
United Nations to Adopt Asteroid Defense Plan - Libertatea
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=un-asteroid-defense-plan
======
DanielBMarkham
The United Nations is not a world government. Please keep repeating this until
it sinks in.

It's a treaty organization designed to prevent another world war. As such,
it's worked kinda sorta okay. Not great, but you could argue that it worked,
so that's something. It's also provided somewhat of a permanent diplomatic
forum, that's pretty good too.

There are a lot of technical reasons why the UN is not a world government and
can never be. The biggest is that there is no representation of the actual
people being governed there. Because it's a treaty organization, it just has
the representation of the world governments. Unfortunately, we live in a world
where your government's interests and your own do not always align very well
at all. It's also bound by treaties. Treaties have a tendency to be
interpreted all sorts of ways by the various parties involved. The more
parties, the more room for interpretation there is.

There's also no feedback loop for the possibility that they might do something
wrong. There's no independent judiciary, there's no rule of law.

I could go on, but it should be obvious. The UN isn't a world government.
Folks can pretend that it is, and the UN itself can labor under the illusion
that it is, but structurally it isn't made to be one.

So sure, let WHO do it's thing and let various nations pitch in to put those
little blue helmets on guys to try to prevent conflict. Lots of good things
for the UN to do that kind of fall under the "treaty org to prevent future
world wars". But asteroid defense? Not even close. Not unless there's a chance
the Russians might start lobbing asteroids at the US or something.

~~~
andrewfong
I'm not sure why, if the WHO falls under the UN's mandate, that asteroid
defense wouldn't. They're both collective efforts to monitor and combat things
that aren't human.

Moreover, there are obvious military applications for certain asteroid defense
techniques. For example, if the U.S. was planning a Bruce Willis-style nukes-
in-space approach to deflecting an asteroid, I guarantee the Russians would
care (and vice versa).

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I think there are a lot of things the UN ends up doing simply because it
provides a somewhat permanent diplomatic forum for nations of the world.
That's fine.

I'm not saying that the UN _won 't_ end up handling asteroid defense, or
various other world-government-ish things. I'm saying it wasn't _designed to
do so_. Big difference.

I don't know how far you stretch the intent and structure before something
breaks. If I had to bet, that's a long way away. But still, people should be
aware of what's going on. The results you get from UN programs are not always
going to be what you expect, and there's good reasons for that.

Or to put differently, if the UN evolves into doing something for everybody,
it stands a significant risk of losing focus on its initial mission. Over the
next few decades, the organization could easily become a destabilizing force
in the world instead of a stabilizing one.

There's no corrective action to tell the UN that it's a victim of scope creep,
so they could decide to try to do dang near anything, whether it's a good
idea, whether the tools exist, whether it's just some half-baked crackpot
idea, or whether it's just an elaborate bribery scheme. There's no feedback
loop -- one of my initial points. Anything you can imagine, you can imagine
the UN doing. That's not a recipe for a healthy future for the world.

------
officemonkey
>International Asteroid Warning Group” for member nations to share information
about potentially hazardous space rocks. If astronomers detect an asteroid
that poses a threat to Earth, the U.N.’s Committee on the Peaceful Uses of
Outer Space.

I suggest the "U.N.'s Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space" be
immediately renamed to the "Civil Coordinated Committee on Peaceful Outer
Space" (AKA C3POs.)

------
ekianjo
This is a bit ridiculous, knowing that the UN is already mostly incapable of
dealing with any kind of serious humanity threat such as conflicts killing
tons of unarmed civilians, now who seriously expects them to have anything
robust in place to protect the whole planet?

Besides, it does not matter if "NASA has not been appointed" to deal with this
- the day we notice a large object, it's pretty obvious one country or
organization, somewhere, is going to try something about it if it means human
race survival. There's no need for the UN at that level.

Moreover, the article mentions colliding a spacecraft with an asteroid to
deflect is orbit, but this is actually not very efficient. There has already
been other propositions such as orbiting a small spacecraft _around_ a large
asteroid to deflect its orbit in a much more effective way over time.

