It's 89 Seconds to Midnight: The 2025 Doomsday Clock
It is 89 seconds to midnight on the Doomsday Clock. In its nearly 80-year history, the Clock has never been this close to striking midnight (doomsday). In the official statement, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists’s Science and Security Board reported that humanity came one step closer to a global catastrophe in 2024 and that “blindly continuing on the current path is a form of madness.” They appeal to leaders of the United States, China, and Russia to commence good-faith discussions on global threats.
The Asia-Pacific Leadership Network has for years called for action against growing nuclear risks and threats. Through impactful research and high-level statements, APLN has appealed to leaders of nuclear armed states to take concrete steps toward prioritising nuclear risks reduction, arms control and disarmament, undertaking sustained strategic stability dialogues, and reaffirming the pledge that a nuclear war cannot be won and must not be fought.
For this week’s Pulse series, four APLN members reflect on the 2025 Doomsday Clock announcement. Ganewati Wuryandari, Melissa Parke, Amit Sharma, and Lim Eunjung discuss how closely the Doomsday Clock warning resonates with the specific security dynamics and challenges in the Asia-Pacific, and recommend policies which need to be prioritised in order to address the interlinked threats of nuclear proliferation, geopolitical conflicts, and climate change.
Ganewati Wuryandari
Senior Researcher at the Research Center for Politics, National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Indonesia
Addressing transnational security threats requires regional and international cooperation.
The 2025 Doomsday Clock’s setting of 89 seconds to midnight underscores escalating global security risks, including war, nuclear threats, climate change, shifting geopolitics, and the rapid advancement of emerging disruptive technologies, including Artificial Intelligence (AI). While these threats are global, their regional impacts vary, necessitating tailored responses.
In Southeast Asia, while direct nuclear war is distant, nuclear threats persist due to the presence of nuclear powers, geopolitical tensions, and proliferation by non-state actors. The region is also highly vulnerable to climate change, with increasingly severe typhoons, floods, and a rising sea-levels causing social, political, and economic disruptions. Additionally, rapid AI advancements and social media influence presents both opportunities and challenges (particularly in the form of disinformation and cybersecurity threats).
Addressing transnational security threats, including nuclear war, climate change, and cybersecurity, requires regional and international cooperation. These challenges are universal humanitarian concerns rather than solely national interests. Strengthening existing regional and multilateral frameworks, such as ZOPFAN, ASEAN, ARF, and IAEA, alongside capacity building, dialogue, and joint research, are essential for effective global security responses. The US withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Agreement poses significant regional security risks. As a longstanding advocate of freedom, democracy, and the rule of law, the United States’ shift in stance may alter global perceptions of sovereignty and norms, potentially prompting other superpowers to follow suit. As the second rank of ten most polluting countries (2024) and significant contributor in the agreement, this decision weakens the agreement’s overall ambition and effectiveness, making it more challenging to limit global warming. Southeast Asia, highly vulnerable to climate change impacts, faces direct consequences. Reduced international financial support for climate mitigation and adaptation efforts could hinder the region’s capacity to implement effective policies and invest in clean energy technologies.
Melissa Parke
Executive Director, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)
No country should possess, let alone use, the ultimate weapons of mass destruction.
“The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us,” warned John F. Kennedy in his famous address to the United Nations in 1961. More than six decades on, it is clear that our time is running out. Yet few leaders appear to be tackling the grave and growing threat posed by nuclear weapons with any urgency. That must change.
In many respects, the outlook is startlingly dire. All nine nuclear-armed states are upgrading and expanding their nuclear arsenals, with none demonstrating any serious commitment to disarmament.
But the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) shows that an alternative way is possible, as the former Colombian president and new chair of the Elders, Juan Manuel Santos, highlighted in this week’s Doomsday Clock announcement. “Half of all the countries have signed it, so it has momentum,” he said, urging others to do the same.
Adopted in 2017, the TPNW outlaws nuclear weapons categorically and establishes a framework for their verified, time-bound elimination. Some dismiss it as useless given no nuclear-armed state has yet signed up. But international norms matter – perhaps more than ever – and this accord sends an unambiguous message: that no country should possess, let alone use, the ultimate weapons of mass destruction.
Amit Sharma
Former Commander-in-Chief, Strategic Forces Command, India
A new pragmatic way forward to non-proliferation and disarmament
The Doomsday Clock today is now at 89 seconds to midnight, the closest to doomsday in its history. Even though the overall number of nuclear weapons has reduced from over 60,000 in 1986, to less than 13,000 today, all nuclear armed nations are expanding and modernizing their nuclear arsenals, making them more lethal to credibly deter adversaries. The United States and Russia have deployed tactical nuclear weapons in allied nations. Russia is periodically flexing its nuclear muscles and has fired a conventional but nuclear capable medium range hypersonic ballistic missile toward Ukraine. It has also threatened to use these weapons against NATO in Europe. Iran is on the brink of announcing its nuclear weapon capability, given the possibility of war with Israel. Japan and South Korea are debating acquiring an indigenous nuclear weapon capability, against threats from China and North Korea.
The existing strategic arms limitation and reduction protocols, including the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty are proving to be inadequate, if not totally ineffective. Therefore, a new approach to nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament are needed based on the present strategic realities. If all nine nuclear armed states are recognized as Nuclear Weapons States under the NPT, they can be made equally responsible to prevent a nuclear catastrophe. They must commit to nuclear restraint and upholding the ‘nuclear taboo’ that has lasted nearly eight decades. Nuclear armed states must agree to a No First Use or Sole Purpose Treaty. The final goal, though presently idealistic, must be on the complete ban on nuclear weapons and adoption of the Test Ban Treaty. As a nonaligned nuclear weapon power, India can take the lead to build international consensus to build this new pragmatic way forward.
Lim Eunjung
Professor of the Division of International Studies at Kongju National University (KNU)
Proliferation of nuclear weapons in Northeast Asia will hasten the doomsday.
President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement again has challenged international efforts to combat climate change. But the more pressing issue remains the negotiations with North Korea. With the return of the Trump Administration in the United States, the possibility of Trump reaching out to Kim Jong-un to cut a deal with Pyongyang, has again gained traction, threatening the trilateral framework of security cooperation between South Korea, the United States, and Japan. The United States’ recognition of North Korea’s nuclear weapons will inevitably strengthen voices in South Korea and Japan in favour of indigenous development of nuclear weapons or nuclear sharing in response. This could also have implications for the proliferation of nuclear weapons in other regions, such as the Middle East, which could serve to hasten the doomsday.
It is important to note that unilateral action by the United States without policy coordination with South Korea and Japan could create several negative ripple effects, as noted above.
Trilateral security cooperation and policy coordination between South Korea, the United States, and Japan should continue. This is not merely a legacy of Obama-Biden. Rather, it is consistent with the Trump-Abe strategy of a Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP). Improving relations with North Korea should not come at the expense of South Korea and Japan’s security.
