Iran War Clock Set At Ten Minutes To Midnight 315
Hugh Pickens writes "The Atlantic has assembled a high-profile panel of experts, including a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iran, a Senior Vice President at the Council on Foreign Relations, a Deputy Head of the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, and a military correspondent at Haaretz, to periodically estimate the chances of conflict with Iran. The Iran War Clock is not designed to be pro-war or anti-war. Instead, the purpose is to estimate the chances of conflict in the hope of producing a more informed debate. Each panelist makes an individual estimate about the percentage chance of war and we report the average score and based on this number, the Iran War Clock is adjusted so that the hand moves closer to, or further away from, midnight. 'On the one hand, the panelists are highly knowledgeable. On the other hand, there are sufficient members of the panel that any individual error should not have an overly negative effect on the aggregate prediction.' If there is a zero percent chance of war, the clock hand is at 20 minutes to midnight. Each extra 5 percent chance of war moves the hand one minute closer to midnight. 'We're humble about the accuracy of this prediction, which is really a collective "gut-check" feeling. But it may be closer to the truth than the alternative forecasts available.' The panel's first estimate puts the odds of war in the next twelve months at 48 percent, consistent with predictions market Intrade.com, which estimates a 40 percent chance of a U.S./Israeli strike by December 2012."
Brilliant! (Score:5, Insightful)
Hearing the ticking of a clock and seeing a deadline approaching always has a calming effect!
I'm sure this will be taken every bit as seriously as the Doomsday Clock.
Re:Brilliant! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. This analogy is evil. Clocks always go forwards.
Plus, who decided that 20 to midnight is zero threat? This is guaranteed to make it sound like time is running out. Why not start at 0:00 (in which case we'd be at around 11am - much less scary)?
All in all ,this is designed to scare people, nothing less.
That is one hell of a complicated way of saying (Score:3, Interesting)
Eh... it could go either way (waggling hand).
The world isn't about right and wrong and anyway, what you consider right and wrong is considered rather silly by 6 billion people. It is about trying to ensure that tomorrow won't be a hell of a lot worse then today. And a Muslim run world would be a hell of a lot worse? Want to proof me wrong? Reverse the migration streams. As bad as some claim the west is, a lot of people would risk a dangerous crossing in tiny boats for a living as toilet cleaners rather then
Re: (Score:2)
And a Muslim run world would be a hell of a lot worse? Want to proof me wrong? Reverse the migration streams.
I don't disagree with the point you're trying to make there, but just take a look at how many people there are trying to get into Saudi Arabia and the UAE to find work. Migrants go where there is money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That is one hell of a complicated way of saying (Score:5, Informative)
Re:That is one hell of a complicated way of saying (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
They are, however, infected with the Arab-centric superstition called "Islam" which informs their every action and political worldview.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Say this is true. What does it prove? Would it surprise you that the army is thinking a few steps ahead when they know that a theocratic dictatorship in the region is quite possibly capable and interested in building nuclear weapons that could trigger a new nuclear arms race?
Framing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Framing? (Score:5, Interesting)
This was my first thought too!
If there is a zero percent chance of war, the clock hand is at 20 minutes to midnight
We're basically rigging the system to LOOK like war is inevitable no matter what we do. This sounds like a PR event to get people READY for war more than give a realistic assessment.
People will see "20-minutes to midnight" and think OMFG!@!@!@!@!11111@@@@@ (internet has changed how people thing)
If you're used to seeing we're only 20 minutes from war- when war comes it is just because it is a foregone conclusion. No reason to complain to the government... we've been this close all along!
Using the same scale we're currently at 20 minutes to midnight before Obama personally castrates all men in West Virginia using a switch blade knife... only 20 minutes from midnight folks... it's inevitable- don't fight it.
Re: (Score:2)
We're basically rigging the system to LOOK like war is inevitable no matter what we do.
