Don't Believe All The Hype From Know Nothings, Dotard's "Space Force" Remains Total Bunkum

Recall in a June, 2018 post, I warned:

"What many will likely hear and see more and more of is how we "need" a Space Force to "protect our satellites" from being shot down, say by the Chinese or  Russkies. "


And sure enough, assorted moron voices have been chirping ever since about the need to implement this useless white elephant.   As Chris Hayes noted on 'All In' last night, referencing Trump's babble in the Rose Garden yesterday, it is all about just "dusting off something old and calling it something new"- referring to SpaceCom  or Space Command. (Which has been with us since the 1980s  in some form and had been based here in Colorado Springs with NORAD  at Cheyenne Mountain.)

"Space Force"  the concept is also not new but had been proposed years ago by our local congress critter Doug Lamborn who hatched it in order to try to grab more money from defense contractors .


For further  reference, the  GOP House previously approved the creation of a "Space Corps"inside the Air Force. Trump's alleged novel brain fart,  at a meeting of the National Space Council on June 18, 2018  (WSJ, 'Trump Calls For A Space Force', today, p. A3) was merely a regurgitation of Lamborn's original nonsense- though Lamborn also called it a "Space Corps".  At the time reported  (Denver Post, May 14 last year) Lamborn insisted "I don't care what we call it, or what it looks like as long as we make space the priority in the Department of Defense that it deserves to be".

Now in a new iteration (WSJ, 'End The Gag Rule  -  Start The Space Force', Aug 27, p. A12) we behold a Boston College professor named Daniel Lyons chiming in trying to get the powers -that- be to move on this idiocy,  He writes:

"The creation of a Space Force - a proposed new branch of the armed services - is one of the most significant defense discussions in a generation.  Everyone from the president to congressmen to late night comedians have chimed in on it."

Oh yes, and  Law school professors from Boston College too, evidently.

He goes on:

"Everyone that is except for the Air Force's foremost experts on Space Doctrine, the Space Horizons Task Force. On this fundamental question of space policy the group known as 'America's space think tank' has been silent for more than a year. - muzzled by a serviceable gag order.'

Muzzle?   Gag  order?   Ah yes, more paranoid conspiracy ideations this time emanating from a Boston College Law School prof, who has nothing better to do. So he confabulates bunkum that the Air University faculty are somehow being gagged (The AU is the "intellectual and development center of the Air Force,")

It didn't take long to get a response (WSJ Letters, August 28, 'There Is No Gag Rule At USAF Air University') putting this paranoid prof in his place .  The letter from Chief Academic Officer Mark Conversino noted how the prof "mischaracterized" the issue and that the faculty and students of the Space Horizons Research Task Force "continue to have full academic freedom to share their views" - or not.

Well, why not?  Short answer, as space weapons experts - unlike the testy prof - they know it's bunkum, so the less said the better. They prefer not to dignify this asinine crap with any kind of response.  The prof, meanwhile, knows next to nothing on space or space defense - only what he likely imbibes from Trump. I seriously doubt he's even read a chapter on basic celestial mechanics.

In truth, the Space Horizons Research Task Force already knows all it needs to, i.e. that what's being proposed is merely a resurrection of the old Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which was never proven workable or even remotely feasible.  It depended upon incorporating space-based interceptors as well as powerful lasers mounted on satellites to take down Soviet ICBMs.   The  most devastating exposure of the missile defense con appeared in the May, 1987 issue of Physics Today and was entitled "APS Directed Energy Weapons Study (Executive Summary)".   Versions of it  subsequently appeared in other journals, including the Reviews Of Modern Physics, e.g.

https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.59.S1

The study basically took apart the 'Star Wars' rubbish piece by piece  with no fewer than 26 major  deficiencies identified on everything from the weaknesses of the proposed lasers to shoot down the incoming missiles (too weak by several orders of magnitude) to the problem of identifying the targets "at sub-micro-radian resolution"  in the boost phase  to "lack of precision tracking via active sensor systems" and the ease with which any missile  interceptor design can easily be thwarted, say by use of dispersal of million of reflecting, metallic decoys. 

There is absolutely NO assurance, zero,  that anything different will be achieved with this Space Force codswallop. Indeed as reported in the original article from last year (WSJ. ibid.):  "The move by Trump was  despite strong objections by senior civilian and uniformed military leaders."   

