Doomsday Nuclear Clock 2024 Gets Reset as Weapons Fears Rise

The 2024 nuclear doomsday clock has been reset, but there is still time for final revisions.

The clock was created in 1947 by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a nonprofit that was founded in 1945 by Albert Einstein and University of Chicago scientists who helped develop the first atomic bomb in the Manhattan Project. It began because of escalated fears of a potentially catastrophic nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union. It has been reset 25 times since its creation.

Viewed as a visual representation to warn the global populace about multiple factors that could negatively affect the planet, the clock was last changed on January 24 and moved forward to 90 seconds to midnight—the closest to global catastrophe it has ever been. The reasoning cited the Russia-Ukraine war that, as of this February, will have lasted for two years and has led to nuclear threats from Russia .

The clock was set to 17 minutes to midnight—the farthest it has ever been set—in 1991 following the culmination of the Cold War and the signing of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty by the U.S. and Soviet Union.

The clock is set by the Bulletin's Science and Security Board (SASB), a select group of globally recognized leaders who focus specifically on nuclear threats, climate change and disruptive technologies.

The SASB traditionally sets the doomsday clock in November. This includes finalizing a statement that comes with the annual unveiling—which will take place on January 23, 2024. However, the clock can still be revised between November and the unveiling if necessary, Rachel Bronson, president and CEO of the Bulletin, told Newsweek .

"In November, the board annually comes together and brings their best thinking to the challenges that confront us," Bronson said. "They ask if humanity is safer or at greater risk compared to when the clock was last set—whether it's safer or not than the last 75 years the question has been asked.

"Obviously, there's a lot of issues on the table. In many ways, it's apples and oranges, but it's really trying to get a blunt answer on if humanity is safer," she said.

Current global developments that are on the deciding board's collective mind, she said, include the continuing war in Ukraine, in addition to the violence in Gaza related to the Israel-Hamas war, the climate crisis , artificial intelligence, the proliferation of nuclear weapons and stockpiles, biothreats and developments in pathogen research, and "anything else on a global scale."

There has been a "seismic shift" in the understanding of AI in the past few years, Bronson added, and interactions worldwide are different and should be assessed accordingly.

"[In 1947], the only technology to end life on Earth was nuclear, so for about 60 years the only technology that could do that was nuclear technologies and risks," she said. "In the early 2000s, after about a decade and debate in conversations, climate change was added.

"You could no longer just ask the question about whether humanity is safer without answering questions about the climate," she said.

The Clock's Importance and Viability

In November, Moscow-trained physicist Pavel Podvig wrote a piece, published in the Bulletin's journal, arguing that the Doomsday Clock—which before this year had remained at 100 seconds to midnight since 2020— should be moved away from midnight instead of closer to it.

He reasoned that Russian nuclear rhetoric, which is considered by the clock setters, should be heeded and that the 2023 clock reflected that. However, he said that such threats have been met mostly with repudiation from the vast majority of the global community. The clock, he believes, should reflect that.

"It's difficult to say what the board will decide," Podvig told Newsweek last week. "The decision, of course, will be released when it's released.

"My opinion hasn't changed. I do believe the clock should be moved back, but I don't know if the board will find it convincing. I guess we will know fairly soon," he said.

He previously told Newsweek that the clock and its relevance do draw a considerable amount of skepticism while acknowledging that its existence leads to deeper questions about global threats and offers the general population a means of putting such issues into relative context.

"I must confess I do not hold the clock in high regard," Nikolai Sokov, a senior fellow at the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, told Newsweek . "It is pretty misleading in fact, in my view. It is very useful to estimate the level of threat, but the clock should graduate to half-minutes now, which would be very inconvenient."

From a nuclear weapons perspective, Sokov's risk assessment is defined by the probability of war in Ukraine escalating to a direct conflict between Russia and NATO . He called this year a "dangerous" one because, he said, Moscow seriously contemplated nuclear escalation in the spring in the midst of a Ukrainian counteroffensive and tactics by the West.

"Not that Moscow wants to use nukes, but [it] may not be averse to leveraging the threat," he said. "The threat subsided when it became clear the front line remained stable. Ye, the war continues. Walking the fine line next year will be at least as difficult as in 2023, perhaps more difficult."

Another major nuclear challenge is the degradation of risk-reduction regimes, Sokov said, referencing systems in place should dangerous incidents occur and their escalation needs to be halted or diminished.

It's different now compared with the late 1980s, he said, as existing agreements—like missile launch notifications agreed upon by the U.S. and Soviet Union decades ago—are not currently designed to address the most likely challenges, such as an incident on high seas.

"We desperately need new regimes designed to address high-probability contingencies. Global nuclear war, which was the main threat during the Cold War, is hardly high probability today, but the appetite for such negotiations is low and appetite for concessions—which are always part of negotiations—even lower."

Sokov sent on: "Worse, as long as the war continues, Russia may want to keep risk of escalation credible and will most likely avoid new measures while the war continues. The clock cannot address these contingencies, I am afraid. They are more about the general state of relations rather than intended nuclear use."

Bronson acknowledged that the clock receives a flurry of mixed responses, some of which chastise the SASB for making people fearful or nervous. But for the most part, she said, people are generally grateful for the work and the clock itself.

Conversations about the clock can be difficult to have, though she views its setting, and the reasoning behind it, as a way to provide "comfort," given what experts think and how people generally feel. It's a question of fortitude and addressing the hard questions that keep some up at night.

It is also "intended to be a wake-up call," she said.

"It stops the news cycle globally each year," Bronson said. "Last year's announcement was picked up in more than 10,000 outlets around the globe. One million people read the statement of why the time was set in a certain way."

"It's used by the secretary-general of the United Nations in references, it's used by school kids.... It's deeply ensconced in popular culture, used by diplomats and experts around the world. The reason it receives a strong response is it provides answers to some very difficult questions," she said.

The Doomsday Clock will be unveiled at 10 a.m. ET on January 23, with a virtual broadcast from the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., accompanied by a livestream on the Bulletin's website.