That sounds accurate to me! All the politicians are falling over themselves to say they're going to kill the other guys. It's not the peasants asking for it. The nobles are the ones leading it. The military industrial complex, conservative pundits, and a few other rich individuals who for one reason or another want to see a big fight are the few leading the charge. Aside from locking them up, what can we do?
Re:Framing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't we have a left wing liberal as a president right now?
You're f-in kidding, right?
Re:Framing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't we have a left wing liberal as a president right now?
It hurts too much take this as a joke, so I'm just going to say no, we have a moderate conservative as president right now.
If you do not like who is running the country and making the policies, you can vote them out of office.
Not really. Every election comes down to two candidates who, on the middle east, differ only in terms of whether they want to start wars or not. AIPAC and other pro-war interests are too strong to allow anyone into the short list who will say things like "The Israeli government is the aggressor in this situation, not Iran." The powers that be will not give us that option.
Re: (Score:3)
Using the same scale we're currently at 20 minutes to midnight before Obama personally castrates all men in West Virginia using a switch blade knife... only 20 minutes from midnight folks... it's inevitable- don't fight it.
I bet it's rusty too.
We're basically rigging the system to LOOK like war is inevitable no matter what we do. This sounds like a PR event to get people READY for war more than give a realistic assessment.
Or more likely to panic people into opposing a war with Iran. My view is that Obama wouldn't go to war without a Pearl Harbor incident. And he's not going to troll for one unlike say Lyndon B. Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin incidents. So that leaves it up to other people such as the possible replacement for Obama. And that right there is probably the explanation. Get people thinking about a possible war with Iran now, then maybe they'll kick some money over to Obama's campaign warchest.
The decision to go to war has already been made (Score:3)
They are only negotiating the dates and times. Before or after the election.
And More Framing? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is possibly the most deliberately confusing way to try to explain our chances of war to anyone. Twenty minutes to midnight means a 0% chance? Why are we restricting a scale designed to have 720 minutes to just 20? This is just designed to scare people (for whatever reason) into thinking war is more probable than it really is. I have no problem with the panel, just the manner in which they displayed their results.
I thought the same thing. Why not simply say "48% chance of war by December 2012"? Another thing I found quite humorous was that this is titled "The Iran War Clock" which made me think 'damn those war mongering religious fundamentalists' but then when I get to the end of the summary I see they reference a "U.S./Israeli strike" which makes me think 'perhaps this should be called The U.S./Isreali War Clock'? I mean, is this clock about Iran nuking a neighbor or Israel? Or is this clock about the US and Israel tag-teaming on Iran? Or is it a split and, if so, what's that split on the 48%?
And yet another peculiar thing was that I searched around for the panel's positions and stances of each member in order to understand why this war clock is now at ten minutes and how this is any different than, say, the past twenty years of Iran. It's a coin flip that war will break out by the end of the year? Hasn't this always been sort of the sentiment with Iran? What makes this so different now, specifically?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It wont happen from us this year or probably Israel either. US elections may have something to do with what happens to Iran.
Schwarzkopf didn't say that. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ed Hocken, Police Squad:
"Doctors say that Nordberg has a 50/50 chance of living, though there's only a 10 percent chance of that. "
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, they should have ditched the stupid metaphor that implies we need to be preparing for war right now (if it was 10 minutes 'til midnight on New Year's Eve, you'd be breaking out the champagne glasses if they weren't out already).
Instead let's just use a simple qualitative scale with no physical metaphor at all.
Like right now we're at "HOLY FUCK WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!", which means there's only a small chance for war.
Re: (Score:2)
Like right now we're at "HOLY FUCK WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!", which means there's only a small chance for war.
Your post made me think of an old song, which I'll mangle here to bring it to the 21st century:
Well, come on all you big strong men,
Uncle Sam needs your help again.
Got himself in a terrible jam
Way out East out in Iran
Put down your books and pick up a gun
We're gonna have a whole lot of fun.
And it's 1, 2, 3, what are we fightin' for?
Don't ask me I don't give a damn
It's just like Vietnam.
