday Clock set at 90 seconds to midnight
    Jan 24, 2023 · The Doomsday Clock was set at 90 seconds to midnight, due largely but not exclusively to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the increased risk of nuclear ...
  34. [34]
    [PDF] A moment of historic danger: It is still 90 seconds to midnight
    Jan 23, 2024 · That is why we set the Doomsday Clock at two minutes to midnight in 2019 and at 100 seconds to midnight in 2022. Last year, we expressed our.
  35. [35]
    [PDF] 2025 Doomsday Clock Statement - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
    Jan 28, 2025 · IT IS STILL 90 SECONDS TO MIDNIGHT​​ The Doomsday Clock remains at 90 seconds to mid- night because humanity continues to face an unprec- edented ...
  36. [36]
    Nuclear risks grow as new arms race looms—new SIPRI Yearbook ...
    Jun 16, 2025 · Of the total global inventory of an estimated 12 241 warheads in January 2025, about 9614 were in military stockpiles for potential use (see ...
  37. [37]
    United States nuclear weapons, 2025 - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
    Jan 13, 2025 · As of January 2025, we estimate that the US Department of Defense maintained an estimated stockpile of approximately 3,700 nuclear warheads for ...
  38. [38]
    Nuclear Risk - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
    Jan 28, 2025 · The United States is now a full partner in a worldwide nuclear arms race. Read the 2025 Doomsday Clock statement ». Learn more about how each of ...Missing: geopolitical | Show results with:geopolitical
  39. [39]
  40. [40]
    Chinese nuclear weapons, 2025 - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
    Mar 12, 2025 · We estimate that China has produced a stockpile of approximately 600 nuclear warheads for delivery by land-based ballistic missiles, sea-based ballistic ...
  41. [41]
    89 Seconds to Midnight Signals Growing Nuclear Risk
    Jan 28, 2025 · A “countdown to zero” metaphor, the Clock is used as a plea from scientists and experts for policy changes that would reduce the risk of nuclear ...<|separator|>
  42. [42]
    "Doomsday Clock" Moves Two Minutes Closer To Midnight
    Jan 17, 2007 · On January 17, 2007, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock two minutes closer to midnight.
  43. [43]
    Nuclear Weapons, Climate Crisis Move 'Doomsday Clock' Forward 2 ...
    Jan 17, 2007 · The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) is moving the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock on January 17, 2007, from seven to five minutes ...
  44. [44]
    Climate Change - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
    Jan 28, 2025 · Global greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase, and it follows that globally averaged temperature will also continue to increase. The ...
  45. [45]
    2024 Doomsday Clock Statement: Disruptive Technologies
    Jan 23, 2024 · The Bulletin focuses on three main areas: nuclear risk, climate change, and disruptive technologies, including developments in biotechnology.
  46. [46]
    2023 Doomsday Clock Statement: Biological Threats
    Jan 24, 2023 · The Bulletin focuses on three main areas: nuclear risk, climate change, and disruptive technologies, including developments in biotechnology.
  47. [47]
    Disruptive Technologies - 2025 Doomsday Clock statement
    Jan 28, 2025 · The Bulletin focuses on three main areas: nuclear risk, climate change, and disruptive technologies, including developments in biotechnology.
  48. [48]
    The Doomsday Clock is still at 90 seconds to midnight. But what ...
    Jan 24, 2024 · Critics argue that the setting of the clock is based on subjective judgements, not a quantitative or transparent methodology. What's more, it is ...
  49. [49]
    The 'Doomsday Clock' Is Stupid, Actually | Lifehacker
    Jan 25, 2022 · The clock's measurement has always been arbitrary and its purpose political. What it actually “measures” has diffused so much over the last few ...
  50. [50]
    Let's call time on the Doomsday Clock - New Statesman
    Jan 25, 2023 · We found a few errors: We found a few errors: We found a few errors ... So where is the formal methodology? Has it been subjected to ...
  51. [51]
    The failings of the Doomsday Clock - The Oxford Student
    Jun 1, 2023 · The most obvious problem is that the Doomsday Clock's methodology completely lacks any semblance of transparency or clarity. The Bulletin of the ...<|separator|>
  52. [52]
    Rühle, Michael, The Trouble with Doomsday, No. 417, February 21 ...
    Feb 21, 2017 · The obsession with nuclear issues has led the keepers of the Clock to revert to rather dubious analytical approaches when deciding to move the ...Missing: flaws criticism
  53. [53]
    Doomsday Clock: Is a Tool for Catastrophe Alarmists? - Press Xpress
    Feb 2, 2024 · The clock is a flawed and outdated concept, that has been proven wrong by history, criticized by experts, and mocked by the public. The clock ...
  54. [54]
    Doomsday Clock Moves One Second Closer to Catastrophe
    Jan 28, 2025 · Critics have dismissed the clock as a stunt based on subjective assessments. Others have said that its repeated warnings of total ...Missing: arbitrary | Show results with:arbitrary
  55. [55]
    The Doomsday Clock is a gimmick, but you should still pay attention
    Jan 22, 2018 · Behind the pointed criticism lies the fact that the Trump ... An issue with AWS means big problems for the internet. 1 hour ago. By ...
  56. [56]
    The Doomsday Clock is the gimmick we need to think about nuclear ...
    Jan 25, 2018 · The process is informed but also somewhat arbitrary, which is why the Doomsday Clock can get a lot of flack. ... analysis,” he says. “For ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  57. [57]
    Status of World Nuclear Forces - Federation of American Scientists
    Mar 26, 2025 · In addition to the 4,380 warheads in the military stockpile, an estimated 1,200 retired warheads are thought to be awaiting dismantlement.