Got that? Strong objections by senior military leaders.  Why? Because they know it's horse shit, unlike our overthinking, paranoid prof.

 In its new incarnation Space Force is being touted to "protect our satellites" from being shot down, say by the Chinese or  Russkies.    But let's get real here: satellites fly in predictable orbits , and so will always be fairly easy to target - if a bad actor wants to.  But launching a typical weather or defense satellite is expensive enough without adding hundreds of pounds more weight for defenses.  And there's no assurance those defenses, say built in excimer lasers, will work.  A more practical solution, as opposed to mounting "ray guns" on satellites, would be to employ greater redundancy in the satellites we do put up.   The military, to keep costs under control, could also deploy backup systems on unmanned aerial vehicles, and integrating them into a fraction of the satellite fleet.

In the end we have to thank Mark Conversino and the  Space Horizons Research Task Force for dismissing the misplaced, paranoid conspiracy baloney of a Law prof who ought to find better things to do with his time.  So there is no "silencing some of the most knowledgeable proponents" at all. Merely those  proponents remaining silent in the face of an imbecilic idea that has absolutely nothing going for it but hype- oh, and Dotard's ignorant backing.


See also:

The Space Force’s rocky start is bad news for America


And:

Trump's Space Force: To Boldly Go... Nowhere! | The Smirking Chimp

smirkingchimp.com › blogs › William Hartung's blog

A New "Space Force"? One Of The Dumbest Ideas Since Reagan's "Star Wars" - But NOT Dotard's

So now our Space Boy, traitor tyrant - who loves to rip kids from parents - is all frothy at the mouth over a "Space Force"...  Before anyone loses his or her equilibrium let's reference this isn't Captain Bonespur's  original idea - but hatched some years ago by my feckless Colorado congress critter, Doug Lamborn 

 Lamborn is easily the most craven, useless POS to ever grab power in our state.   Some  may recall that back in 2014 this walking turd wanted to slice Medicaid and food stamps for poor kids in order to feather the nest of the Pentagon and for expansion of already extensive military bases etc. near Colorado Springs.  Most recently, the miscreant mutt was almost eliminated from the GOP primary because of flouting Colorado law. To wit, a candidate may get his name on a primary ballot if he manages to get at least 1,000 signatures from likely voters- but these must be residents.

Problem was that Lame brain used a lot of out- of -state folks to garner signatures.  A legal case was brought, lawsuit filed, and the Colorado Supreme Court agreed, kicking him off the ballot. However, the slimy little douche took his case to federal court (which we know is stacked with Trumpie appointees) and argued that the residency rule for signature gatherers in Colorado was unconstitutional and "violated" his free speech. The federal judge (Philip Brimmer) agreed and tossed the case out so we're saddled with this shit head again.

Why the hostility? Because Lamborn is a  punk and a pawn of the military industrial complex and values his own re-election over any concerns of citizens in his district. I have written him no less than six times over different issues the past 4 years and received not one reply. Being "too busy" doesn't cut it because the little ratfucker doesn't do any work anyway. At least nothing anyone can see, other than pandering to his special interests to keep paying his freight.

Anyway, the whole Space Force idea was originally Lamborn's, hatched in order to grab more money in campaign contributions-  from defense contractors who only saw huge dollar signs,  with $$$$ pouring in at taxpayer's expense.

For reference, the knuckle dragger GOP House previously approved the creation of a "Space Corps"inside the Air Force. Trump's alleged novel brain fart yesterday at a meeting of the National Space Council  (WSJ, 'Trump Calls For A Space Force', today, p. A3) is merely a regurgitation of Lamborn's - though he also called it a "Space Corps".  At the time reported  (Denver Post, May 14) Lamborn insisted "I don't care what we call it, or what it looks like as long as we make space the priority in the Department of Defense that it deserves to be".

What's really behind this bull crap? Well, the old term - which I still prefer - is "pork barrel spending". In other words, the little scum ball just sees an opportunity for more defense spending — especially for his home state’s economy  and specifically here in the Springs.  In other words, like most current defense projects - it is all a matter of herding jobs and money to the state.

