The author's thesis is that we shouldn't allow uncontrolled development of asteroid minerals, because it would lead to conflicts on Earth. He proposes an inter

The author's thesis is that we shouldn't allow uncontrolled development of asteroid minerals, because it would lead to conflicts on Earth. He proposes an international body to regulate space development. I would disagree with the author's thesis for one simple reason: space is dangerous. Those nations and groups of nations that establish footholds in space are sacrificing much blood and treasure to get there. The U.S. alone has lost 24 people to accidents in space and space-related test flights and catastrophes like Apollo 1 and the USSR lost several cosmonauts as well. The grim likelihood is that there will be more deaths, an inherent risk of such dangerous exploration. In addition, the US, USSR, EU, Japan, China, and India have collectively invested trillions of dollars in space exploration and development since the 1950s. It's hardly likely that these great nations will submit to the authority of an international regulatory body and curtail their exploration; there's simply too much at stake. At most, they'll agree to some standards and shared values, based on the Law of the Sea, e.g. agreed-upon mayday signals, standardized airlock connectors, etc. I believe that those nations and groups of nations that establish footholds in space and exploit the vast potential mineral wealth in the Belt, on the Moon and on Mars, will be the superpowers of the late 21st Century and the 22nd Century. Far from a cause of conflict, this vast new wealth will usher in a new era of peace and prosperity and technology far advanced beyond even what we can imagine.