London24NEWS

Doomsday Clock scientists’ anti-nuke stance is ‘disastrous’ as weapons make ‘us a lot safer’

EXCLUSIVE: Revered war expert Anthony Glees slammed the Atomic Scientists’ anti-nuke stance as he said the bombs have kept us ‘much safer’ because of their massively destructive nature

Atomic bomb explosion
The Doomsday Clock has been set to 89 seconds to midnight(Image: Getty Images/Science Photo Library RM)

Humanity came one second closer to complete annihilation today, if the scientists behind the Doomsday Clock are to be believed. The ominous timepiece, first introduced in 1947 after the US dropped nukes on Japan, is used to assess the likelihood of human-induced planet-ending calamity.

In 2023, it stood at 90 seconds to midnight and remained unchanged in 2024. Scientists moved the hands of doom to 89 seconds to midnight on Tuesday due to Mad Vlad’s threat to use nuclear weapons in his war with Ukraine, military use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and climate change.

While world-renowned war expert Anthony Glees agreed that existential tensions are heating up – literally and figuratively – he disagreed with the Atomic Scientists’ argument that we are safer without nuclear weapons.

The Doomsday Clock is seen at 89 seconds to midnight
Anthony Glees said nukes keep us ‘much safer’(Image: AFP via Getty Images)

He told the Daily Star: “The argument of the atomic scientists since 1947 has been that we need ultimately to rid ourselves of nuclear weapons. In my opinion this would be disastrous and cannot be done.

“For one thing, the first country to give up its nuclear deterrent would be a sitting duck target for an aggressor and whether it’s Putin, Xi or Kim Jong-Un they would seize their advantage for sure.

“For another, the Third World War, which is indeed now more likely than at any time since 1945, has come closer because of Putin’s war of aggression against Ukraine – not because we have nukes.

Russian President Vladimir Putin
Putin’s nuclear threats were part of the reason for humanity moving closer to the end(Image: Getty Images)

“If Putin were to be able to claim a ‘win’ in Ukraine, and take territory off them, he’d soon move again, first against a neutralised Ukraine and then against the post-1997 Eastern European NATO members.”

The emeritus University of Buckingham professor said weapons of mass destruction are so apocalyptically destructive that they simply cannot be used.

“The truth has been that nuclear weapons have been so utterly terrible that political leaders have not used them, not even thought of it (indeed they’ve only been used twice in the history in the world),” he said.

“We know that some heads of government like President Eisenhower and Winston Churchill were terribly afraid of the weapons they possessed (Churchill, prone to depression at the best times, told his doctor he’d had an awful nightmare about a ‘little black box’ that could blow the world apart and woke up sweating).

US President Donald Trump speaks to reporters while in flight on Air Force One
Donald Trump has called for peace in Ukraine(Image: AFP via Getty Images)
Article continues below

“Far from destroying all life as we know it, our nukes have kept us much safer than we would be if our enemies had them but we were without them. We can retaliate and we would. End of story.

“Today, however, I believe it is right to say that the world has indeed moved closer to Armageddon. But it’s wrong to blame nukes, biological threats, so-called advances in AI or climate change for this.”

For the latest breaking news and stories from across the globe from the Daily Star, sign up for our newsletters.