So we are on the same plane of reality here, let's note this is another one of those "bad ideas" exposed by Matt Miller in his book The Tyranny of Bad Ideas.  I.e. god awful, already proven disasters like trickle down tax cuts that keep coming back like bad pennies....or zombies.  In this case, no matter what Dotard claims about  being "a matter of national security', this is simply Reagan's Star Wars boondoggle in a new guise.

Recall Star Wars, or the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), was never proven workable or even remotely feasible.  It depended upon incorporating space-based interceptors as well as powerful lasers mounted on satellites to take down Soviet ICBMs.   The  most devastating exposure of the missile defense con appeared in the May, 1987 issue of Physics Today and was entitled "APS Directed Energy Weapons Study (Executive Summary)".   Versions of it  subsequently appeared in other journals, including the Reviews Of Modern Physics, e.g.

https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.59.S1

The study basically took apart the SDI  piece by piece  with no fewer than 26 major  deficiencies identified on everything from the weaknesses of the proposed lasers to shoot down the incoming missiles (too weak by several orders of magnitude) to the problem of identifying the targets "at sub-micro-radian resolution"  in the boost phase  to "lack of precision tracking via active sensor systems" and the ease with which any missile  interceptor design can easily be thwarted, say by use of dispersal of million of reflecting, metallic decoys. 

There is absolutely NO assurance, zero,  that anything different will be achieved with this Space Force codswallop. Indeed as reported (WSJ. ibid.):  "The move by Trump was  despite strong objections by senior civilian and uniformed military leaders."   

The piece also went on to note "the step apparently took even some of Mr. Trump's staunchest congressional supporters by surprise."   This, of course, is simply another reason to clean house and expunge all these GOP rats by November. The best way to do that? Let the Dems' political ad makers incorporate the just released audio of the crying kids (at the assorted border detention centers) into each ad released in the fall - so voters don't forget the perfidy going on now.   

What many will likely hear and see more and more of is how we "need" a Space Force to "protect our satellites" from being shot down, say by the Chinese or  Russkies.    But let's get real here: satellites fly in predictable orbits , and so will always be fairly easy to target - if a bad actor wants to.  But launching a typical weather or defense satellite is expensive enough without adding hundreds of pounds more weight for defenses.  And there's no assurance those defenses, say built in excimer lasers, will work.  A more practical solution, as opposed to mounting "ray guns" on satellites, would be to employ greater redundancy in the satellites we do put up.   The military, to keep costs under control, could also deploy backup systems on unmanned aerial vehicles, and integrating them into a fraction of the satellite fleet.

In the meantime, those of us who can, need to  keep exposing this "Space Force/ Space Corps" jive  for the bollocks it is.   As well as dangerous bollocks, given any militarization of space  is not something we want to entertain.  Especially from the likes of Doug Lamborn and Captain Bonespurs!

The Godfather of Missile Defense Snake Oil: Jay Keyworth

Missile interceptor being loaded near Ft. Greeley, Alaska.

It is absolutely incredible that even nearly 30 years after one of the most devastating exposures of a "white elephant": the  SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) of Reagan and Jay Keyworth- we can still see articles, editorials and even obituaries praising the latter.   The devastating exposure of the missile defense con I refer to appeared in the May, 1987 issue of Physics Today and was entitled "APS Directed Energy Weapons Study (Executive Summary)".   It subsequently appeared in other journals, including the Reviews Of Modern Physics, e.g.

https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.59.S1


The study basically took apart the SDI  piece by piece  with no fewer than 26 major  deficiencies identified on everything from the weaknesses of the proposed lasers to shoot down the incoming missiles (too weak by several orders of magnitude) to the problem of identifying the targets "at sub-micro-radian resolution"  in the boost phase  to "lack of precision tracking via active sensor systems" and the ease with which any missile  interceptor design can easily be thwarted, say by use of dispersal of million of reflecting, metallic decoys. 

Even two years earlier, in an article  appearing in the June, 1985 issue of Physics Today (p. 34, 'The Strategic Defense Initiative Perception Vs, Reality'), the SDI was dismissed as a "political PR promotion scheme".  In other words, it was created purely to pump up defense budgets and enrich all those contractors who'd be manufacturing the components of this farce. As the author (Wolfgang Panofsky) pointed out:

"What is frightening at this time is the blatant salesmanship, which does not focus on SDI';s military merits but which appeals to economic self interest."

