It’s 2026 and there are only 85 seconds left until the fateful midnight
The famous clock was created with the aim of appealing to diplomacy in resolving conflicts between nuclear powers. However, its constant midnight approaches risk trivializing global crises.
The Doomsday Clock — a symbolic device that has signaled a series of existential threats to the world since 1947 — was recently set to 85 seconds before midnightthe closest position to midnight ever recorded. And this was even before the start of the all-out war in Iran.
Created by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, the clock initially represented a slow descent into nuclear vulnerabilitywith midnight symbolizing the nuclear apocalypse. The clock currently includes other existential threats to humanity, such as global warming, disruptive technologies, and the erosion of the rules-based international order.
Mobilize fear
From its inception, the watch’s purpose was a call to action, meant to rouse world leaders—and, by extension, the general public—from their complacency and indifference.
The purpose of the Doomsday Clock was never to incite crippling anxiety. On the contrary, he sought to mobilize fear in a constructive way. It implicitly signals the hope that existential threats can be eradicated and the possibility that the danger can be overcome, even if the probabilities are minimal.
But over the years, the Doomsday Clock has moved closer and closer to midnight — first in minutes, then in seconds — increasing the sense of urgencyalthough it does not reach the symbolic apocalypse represented by the clock.
Being mere seconds away from catastrophe dramatically underlines the urgency of action, even as the proximity of midnight heightens public anxiety.
This is where the narrative of imminent catastrophe becomes counterproductive: constant apocalyptic scenarios can blunt the perception of risk or be exploited to justify policies driven by urgency and fear.
Doomsday Clock Glitches
The watch has long been the subject of criticism. Some question its accuracy and they consider it a spectacle. Others describe it as shaped by ideology.
But the first question we must ask about the watch is whether it fulfills its stated purpose: to encourage transformative action to address what are widely recognized as existential risks. It is argued that placing humanity in a permanent state of maximum alert and generalized is not useful when it comes to formulating policy or directing science.
The narratives of nuclear war and imminent apocalypse that underpin the Doomsday Clock have historically been used to project authority and justify perilous secrecy policies — legacies that have often come at the expense of public health and well-being.
For example, during the Cold War, the US strategically fostered a sense of urgency in its population against the potential threat of nuclear war with the Soviet Union.
At that time, education often mixed with propaganda, as schoolchildren were told to prepare against possible nuclear attacks, learning from Bert the turtle to “duck and take cover.”
Concerned citizens built bunkers in their homes while billions of dollars were pumped into the military industrial complex.
Those who criticized such preparedness measures faced accusations of unpatriotism or being communists.
In the end, the sense of an impending apocalypse sacrificed Americans’ social and national security for a threat that never materialized. Ironically, because Americans feared being bombed, they exposed their own population to dangerous fallout and radioactive materials through nuclear testing and stockpile production.
How do we define disaster?
Obviously, complacency in the face of the serious challenges facing the world is not an option. But the idea that we are almost at the point of no return, represented by the Doomsday Clock, It is no longer useful or relevant.
This becomes even more evident as time passes, as the catastrophe symbolized by the clock becomes more abstract. As its meaning expanded beyond nuclear war, the clock struck midnight a long time ago for many people on the planet.
Recognizing the difference in experiences between privileged groups, for whom catastrophe remains a future prospect, and marginalized groups, who live in what has been described as a world of improvisation, should lead us to rethink how we measure and define impending disaster.
By calibrating the Doomsday Clock to smaller and smaller seconds, we construct an imaginative framework in which significant change is equated with turning back the clock. Perhaps it is more honest—and more useful—to recognize that We are already living on the edge of the abyss.
With the rise of militarism and fascism in 1935, Dutch cultural historian Johan Huizinga could have said that Europe was seconds away from catastrophe. Instead, he adopted a different perspective: “We all know there is no return, that we have to fight to survive”.
The uncertainty and anxiety generated by being “seconds from midnight”, according to the Doomsday Clock, can tip the balance between fear and hope. This carries the risk of normalize violence long suffered by racialized and marginalized communities, while creating fertile ground for both opportunistic policies and the irrational belief that events will resolve themselves.
At this point, the action is paralyzed by the stubborn conviction that this cannot really be happening to us. Perhaps this is when the clock should strike midnight — not as an end point, but as a sign that the focus should shift from prevention to another mode of response. In many areas of life, recognizing that a crisis has arrived is the first step to recovery.