And it's 5, 6, 7,
Follow the money (Score:2)
This is just designed to scare people (for whatever reason) into thinking war is more probable than it really is.
Oil companies would love for us to go to war with Iran, but the threat itself will do. Gasoline prices going through the roof lines their pockets, and they don't give a rat's as that it will destroy the already fragile recovery of a recession that was caused mostly by gasoline prices. $1.05 here when oil man Bush took office in 2000, $4.65 when the economy collapsed eight years later. That money
All we are saying..... (Score:4, Insightful)
is give peace a chance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If only it were that simple (Score:3, Interesting)
What about Iran's continuing threats to destroy Israel, not just the supposedly mistranslated rhetorical device "wipe from map" but also the very real and unmistakable threats to destroy the country? What about their continued stockpiling of advanced missiles in Lebanon, manned by Iranian technicians, with the sole purpose of bombing Israel from just over the border, in direct violation of the 2006 UN-mediated armistice? What about Iran's continued sponsorship of terroristic activities all over the world?
Re: (Score:2)
Insightful? Platitudes are insightful now? I got a million of 'em:
Good things come to those who wait
It was meant to be
Time heals all wounds
Nothing is impossible
Perception is reality
In all seriousness, the last decade of Iran policy has been giving peace a chance. Eventually, they will ride the peace train long enough to arrive at Nuclearville. I still don't think that means war (in fact historically it makes it less likely), but peace has definitely been given a chance. Of course, Iran could just pull out o
Re:All we are saying..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Eventually, they will ride the peace train long enough to arrive at Nuclearville.
In Islam, they have a word for this: Hudna. Basically, a call for peace, or temporary cease-fire, when you need to reload. The fact that the religion/culture of this area of the world is taught this concept, and has a word for it, should speak volumes. Bin Laden called for peace when he was being bombed in 2001. Hamas has called for peace when they were attacked by Israel. None of them seriously want peace; just time to reload.
So in other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
The chance of going to war with Iran is a 9.5 based on a scale from 9 to 10.
Re: (Score:3)
On a scale where 10 inches means 0 inches and 100 inches means 12 inches- I have a 12inch long um. banana.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can I get that in Libraries of Congress? (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF - a zero chance of war means 11:40pm. Shouldn't that be closer to 12:01 AM? I mean 10 minutes to midnight (when, I presume, we launch the pumpkins and somebody gets caught wearing rags instead of a ball gown) sounds a lot worse when compared to a 24 hours day than to a 20 minute window.
Threat Level for the day: Chartreuse
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, come see my Canada doomsday clock...
Its only 18 minutes to midnight.
By the time you watch an episode of simpsons... even if you skip the commercials... we could be at war.
But don't let that worry you, my Alien Invasion Conspiracy doomday clock which tracks the chances that an alien fleet is behind the moon right now and is coordinating with the CIA and FBI to prepare a combination harvest & extinction of the human race has been very accurately set at only 20 minutes to midnight.
What a retarded me
Doesn't seem to be any outrage here (Score:4, Insightful)
I assume none of you tech types are actually going to die in Oil War III?
Re:Doesn't seem to be any outrage here (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The outrage is that this "war clock" seems designed to promote the idea of starting a new war.
Re: (Score:2)
What is there to be outraged about? That I'll die in a pointless war? I'm pretty sure I've already prepared for that when I signed up the first time. Or do you think the present dying is really meaningful? I don't know if it
Senseless gimmick (Score:3)
Just state the percentage chance -- percentages are clear. Even if they are just probabilities and do not necessarily reflect what will happen in any way.
Considering Iran's leadership, anything could happen at any time. Using a retarded clock with a deliberately confusing scale isn't going to make that any clearer.
Re:Senseless gimmick (Score:4, Insightful)
Senseless gimmick is right. Jesus christ. You can't assign a percentage figure to the chance that a particular war will break out. It's infantile. You just can't quantify it. It's all guesswork. Most of it is breathtakingly uninformed guesswork.
