When I read the headline, “Why is it America’s job to save the world from asteroids?” on Passport, Foreign Policy’s main blog, I’ll admit my initial reaction was something akin to “duh.” Surely the United States is in the best position to save the world from catastrophe. Simple! But author Joshua Keating’s point in the September 13 entry may be more subtle.
While a cataclysmic asteroid strike is extremely unlikely, should the United States take the lead in helping prevent one? Don Davis/NASA
“But why,” Keating asks, “in this supposedly post-American world, is the United States expected to take the lead on this?” A potentially devastating asteroid strike, already unlikely, would be statistically favored to strike elsewhere on the planet. And, unlike other global crises, the United States would be absolutely blameless. Why shouldn’t the United Nations or other space agencies “take the lead”?
While my first thought — “Because we’re capable of doing it, and it’d be worth it” — still stands, it did make me wonder: Would a solo American venture be for the best? I don’t doubt NASA’s ability to predict and neutralize a dangerous threat, given enough support, but would we be better off partnering with other countries? Surely such a worthy undertaking as saving the world is a job best handled by international cooperation — right?
I’m not sure what the answer is, but in the absence of such a coalition, it’s reasonable to do what we can to protect ourselves, even if it means saving everyone else, too. That’s just a risk I’m willing to take, I guess.
But what do you think? Are asteroid strikes, however unlikely, really something we need to worry about? Or is it a disgrace that we haven’t acted sooner? Would global cooperation be helpful, or should America lead the way? Let me know at bandrews@astronomy.com, or in the comments below.