~~~
onion2k
"knowing that the UN is already mostly incapable of dealing with any kind of
serious humanity threat such as conflicts killing tons of unarmed civilians"

This is an example of what is known as "false-consensus bias" \- you believe
people agree with you (without any evidence that they do) because you believe
in your own argument so strongly.

At least until a couple of years ago, the approval rating of the UN was pretty
good globally, especially in places they act directly -
[http://www.gallup.com/poll/147854/gets-approval-
disapproval-...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/147854/gets-approval-disapproval-
worldwide.aspx)

~~~
randallsquared
There was no implied consensus in what you quote. It wasn't even about
approval or people's opinions of the UN. I think you read this statement as
something like "everyone believes that the UN is mostly incapable" (which
would be about popular opinion) rather than "the UN is mostly incapable"
(which can be measured, in this case, by reduction of deaths after the UN gets
involved (or lack thereof, if that's the case)).

~~~
nknighthb
The following bit -- "now who seriously expects" \-- makes clear the author's
intent. The expected answer is "no one", in conflict with reality.

------
lukifer
See also: Ed Lu's excellent Long Now seminar.
[http://longnow.org/seminars/02013/jun/18/anthropocene-
astron...](http://longnow.org/seminars/02013/jun/18/anthropocene-astronomy-
thwarting-dangerous-asteroids-begins-finding-them/)

Short version: Stopping an asteroid is more about early detection than
anything else.

------
JimmaDaRustla
This is how the International Fleet begins. First asteroids, next Buggers.

~~~
tgb
I was more thinking about the opening of "Rendezvous with Rama":

"Sooner or later, it was bound to happen. On 30 June 1908, Moscow escaped
destruction by three hours and four thousand kilometres - a margin invisibly
small by the standards of the universe. Again, on 12 February 1947, yet
another Russian city had a still narrower escape, when the second great
meteorite of the twentieth century detonated less than four hundred kilometres
from Vladivostok, with an explosion rivalling that of the newly invented
uranium bomb.

In those days, there was nothing that men could do to protect themselves
against the lst random shots in the cosmic bombardment that had once scarred
the face of the Moon. The meteorites of 1908 and 1947 had struck uninhabited
wilderness; but by the end of the twety-first century there was no region left
on Earth that could be safely used for celestial target practice. The human
race had spread from pole to pole and so, inevitably, at 09.46 GMT on the
morning of 11 September, in the exceptionally beautiful summer fo the year
2077, most of the inhabitants of Europe saw a dazzling fireball appear in the
eastern sky. Within seconds it was brighter than the sun, and as it moved
across the heavens - at first in utter silence - it left behind it a churning
column of dust and smoke.

Somewhere above Austria it began to disintegrate, producing a series of
concussion so violent that more than a million people had their hearing
permanently damaged. They were the lucky ones."

~~~
ChikkaChiChi
Rama and "Hammer of the Gods" both were evoked for me during the Chelyabinsk
event. Another world-shattering celestial event that could have altered human
history if only it's million year journey had been off by just a few seconds.

------
Avalaxy
Finally! It always frustrated me that this threat was never taken very
serious, even though it could wipe out humanity.

~~~
BillyMaize
Considering the fact that in billions of years of evolution only a few meteors
have caused mass extinctions I have always been confident that we will not
just happen to live in a time when one of the big ones hit. Human civilization
has only existed for a very short time and I think it really would be like
winning the lottery to get hit by a civilization ending meteor even in the
next 10,000 years (although I'm no expert in the topic, simply looking at
Earth's past).

------
uglycoyote
Interesting to do a thought experiment on what it would have been like if
humanity had known that the Russian meteor was coming a few months in advance.
maybe they would have said there is a 20 percent chance of it coming down and
causing major death and destruction. governments would have invested millions
in trying to stop it. will smith would have been sent up in a rocket to stop
it. everyone would have had big parties and said their last goodbyes.