Further analysis. (Score:5, Funny)
'We're humble about the accuracy of this prediction, which is really a collective "gut-check" feeling
Actually, we asked two guys if there would be a war. One said "yes", the other "no". So we were going to say there was a 50% chance, but then we changed it to 48% because that sounded more scientific.
Come on now (Score:2)
Claiming that we're 10 minutes to war, even a figurative 10 minutes, is like claiming that we're 20 years from nuclear fusion.
It's not something you can sensibly calculate, and any attempt is going to be based more on personal prejudices. They will also have an incentive to constantly keep the clock near doomsday for the same reason that the Homeland Security threat level never goes down to green.
How about no? (Score:4, Insightful)
How about we just stop playing world police? I don't want to send our youngsters out there to die in another shithole just because of overly paranoid people in government.
Leave Iran alone. If they actually *ATTACK* our allies, *THEN* I can understand going to war. But let's not fucking START one.
Re: (Score:3)
And the CIA has been supplying weapons and support to the Green movement trying to overthrow the government in Iran and Israel has been assassinating their scientists. See, it cuts both ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude. The Americans are out of Iraq from a fighting perspective, and getting damn close to skedaddling from Afghanistan. In the process the nation has gone flat broke and confidence in the government is at an all time low. Would you suggest we lash out at Iran in spite?
There are real issues at play here, and arguments for various options, but none of what you said touches on any of them.
Moonbats (Score:2)
Looking for attention
Chances for a conflict? (Score:2)
That makes it seem like it's entirely random, like the chances for an asteroid collision.
In fact, though, the decision to go war or not will be made by a handful of people or just one: Obama.
And since this is going to be a preventive war (preventing Iran from enriching nuclear fuel for its power and medical reactors), it's an at-will decision.
Missing the point of the clock metaphor? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do *not* follow Israel to Masada (Score:5, Interesting)
Every Israeli is require to serve in the military (or equivalent public service). And when those soldiers finish basic, they do it on top of Masada [wikipedia.org]. Pretty powerful message. Better to take on the Roman Empire and be completely wiped out than to compromise, even in the slightest.
If Israel wants to jump off the cliff and start a war, that's their business. If they would rather all die than to compromise with the Palestinians or Iranians in any way, that's their call. Build all the provocative settlements on Palestinian land you like, put up more walls to ghettoize them even more, kill all the Iranian nuclear scientists you like. Keep being pricks all you want.
But this American doesn't want to follow them off the cliff that they seem DETERMINED to jump off of. I don't want to see my President start World War III out of some foolish bullshit belief that Israel is looking out for ANYONE else but Israel, that we're BFF's. Find another way to get the Jewish vote, Mr. President.
Re:Do *not* follow Israel to Masada (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
israel is the drunk girl at the bar that starts fights, but expects you to fight them.
That's not really fair; the Israeli military has probably been in more combat over the 64 years since the foundation of the country than has any other army on the planet. It's more like your crazy friend who goes out to the bar with you and gets both of you into fights. Which may be a sign that it's time too say, "Dude, it's been great, but I just can't hang out with you any more."
Re: (Score:2)
"Dude, it's been great, but I just can't hang out with you any more."
Israel is like your alcoholic brother-in-law. You are going to back him up. Or you aren't welcome back home again (i.e. AIPAC will cut you to pieces come the next election).
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah, there is that.
Re:Do *not* follow Israel to Masada (Score:5, Informative)
Odd, I'm an Israeli vet and I've never been to Masada as a soldier. Have been to the wailing wall at my end of bootcamp ceremony though. ;-)
What makes you think we Israelis are so suicidal? we wouldn't have made such progress in mere decades if we didn't value life.