  58. [58]
    Why the Doomsday Clock Is Wrong | The Heritage Foundation
    Feb 3, 2020 · The Doomsday Clock reads 100 seconds to midnight, a decision made by The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, during an announcement at the National Press Club.
  59. [59]
    Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - Bias and Credibility
    Overall, we rate the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists as slightly Left-Center biased; we also rate them Pro-Science for well-sourced scientific information.
  60. [60]
    The Famed 'Doomsday Clock' Is More Like A Liberal Angst Meter
    Jan 25, 2019 · The new bulletin complains that "nationalist leaders and their surrogates lied shamelessly, insisting that their lies were truth, and the truth ...Missing: criticism | Show results with:criticism
  61. [61]
    Nuclear Weapons - Our World in Data
    The number of nuclear weapons has declined substantially since the end of the Cold War. After increasing for almost half a century after their creation in the ...
  62. [62]
    Countries with nuclear weapons - ICAN
    These states have roughly 12,331 nuclear warheads, with over 9,600 in active military stockpiles, according to the Federation of Atomic Scientists' 2025 Status ...
  63. [63]
    Nuclear Arsenals Dwindle - Human Progress
    But in contrast, the number of warheads declined to 9,305 in 2018—an 86 percent reduction.
  64. [64]
    War and Peace - Our World in Data
    Globally, close to 80,000 people died due to fighting in armed conflicts in 2019. · This means conflicts caused around 1 in 700 deaths. · This is shown in the ...Millions have died in conflicts... · Nuclear Weapons · Metrics
  65. [65]
    Battle Death Rate Is Declining - Human Progress
    Battle death rates have decreased considerably, peaking at 23 in 1953, then falling by 95% by 2016. The rate rose during the Vietnam War.
  66. [66]
    2. Trends in armed conflicts - SIPRI
    The estimated number of conflict-related fatalities worldwide rose from 153 100 in 2022 to 170 700 in 2023, to reach the highest level since 2019.<|separator|>
  67. [67]
    4 Emerging Technologies to Fight Climate Change | Earth.Org
    May 2, 2025 · Blockchain, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, robotics are key emerging technologies in the fight against climate change.
  68. [68]
    6 ways technology shapes climate adaptation for global value chains
    Jan 17, 2025 · Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing climate adaptation by transforming how farmers predict and prepare for climate risks. AI-driven ...
  69. [69]
    Improving biosecurity and pandemic preparedness
    Modern living conditions that decrease risk include: Vastly improved hygiene and sanitation. The potential for effective diagnosis, treatment, and vaccination.
  70. [70]
    The Doomsday Clock has never been closer to metaphorical ...
    and threats themselves — have evolved. The Bulletin has repositioned the clock hands 26 times since 1947. It first moved — ...
  71. [71]
    Real-Life Doomsday Clock Is Closer to Midnight Than in 'Watchmen'
    Jan 27, 2017 · This alternative history's Doomsday Clock, in which midnight represents disaster for mankind, is set at five minutes until midnight.
  72. [72]
    Doomsday Clock - TV Tropes
    The Doomsday Clock trope as used in popular culture. This handy metaphor is pulled out of the writer's bag of tricks whenever we need to be shown that time ...
  73. [73]
    When Referencing the Doomsday Clock Became “In” - Inkstick Media
    Jun 29, 2022 · We bring you nine times celebrities or pop culture have referenced (either appropriately or inappropriately) the Doomsday Clock.
  74. [74]
    A Timely Prophet? The Doomsday Clock as a Visualization of ...
    Jun 7, 2010 · While the Scientists' securitization arguments have pleaded to rationality, the symbol of the Clock has worked to evoke people's sensibilities.
  75. [75]
    UN Secretary-General: “the Doomsday Clock is a global alarm clock”
    Feb 6, 2023 · The Doomsday Clock is now 90 seconds to midnight, or total global catastrophe. This is the closest the clock has ever stood to humanity's darkest hour.
  76. [76]
    Doomsday Clock Stands at 90 Seconds to Midnight, Closer Than ...
    Oct 3, 2023 · The Netherlands' speaker said it is in the fundamental interest of the entire UN membership to develop clear norms for responsible behaviour.
  77. [77]
    2020 Doomsday Clock Statement - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
    In the nuclear realm, national leaders have ended or undermined several major arms control treaties and negotiations during the last year, creating an ...
  78. [78]
    Atomic scientists adjust 'Doomsday Clock' closer than ever to midnight
    Jan 30, 2025 · The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists set the clock to 89 seconds before midnight - the theoretical point of annihilation. That is one second ...
  79. [79]
    STATEMENT ON SETTING THE DOOMSDAY CLOCK TO 90 ...
    Jan 24, 2023 · Our friends at the Bulletin were right to set the clock at 90 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been to symbolic human-made Armageddon.Missing: impact | Show results with:impact
  80. [80]
    As Time Ticks on the 'Doomsday Clock,' Global Leaders Explain Why
    Jan 26, 2023 · Since 1947, the Doomsday Clock has been used to signal how close the world is to “midnight,” or global catastrophe. The clock was first set at ...
  81. [81]
    How to read the Doomsday Clock - BBC
    Jan 27, 2025 · ... Doomsday Clock, 100 seconds to midnight Thomas Gaulkin, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ... She created the Clock to draw attention both ...
  82. [82]
    Modern arms control verification for the Outer Space Treaty
    Sep 4, 2025 · The 1967 Outer Space Treaty banned nuclear weapons in space but contained no verification provisions.Missing: impact | Show results with:impact