5 ms·

So you're calling it a "crisis" that people will be better informed of the risk they've always faced? Seems to me we should use that media coverage to build pol

So you're calling it a "crisis" that people will be better informed of the risk they've always faced? Seems to me we should use that media coverage to build political support for a real asteroid defense system.

perihelions 2y ago
If the media does not contextualize risks correctly, as it never does, it's absolutely a crisis—a crisis of a poorly-informed, panicked society lashing out and doing irrational things. It's not a costless error if a warped illusion of risk drives countries to, i.e., deploy nuclear-tipped space weapons for asteroid defense, which then precipitate a genuine crisis. It's not obvious that having more defenses is obviously safer than having less; some thoughtful people have argued the opposite: >"In our view, development of this asteroid-deflection technology would be premature. Given twentieth-century history and present global politics, it is hard to imagine guarantees against eventual misuse of an asteroid deflection system commensurate with the dangers such a system poses. Those who argue that it would be prudent to prevent catastrophic impacts with annual probabilities of 10^-5 would surely recognize the prudence of preventing more probable catastrophes of comparable magnitude from misuse of potentially apocalyptic technology." https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1038/368501a0 https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1038/368501a0 ("Dangers of Asteroid Deflection" (1994), Carl Sagan & Steven Ostro)
- DennisP 2y ago
  In this case, the context is "we face the same risk all the time, from asteroids we don't see." I'm not convinced that's reassuring. The Sagan paper concerns much larger asteroids, which are correspondingly more rare. For asteroids in the 8MT impact range, it doesn't make much military sense to launch deep space missions to divert them years in advance, rather than delivering nukes directly with ICBMs in minutes. Given any competent asteroid defense system, an asteroid diversion would be detected immediately and countered, and the perpetrators would face consequences. In fact, since we already have rockets that can reach asteroids, I'd say the possibility of malicious diversion makes a defense system more important.
  - perihelions 2y ago
    - "The Sagan paper concerns much larger asteroids, which are correspondingly more rare." That's a fair distinction—the paper predates the modern telescope surveys that are discovering all the small ones. - "rather than delivering nukes directly with ICBMs in minutes" You'd still need multiple years for those nukes to have a useful effect. (The change in velocity is instant; the change in position is not). They wouldn't be ICBM's, either: we'd need a new type of deep-space delivery vehicle, far larger than a suborbital ICBM. That'd probably trigger a new type of nuclear arms race.
    - DennisP 2y ago
      Sorry, what I mean is: why would I use my rocket and nuke to divert an asteroid years in advance, when I can drop an 8MT nuke on you directly in 30 minutes with much more accurate targeting? One possible reason is plausible deniability, but that goes away if we have a good asteroid defense system with an emphasis on early detection.
      - perihelions 2y ago
        Ah, I understand now. For one thing, you could weaponize asteroids as a second-strike response, if there's an imbalance where one superpower has asteroid deflection and one does not. Even if it's delayed by months, the certainty that the asteroid will eventually hit establishes a deterrent against attacking the asteroid-controlling country. If there's defenses against ballistic missiles, this circumvents those. For another, the asteroid-deflecting nukes are dual-use as weapons themselves. A nuclear warhead in deep space defeats conventional ballistic missile defenses. If that warhead is turned towards Earth, that (first-strike) attack's not visible to the adversary until a few seconds before impact—unlike an ICBM launch, which has tens of minutes of warning, enough to launch (conventional) interceptor missiles.
        wing-_-nuts 2y ago
        Eh, we already have steath aircraft that could slip in past air defenses and drop a nuke with next to no warning. We probably have a stealthy hypersonic that can also do so. That doesn't negate a nations second strike ability. Part of the reason the US, Russia and China have vast land based missile fields is to visibly show the enemy that they're gonna have to wipe out huge swaths of land with hundreds of nukes (and THEN sink our boomers) to have a successful first strike.
sharpshadow 2y ago
This. It’s a crucial step for our civilisation to be able to protect earth from any incoming dangers be it asteroids or Umuamua type objects. There must be a global effort with all countries to build such a system.
- rob74 2y ago
  Good luck with that... currently we are failing to muster a global effort for tackling climate change, which is a much more pressing issue than an asteroid which may or may not hit us. I know https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Look_Up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Look_Up is satirical, but reality often outdoes satire, so I wouldn't be surprised if things would play out exactly like in that movie...
  - timewizard 2y ago
    There is open doubt as to whether climate change, as presented, is truly a near-term existential issue. There is no doubt that an asteroid hitting earth is.
    - freen 2y ago
      There is an open doubt whether a fully functional coffee machine is currently orbiting Venus, however one of these hypotheses is different than the other. Hint: expertise matters, evidence matters, and in a field where buildings/laws/fields of study get named after successful contrarians, a long streak of effectively unanimous consensus should not be undervalued.
      - timewizard 2y ago
        The coffee machine has no implications on my current life span. It may be true, but who would waste their time caring about this? Show me the /unanimous/ consensus that this is an immediate /existential/ issue. I don't believe such a thing exists. When attempting to understand the difference between those who care about an asteroid and climate change, which was the question, this is the critical point to concern yourself with.