~~~
jccooper
Couple months? You could maybe track it and predict a large impact zone, and
evacuate if needed. No chance to move it; nobody has a rocket that can be
ready in that timeframe, much less a vehicle to intercept and move the rock.
And even if you could, it was such a small rock that it's probably cheaper to
let it hit and replace everything on the ground. For launch alone: F9 is $54M,
Proton $72M, and SLS $1.5B (should it ever exist). There's not much the
Chelyabinsk could have hit that would cost as much as trying to stop it. Even
pretty big rocks have to get lucky to cause much damage, as sparse as
development is, but since you can't tell where exactly they will hit until
quite late, it may be better to move any sufficiently large Earth-interceptor
to avoid the possibility of an unlucky hit.

------
davidw
Apparently, a few reporters were able to lay their hands on some early
sketches of what the system may look like, which had previously been under
wraps due to the obvious potential for offensive warfare, rather than just
asteroid defense:

[http://bit.ly/VmUtoj](http://bit.ly/VmUtoj)

Edit: I guess you had to be born before 1980 to get it.

~~~
eksith
I'm early 80's, while I get the cheek ;) I can't see that working on a serious
level.

Neil de Grasse Tyson has a great view on this problem
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaW4Ol3_M1o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaW4Ol3_M1o)

Edit: And more detail on methods that may actually work...
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-ReuLZ2quc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-ReuLZ2quc)

------
Thiz
I'm all for private solutions. Leave my money in my pockets.

If there are no solutions, so what? face it like a man. If you're so scared to
die, then you'll donate YOUR own money.

Not mine.

~~~
andyjohnson0
Private solutions? You think that Asteroid defence has a business plan? How
would a private solution generate a profit?

~~~
dnautics
private != profit.

~~~
andyjohnson0
Agreed. But given the enormous expense involved in constructing a private
Asteroid defence system, what would the motivation be for the private
organisation(s) involved?

~~~
dnautics
i don't know. Living to see another day? And long before the threat of impact
- feeling good about contributing to something positive for the Earth? I don't
understand this obsession with the neoliberal idea that money is the sole
driving motivation for everyone in the world - and I'm worried that it's going
to be a self-fulfilling model.

Just FYI, there already is a private foundation that is trying to do this very
thing:

[http://b612foundation.org/](http://b612foundation.org/)

~~~
nknighthb
Then I'll do nothing, because I know I'll get the benefit of someone else
spending their own money to save me, no matter what I do. But certainly I'll
not expend my own money or effort to save the world, because I definitely
don't want to spend it saving you and your ilk.

~~~
dnautics
thankfully, not everyone on this planet is as morally bankrupt as you, nor
does charity require full participation of the populace to function
adequately.

~~~
nknighthb
On the contrary, it is my morality that makes me content with a cosmic death
sentence for any race to commit the crime of endorsing your intensely evil
version of morality.

If your views are to prevail, I eagerly await the universe's judgement,
sentence, and punishment, for the human race is irredeemable.

------
rogerthis
Please, close the UN.

------
1337biz
I'm sure they are going to send a strongly worded letter to those Aliens just
a few month after they have arrive. Just about in time as they are right now
only a few month away from condemning the Obama administration for the NSA spy
program.

------
oleganza
Nice way to allocate money extracted from taxpayers. Asteroids almost never
visibly hit Earth, it's impossible to seriously protect yourself when it hits
you or your neighbor, and it will sure take hundreds of billions of dollars to
build some space equipment to "deflect" asteroids. It's way more profitable
than the war with mythical terror.

Suggestion for UN, Obama or pretty much any government: go with your awesome
idea on Kickstarter and spend your donations on presentation, video,
blueprints, prototypes etc. If people like it, they'll send you money to
implement it. If they don't, then please shove your rifles down your
totalitarian ass instead of pointing them at the peaceful citizens.

Edit: downvoters are invited to explain how exactly UN earns money. Who has
the freedom to give or not give money to UN based on its performance and where
does this money come from?

~~~
thesis
I didn't down vote you. Nor do I think people are down voting you because of
what you said in your edit (about where the UN gets their money).

I think you're being down voted because you said Asteroids almost never
visibly hit Earth. It might be true as far as extinction events, but when (not
IF) it does happen and it's the right size we'll all vanish.

IMO it's prudent to at least have these discussions and have something in
place. If the UN is capable of the undertaking is a different story.