Yes, there is a certain sense of paranoia in us Jews. But you're not paranoid if they are really after you
We have to come up with a credible threat against Iran otherwise no sanctions at all would be placed against Iran's insane regime. Obama was falling all over himself trying to approach them when the forged elections and subsequent slaughter of demonstrators forced him to give up that pipe dream. Do you seriously want them to obtain nuclear weapons? Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt (if they don't all starve by then) have made it clear they will join the nuclear club if that happens. How is that in America's interest?
I think an actual strike on Iran will end badly. Ending that psycho regime via sanctions will be good for everyone.
Israel is not our BFF (Score:2)
that's reserved for our favorite nation,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_favoured_nation#United_States [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
--Better to take on the Roman Empire and be completely wiped out than to compromise, even in the slightest.--
Uh, I don't think this statement is totally true and besides it was around 2000 years ago. I also find the remark slightly racist and I'm not even Jewish I don't think. Israel in 1948 accepted the UN resolution on the matter and the Arabs refused. The UK was in charge of Palestine then. So it's all their fault.
Doomsday? (Score:2)
Does this mean the use of a nuclear weapon is more probable?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock [wikipedia.org]
'Distinguished'?? (Score:2)
Perfect timing (Score:3, Funny)
Just in time for daylight savings time, after which the clock will be 10 minutes until 1AM, crisis averted.
you cannot have war profiteering (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:you cannot have war profiteering (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure you can. You just need the threat of a war, which will let you justify designing and building all sorts of new weapons, hiring new advisers, conducting field exercises, etc. You need a war every decade or two so that the threats seem valid, but we've already had plenty, so there's no need for another. All the profiteers need right now is saber-rattling, and they've got that in spades.
They got it wrong... (Score:2)
It would have been funnier if it counted towards Dec. 21, 2012 rather than just midnight.
That's OK (Score:2)
Self destruct clocks are always stopped with 3 seconds to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why it's starting at 50%.
Re: (Score:2)
but can someone explain to me how "50% chance" == "10 minutes until war begins", and "0% chance" == "20 minutes until war begins"?
This looks like a concept created by someone who is in a very big hurry to see a war.
Re: (Score:3)
That's pretty much the point. No matter how you look at it, this way of depicting things says war is inevitable. Clocks are intended to move forward. Eventually we're going to get to midnight.
Re:Student of American History (Score:5, Insightful)
except the US has now been at war for almost 11 years and most people are tired of it and the 5000 or so dead soldiers. there is close to 0 public support for another war
and the US army isn't ready for it either
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meh. The Republican primaries are all about appealing to the core Republicans, since they're the ones you have to make happy to win the nomination.
Whoever comes out of the primaries is going to be in for a shock if they keep beating the drums of war in the run-up to the general election.
But I'm betting it'll be Romney and he's smarter than that.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it. Sadly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People generally care more about their friends and neighbors and spouses and children than they do about nameless, faceless people from the other side of the globe. Americans care more about their troops being killed, and I'd wager that the Iraqi people care a lot more about neighbors killed as "collateral damage" than they do about some American soldiers being killed by a suicide bomber at some check point in another city. There's nothing wrong with that -- it's human nature.
Re:Student of American History (Score:4, Insightful)
It might be your nature. It isn't mine. It isn't human nature. And there's everything wrong with it.
Re: (Score:3)
So you care as much about the old guy who just this second passed away (and another this second, and yet another this second) as you would (did?) about your own father passing?
Either your an emotionless psychopath, or you must spend every waking moment in mourning. The rest of us care more about people the closer we are to them. We love our immediate family more than our friends, our friends more than acquaintances, acquaintances more than friends of friends, friends of friends more than a random guy acro
Re: (Score:2)
I find it very amusing that you feel the need to attack me instead of simply accepting that not everyone is like you and that your inane generalisation is simply wrong. Clearly I'm the psychopath. In words I'm sure you'll understand "2/10 would chuckle again".
Re: (Score:2)
Right.
You already had me convinced when you had to capitalise "more" but you totally blew my mind when you said that it's totally true.