Adding:

"There exists at this time no technical basis that justifies expanding research and technology programs in ballistic missile defense beyond a program of limited experimentation ...and studies of an objective rather than promotional manner."

Never mind, as recently as Sept.6, 2017, the WSJ featured an editorial (p. A14) headed:

"The Godfather of Missile Defense"

Wherein we read: 

"Reagan believed the Cold War needed to end, and part of his strategy for ending it was developing a technology to shoot down missiles in flight. It is hard to overstate the derision that greeted Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative in 1983. The day after Reagan announced the SDI, Sen. Ted Kennedy mocked the President's "reckless Star Wars scheme".

 

Used relentlessly by the press to describe SDI, the Star Wars name stuck, and Jay Keyworth's job was to convince skeptics that Reagan's idea of shooting down missiles in flight wasn't Hollywood science fiction..... To his credit and the country's good fortune, Jay Keyworth was tireless in publicly supporting the effort as scientifically achievable.

It eventually gave us systems like THAAD which can effectively intercept short and medium range ballistic missiles and is now deployed on the Korean peninsula."

 

Now, let's back up a bit and try to unpack this blizzard of codswallop. First, the derision and mock name of "Star Wars" attributed to the SDI  by Ted Kennedy was justly deserved. The APS Directed Energy Weapons study proved it was deserved.  Besides, think about this for a second: IF that system was genuine and featured high falutin' systems equipped with high powered lasers to zap incoming ICBMs, why don't we see any aspect of it used now?  Well, because no workable system ever existed in the first place! It was a big sell job!

Second, the system that has emerged- THAAD -  has only been "successful" because of GPS finder beacons attached to the warheads of the dummy targets. This is the hard fact none of the pointy headed cheerleaders will tell you.  We've actually known about this tomfoolery or fakery the past 17 years or so.  Reuters was the only news agency that got wind of the initial 'Defense Week' story back then  and revealed the fix. The wire service quoted a Pentagon official who "conceded that real warheads in an attack would not carry such helpful beacons". Gee thanks much, Roscoe! I'm sure I'll sleep better at night now, supposing maybe you guys secretly planted beacons on the North Korean warheads.

Additionally, another aspect the mainstream press seldom mentions is that in the case of an actual attack by  a sophisticated enemy multiple decoys would be deployed to fool sensors.    This was first noted by Wolfgang Panofsky in his monograph, Particles and Policy, Chapter 'Mad vs. Nuts') wherein he observed that any U.S. missile defense system - semi-practical or otherwise- will spur numerous counter measures and fully offensive nuclear systems. THIS is the stark danger we face.

Hence, Vladimir Putin's recent bragging (WSJ, Mar. 2, p. A8) of the Russians possessing a "super" nuclear rocket "capable of evading or penetrating limited U.S. antimissile defenses."  Maybe Putin's brain trust hasn't told him yet that he didn't need to spend an extra ruble to do that -  since the existing system is easily penetrated given it needs GPS beacons to hit the targets. (Putin claimed Russia had developed nuclear -powered cruse missiles that could actually reach Mach 10 speeds.)

 

But therein lies the danger: The massive destabilizing of the current marginal nuclear balance. Panofsky himself believed that missile shields and the like were basically 'white elephants' from the get go because the physical problem of intercepting a ballistic missile is literally like hitting a bullet with another bullet - and essentially just as likely.. He was strongly convinced a better plan was to work toward mutual reduction in missile forces with monitoring to ensure compliance.

 

Getting back to Jay Keyworth, if he merits any kudos it was for doing a sell job worthy of the late P.T. Barnum - featured in the recent movie, 'The Greatest Showman'.  Given the yarns and BS Keyworth had to spin to get Reagan to plow wasted billions into the SDI white elephant, well you get the idea. 

 

Now with Trump we learn even bigger wastes of money are planned (Denver Post, Dc. 17, p. 13A, 'Trump Moves To Boost Missile Defense System'). We learn, specifically:

"Immediate plans call for building two $ 1 billion radar installations and adding 20 rocket interceptors to the 44 deployed in underground silos in Fort Greeley in Alaska and Vandenburg Air Force Base in California. ....The expected cost is about $10.2 billion over five years on top of more than $40 billion already spent for the system."

