Thus, the probability that nuclear explosives might be needed to deflect an NEO is extremely small. And even this minuscule probability will diminish to the vanishing point as researchers improve nonnuclear interception technologies. After 2020 the need to keep nuclear devices on standby to defend against an NEO virtually disappears. As a result, the decision to move toward the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons can be made strictly on the basis of human threats to global security. Extraterrestrial dangers need not be considered.

This article was originally published with the title NASA's Flimsy Argument for Nuclear Weapons.

6 Comments

1. 1. aluchko 09:05 PM 2/18/08

   "This analysis is seriously flawed. It is important not only to deflect an NEO from a collision course with Earth (primary deflection) but also to avoid knocking the object into a potential return orbit that would cause it to come back a few years later (secondary deflection)."
   
   I can't see the odds of a secondary collision being statistically significant (unless there's some orbital mechanics I'm not familiar with). In the extreme unlikelyhood that the asteroid does come back we can just nuke it again (we should be able to track it post nuke).

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. John_Toradze 08:57 PM 2/20/08

   It is not actually correct that nuclear explosions cannot be controlled. They can. Nuclear bombs have been created from a few kilotons to the megaton range. There are quite old designs for rockets that would use nuclear explosions for motive force.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. DonQTwo 06:10 AM 2/23/08

   This is how the prospect of asteroid impact becomes a man-made threat.
   
   Stupidity kills... Absolute stupidity kills absolutely.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. sagill 01:57 PM 8/12/08

   Unfortunately, the article and those making the arguments against nuclear weapons miss a major point: nuclear weapons are necessary as a potential deterrent. Even if every country claims to have eliminated them, it is possible for a nonnuclear state to create several small nuclear weapons and gain a significant strategic advantage with potentially catastrophic results. Reduce, yes. Eliminate....not unless there is an effective defense.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. JDK001 05:12 AM 4/11/09

   [link:http://www.drug.htm|Drug]
   [link title="Home"]http://www.talk.com[/link]
   [url=http://www.my.com]My[/url]
   <a href=http://www.celeb>Free</a>
   [url="http://www.my.com"]My[/url]
   <a href="http://www.celeb">Free</a>

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. PEG 12:06 AM 6/17/09

   We will not be able to rid the world of nuclear weapons . Do you think Russia or North Korea will honestly get rid of their nuclear arsenals? Get real I feel like I am taking crazy pills, I am sure they would love to hear our plans for disarming the U.S but they will never part with such a powerful technology. Its here till we use them or until we develope a defense against them, our priority should be keeping other nations from joining the nuclear powers and preventing North Korea from furthering their arsenal. ...Sanctions are a joke.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this