Totally foolish otherwise, bro. Totally didn't understand a single word before but I'm totally enlightened now. Totally thankful.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sadam was killing a hell of a lot of people, though, to keep control. And he was fond of torture - he'd torture people to death just for fun, and his followers seemed keen on it as well. So compared to the status quo ante, the ongoing civilian death count wasn't so much. Compared to the casualties in most wars, the civilian death count was nothing.
And, hey, it worked. Democracy in Iraq, Arab Spring, too early to say how it will all end but this democracy fad might just catch on.
Ides of March (Score:2)
except the US has now been at war for almost 11 years and most people are tired of it and the 5000 or so dead soldiers. there is close to 0 public support for another war
The Iraq war stared on March 20th and the Libyan War started on March 19th.
This can go one of four ways:
1) it happens now, in the hopes that it's over by the election
2) it happens shortly after Obama is re-elected
3) it never was going to happen - it's all a ruse to get the Republicans spitting crazy so that come election season, Obama can l
Re: (Score:3)
Israel will likely move sooner rather than later - they have no desire to get nuked, and no illusions about Iran's attitude towards them. I'm not sure we'll be a part of it. There's no real need for boots on the ground in Iran: the government is quite dependent on shoveling oil money to the citizens to keep control, that if someone bombed the oil platforms the government would collapse. And if that happens, it won't be $5/gallon gas at the pumps that Obama has to worry about in November.
Israel has plenty
Re:Ides of March (Score:5, Informative)
they have no desire to get nuked
Fortunately for them Iran doesn't have [nytimes.com] a nuclear weapons program, just a civilian nuclear energy program. Even Israeli intelligence [yahoo.com] feels attacking Iran is a bad idea. Though, it'd be real good for the military industrial complex and the financiers.
I'd like to think we'd go along as a show of support
Really, we should kill people in far off lands who don't threaten us because some war-mongers are creating propaganda about fake weapons of mass destruction? Didn't we just learn this lesson?
Re: (Score:2)
> except the US has now been at war for almost 11 years and most people
At first glance many people (here in US at least) are not aware we are at war. Take a look at most mainstream media and very little is mentioned about war activity in Afghanistan and Iraq. Although we have "pulled out" (actually replaced soldiers with contractors) some think we can then use those resources to start another war, which is probably the objective as it's election year.
Re: (Score:2)
there is close to 0 public support for another war
Not true. Americans are sick of *some* wars; 75% of Americans support withdrawal from Afghanistan by Obama's timetable or earlier. But... 70% of Americans believe Iran already has nuclear weapons, and 58% of Americans say they support U.S. military attacks on Iran. The Young Turks: Can we stop a war with Iran? [youtube.com]
5000 or so dead soldiers
6,300 U.S. soldiers killed, 46,000 U.S. soldiers wounded, estimated hundreds of thousands of civilian dead, and $3 trillion of public money given to "defense contractors".
And now Iran is being blam
Re: (Score:2)
I think your clocks are off a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of things are a bit "off" in Tehran.
Re:Too late (Score:5, Insightful)
Iran has been at war with us since the revolution.
More like America has been at war with Iran since 1953, when the CIA overthrew their popular democratically elected leader for oil profits. Learn some history. The 1979 revolution was payback after years of being under an American puppet leader.
Re: (Score:2)
Hush now - don't go confusing him with facts. All he needs to know is that Iranians = A-rabs = Bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Iran has been at war with us since the revolution. Its time Americans started recognizing that fact and speak/act accordingly.
I hope you're posting that from your barracks, tough guy. Since you're so eager for us to "act accordingly" and all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow your ignorance of the Iranian people and culture is mind boggling, that you actually believe what you wrote is terrifying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He abandoned it when Einstein discovered that time is relative.
Ha ha?
Watches are more important than ever in a Relativistic universe, since to accurately track time in your reference frame you need a clock in your reference frame. Okay technically it could be calculated using a reference clock and intimate knowledge of your frame's relationship to the frame the reference clock is in but owning a watch is easier!
Those femtoseconds add up, eventually!