We generally try to reduce risks in our everyday lives. If you’re like me, you might have the following thoughts daily:

I should try to not to get run over today by making sure I stop at traffic lights.

I should try and exercise moderately to decrease my risk of heart disease. 

I should save a bit more money in case an unseen financial expense catches me by surprise.

But the degree to which we think about risk is dependent on our perception of it. Rather than how risky the actual risk is… If we believe something is significantly more unlikely than it is we could walk headfirst into a serious accident.

This can also be seen with the UK government. Why? Because it is difficult to make political arguments about tackling huge risks which may be seen as unlikely when there are so many tangible (and politically important) problems facing the government right here and right now.

* * *

Don’t Look Up?

What is the chance that you die from an asteroid striking the Earth? Well it turns out that the odds of dying due to an asteroid are higher than you may think, at around 1 in 250,000. How could we respond to this?

There are 3 things to consider when looking at potential responses:

1. Cost - this one is quite simple. How much do the different proposals cost in relation to their supposed effectiveness?

2. Trade-Offs - for an intervention to be beneficial the weighted reduction in risk must be greater for the initial risk. Risk-risk trade-offs can regularly be seen in decisions relating to health, the environment and government regulation. 

3. Timeline - if you’re a government, and you don’t imagine an asteroid will strike the Earth in the next century, there’s probably an incentive to palm this off to the next administration. Current government’s have short timelines and are incentivised to allocate their political capital towards things that are electorally successful.

A worthwhile interception

One idea is to crash a spacecraft into the asteroid, several million miles from earth. At a high enough speed the aircraft can cause a slight change in the angle of the asteroid. Diverting it off its collision course with earth. Because of the relative simplicity, it keeps costs to a minimum and there is very little risk to giving it a go. Making it a strong leader in potential solutions. 

It has also been proven to be successful with NASA deflecting an asteroid in late 2022. However it should be noted that it requires a fairly long lead time, and as such there needs to be sufficient warning systems. Such that the change in angle from the collision has time to divert it of course with earth.

The Nuclear option (literally) 

What happens if that doesn't work? The closer an asteroid gets to earth, the greater risk it presents., and more importantly the harder it is to solve. It is no longer sufficient to adjust the trajectory by fractions of degrees - such that they can take effect over many thousands of miles. There needs to be a bigger shift, so what better way to do that then with a bigger impact: a nuclear strike.

Scientists estimated that the nuclear solution could still be used even with warning times of less than a week. The risk-risk trade off here is an important consideration, after all nuclear weapons are incredibly destructive and nuclear war is the first existential risk we have created. 

So what should be done?

The nuclear option could act as a placeholder for the time being, but should not be relied upon in long term plans. Afterall the risk-risk analysis is inconclusive. Because of this we need to ensure that there are sufficient detection systems in place such that other techniques can be employed.

Expanding on the Asteroid Terrestrial-Impact Last Alert System (or ATLAS) in Hawaii would be a good starting point. As it stands, it can offer a one week warning for an asteroid which could level a whole city. Along with a more global approach to both detection and prevention. It should not all be left in the hands of NASA and the Americans.

But one thing we know for show: the Government should look up!