But we also learn in the piece:

"But government reports and interviews with technical experts suggest the planned upgrades, including a redesigned kill vehicle, are unlikely to protect the United States from a limited-scale ballistic missile attack - the system's stated mission."

Which is totally in line with Wolfgang Panofsky's skeptical take in his book, Particles and Policy.   It appears as though there is a fundamental flaw in the wiring of human brains which causes them to continually believe the same erroneous crap despite all evidence to the contrary that they work. Thus,  whether it's tax cuts or missile defense systems - these "zombie" ideas live on and are repeatedly resurrected, say as revealed in the Matt Miller  book, 'The Tyranny of Dead Ideas'.

In the latest iteration, we have an unworkable system (well, unless "beacons" are put into target vehicles to give interceptors a 'heads up') that is in fact an "upgrade" of an already bad idea.

Jay Keyworth the 'Godfather of Missile Defense"? Well, more like the Godfather of  wasteful spending in the billions on a series of missile defense white elephants - starting with SDI and now with THAAD.

'White Elephant' Missile Defense Undermines Strategic Defense

Ground-based interceptor missile at Fort Greeley, AK. Despite a $40 b price tag the system has yet to prove its efficacy.

As I noted in a post from four and a half years ago, missile defense systems are basically Rube Goldberg schemes that don't work and only deplete resources while undermining strategic defense capabilities. This may be perhaps why JFK back in August, 1963, signed the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty which also scrapped ABM systems. (One reason most sober historians ceased thinking of him as a "cold warrior")

Thirty years ago we had  Reagan's useless and wasteful Strategic Defense Initiative, otherwise known as   "Star Wars" which was as stupid as Bush Junior's idiotic "national missile defense" program from fourteen years ago. (Of which this new system is really a makeover holdover- displaced to Europe). The fact is that none of these missile systems-shields really work, as particle physicist Wolfgang Panofsky first noted in his articulate chapter 'MAD vs. Nuts' in Particles and Policy (American Institute of Physics, 1994).

But the worst part isn't the  "missile defense" unworkability, but that others (e.g. Russians) may bite and think it is feasible and a very REAL threat. This is the point made by Wolfgang Panofsky in his monograph, Particles and Policy, Chapter 'Mad vs. Nuts') wherein he observes that any U.S. missile defense system - practical or otherwise- will spur numerous counter measures and fully offensive nuclear systems. THIS is the stark danger we face!

The ultimate effect being to massively destabilize the nuclear balance. Panofsky himself believed that missile shields and the like were basically 'white elephants' from the get go because the physical problem of intercepting a ballistic missile was like hitting a bullet with another bullet. He was strongly convinced a better plan was to work toward mutual reduction in missile forces with monitoring to ensure compliance.

The recent missile defense experiment appears to vindicate his worries, and shows the current Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system to be a huge boondoggle.  This system on paper is designed to protect all 50 states, say from a possible North Korean ICBM attack in 10-15 years. But the results thus far are not encouraging.   Since the end of the Clinton administration there have been a total of 17 tests pitting one of the missiles against a defined target whose launch and trajectory were already known.  The GMD system operators failed to destroy the targets in nine of the tests according to a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists. And this was despite the fact they knew ahead of time when and where the target missile would be launched, its precise dimensions, expected trajectory and velocity.

Since the initial GMD system was installed at Fort Greeley, AK and Vandenburg AFB, CA, the Missile Defense Agency has performed nine tests with only three successful in destroying their targets. Despite those dismal results the MDA currently fields 26 interceptors in AK and 4 at Vandenburg, and plans to install 14 more despite a record of failure that's worsened over time.

More distressing, the GMD's track record, deplorable as it is, masks the fact that the tests don't remotely match what would happen in real world encounters.  As Panofsky even observed nearly 30 years ago, any nation capable of launching a long range missile would also be able to equip it with decoys and other countermeasures that  could foil the GMD system. Panofsky showed Reagan's old 'SDI' system was easily foiled by an ICBM capable of deploying thousands of  brilliant reflecting objects and dispersing them - as mock targets.   As Panofsky stated in his chapter 'Mad vs. Nuts'  (op. cit.):

"it is always and invariably more cost effective to defeat any given missile shield system than to defend against an array of offensive missiles."