perihelions 2y ago

If the media does not contextualize risks correctly, as it never does, it's absolutely a crisis—a crisis of a poorly-informed, panicked society lashing out and doing irrational things. It's not a costless error if a warped illusion of risk drives countries to, i.e., deploy nuclear-tipped space weapons for asteroid defense, which then precipitate a genuine crisis. It's not obvious that having more defenses is obviously safer than having less; some thoughtful people have argued the opposite: >"In our view, development of this asteroid-deflection technology would be premature. Given twentieth-century history and present global politics, it is hard to imagine guarantees against eventual misuse of an asteroid deflection system commensurate with the dangers such a system poses. Those who argue that it would be prudent to prevent catastrophic impacts with annual probabilities of 10^-5 would surely recognize the prudence of preventing more probable catastrophes of comparable magnitude from misuse of potentially apocalyptic technology." https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1038/368501a0 https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1038/368501a0 ("Dangers of Asteroid Deflection" (1994), Carl Sagan & Steven Ostro)

DennisP 2y ago
In this case, the context is "we face the same risk all the time, from asteroids we don't see." I'm not convinced that's reassuring. The Sagan paper concerns much larger asteroids, which are correspondingly more rare. For asteroids in the 8MT impact range, it doesn't make much military sense to launch deep space missions to divert them years in advance, rather than delivering nukes directly with ICBMs in minutes. Given any competent asteroid defense system, an asteroid diversion would be detected immediately and countered, and the perpetrators would face consequences. In fact, since we already have rockets that can reach asteroids, I'd say the possibility of malicious diversion makes a defense system more important.
- perihelions 2y ago
  - "The Sagan paper concerns much larger asteroids, which are correspondingly more rare." That's a fair distinction—the paper predates the modern telescope surveys that are discovering all the small ones. - "rather than delivering nukes directly with ICBMs in minutes" You'd still need multiple years for those nukes to have a useful effect. (The change in velocity is instant; the change in position is not). They wouldn't be ICBM's, either: we'd need a new type of deep-space delivery vehicle, far larger than a suborbital ICBM. That'd probably trigger a new type of nuclear arms race.
  - DennisP 2y ago
    Sorry, what I mean is: why would I use my rocket and nuke to divert an asteroid years in advance, when I can drop an 8MT nuke on you directly in 30 minutes with much more accurate targeting? One possible reason is plausible deniability, but that goes away if we have a good asteroid defense system with an emphasis on early detection.
    - perihelions 2y ago
      Ah, I understand now. For one thing, you could weaponize asteroids as a second-strike response, if there's an imbalance where one superpower has asteroid deflection and one does not. Even if it's delayed by months, the certainty that the asteroid will eventually hit establishes a deterrent against attacking the asteroid-controlling country. If there's defenses against ballistic missiles, this circumvents those. For another, the asteroid-deflecting nukes are dual-use as weapons themselves. A nuclear warhead in deep space defeats conventional ballistic missile defenses. If that warhead is turned towards Earth, that (first-strike) attack's not visible to the adversary until a few seconds before impact—unlike an ICBM launch, which has tens of minutes of warning, enough to launch (conventional) interceptor missiles.
      - wing-_-nuts 2y ago
        Eh, we already have steath aircraft that could slip in past air defenses and drop a nuke with next to no warning. We probably have a stealthy hypersonic that can also do so. That doesn't negate a nations second strike ability. Part of the reason the US, Russia and China have vast land based missile fields is to visibly show the enemy that they're gonna have to wipe out huge swaths of land with hundreds of nukes (and THEN sink our boomers) to have a successful first strike.

sharpshadow 2y ago

This. It’s a crucial step for our civilisation to be able to protect earth from any incoming dangers be it asteroids or Umuamua type objects. There must be a global effort with all countries to build such a system.

rob74 2y ago
Good luck with that... currently we are failing to muster a global effort for tackling climate change, which is a much more pressing issue than an asteroid which may or may not hit us. I know https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Look_Up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Look_Up is satirical, but reality often outdoes satire, so I wouldn't be surprised if things would play out exactly like in that movie...
- timewizard 2y ago
  There is open doubt as to whether climate change, as presented, is truly a near-term existential issue. There is no doubt that an asteroid hitting earth is.
  - freen 2y ago
    There is an open doubt whether a fully functional coffee machine is currently orbiting Venus, however one of these hypotheses is different than the other. Hint: expertise matters, evidence matters, and in a field where buildings/laws/fields of study get named after successful contrarians, a long streak of effectively unanimous consensus should not be undervalued.
    - timewizard 2y ago
      The coffee machine has no implications on my current life span. It may be true, but who would waste their time caring about this? Show me the /unanimous/ consensus that this is an immediate /existential/ issue. I don't believe such a thing exists. When attempting to understand the difference between those who care about an asteroid and climate change, which was the question, this is the critical point to concern yourself with.