 This was a major reason  that the  Reagan 'Star Wars' bunkum had to be scuttled (according to an American Physical Society study done ca. 1987) , i.e. the then Soviets were becoming adept at "being able to implant millions of metallic fragments in their missile nose cones for deployment in the boost phase"

There is no reason the North Koreans wouldn't be able to do the same, say ten or so years from now with an ICBM potential.

All of this was pointed out by analysts from the UCS and MIT more than 17 years ago, and as UCS senior scientist Laura Grego (echoing Wolfgang Panofsky) has said:

"The Missile Defense Agency is trying to do something akin to hitting a bullet with another bullet which has proven difficult enough to do under simplified, scripted conditions".

The whole mess was really seeded as a boondoogle when Bush & Co, way back in 2002, started this stupid program and decided to exempt it from standard Pentagon oversight procedures- insisting on fielding it within two years. The results were predictable, running up the program's price tag  - now over $40 billion - while delivering a white elephant that has never been shown to work under real world conditions.

Laura Grego again (Bulletin of UCS, Summer 2016, p. 16):

'More than ten years after it was first fielded, the GMD system still hasn't faced the kinds of conditions that would be faced in the real world."

Nevertheless (ibid.) the  "Obama administration steadfastly maintains the GMD system is ready for prime time, or at least the threat of future, hypothetical  Iranian or North Korean long range missiles."

Brian P. McKeon, principal undersecretary of defense for policy, even told the Senate Armed Services committee earlier this year that "the US homeland is currently protected against such attacks."

Of course, this is codswallop and PR if no testing evidence even exists to support the claim. But that elicits the question of how the Pentagon even ended up with such a dysfunctional program. Like other national missteps - including the NSA violating 4th amendment rights with its MUSCULAR, Xkeyscore programs - this one dates back to the aftermath of 9/11 when national security hysteria reigned.

In such an atmosphere Congress passed the Patriot Act and the Bushies used their single -minded focus on security and "bad guys" (the "Axis of Evil") to kick start the embryonic GMD program.  At the same time, the Bushies withdrew the U.S. from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. That Treaty had prohibited both sides from implementing a missile defense system to protect its entire territory.  As the UCS Bulletin puts it p. 17):

"This then opened the door for then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to exempt the Missile Defense agency from standard procurement rules and testing standards in order to deploy a system within two years. That proved to be a Herculean and impractical task."

The move also removed any financial accountability for the program and the Pentagon. This after defense analyst noted as far back as 2002 that it still can't account for a missing $1.2 trillion in defense monies.   Compared to the Pentagon's testing of the Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missile (6 times a year, acing more than 150 tests) the testing of the GMD system is a joke.  As noted by the UCS (ibid.):

"Nearly 15 years after the GMD system was put on the fast track, the Pentagon's own testing officials have said the system has not demonstrated operationally useful capability to defend the U.S. public from a missile attack."

In other words, contradicting Brian P. McKeon's and the Obama administration's own claims.  But one go one better, noting that back in 2010 the Obama-ites insisted the GMD system would "dissuade Iran and North Korea from developing an intercontinental ballistic missile".  But 6 years later both are continuing to develop their missile technology and many physicists expect the North Koreans to have that capacity within 10-15 years.

And again, echoing the concerns of  physicist Wolfgang Panofsky (op. cit.) the UCS Bulletin observes:

"What's more, the belief that the system can block an attack introduces another layer of risk, since it might make the United States more likely to opt for a military solution in an international crisis before exhausting diplomatic ones."

 All of this in tandem has meant that the nuclear "doomsday clock" of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists remains firmly at 3 minutes to midnight - midnight being when all hell breaks loose. 

See e.g.

http://thebulletin.org/timeline

Excerpt:

'The probability of global catastrophe is very high, and the actions needed to reduce the risks of disaster must be taken very soon.' That probability has not been reduced. The Clock ticks. Global danger looms. Wise leaders should act—immediately." See the full statement from the Science and Security Board on the 2016 time of the Doomsday Clock."