Risk–Risk Tradeoff Analysis of Nuclear Explosives for Asteroid Deflection

Abstract

To prevent catastrophic asteroid–Earth collisions, it has been proposed to use nuclear explosives to deflect away earthbound asteroids. However, this policy of nuclear deflection could inadvertently increase the risk of nuclear war and other violent conflict. This article conducts risk–risk tradeoff analysis to assess whether nuclear deflection results in a net increase or decrease in risk. Assuming nonnuclear deflection options are also used, nuclear deflection may only be needed for the largest and most imminent asteroid collisions. These are low‐frequency, high‐severity events. The effect of nuclear deflection on violent conflict risk is more ambiguous due to the complex and dynamic social factors at play. Indeed, it is not clear whether nuclear deflection would cause a net increase or decrease in violent conflict risk. Similarly, this article cannot reach a precise conclusion on the overall risk–risk tradeoff. The value of this article comes less from specific quantitative conclusions and more from providing an analytical framework and a better overall understanding of the policy decision. The article demonstrates the importance of integrated analysis of global risks and the policies to address them, as well as the challenge of quantitative evaluation of complex social processes such as violent conflict.

Four New Horsemen of an Apocalypse? Solar Flares, Super-volcanoes, Pandemics, and Artificial Intelligence

“…We also note that there are, possibly, other existential risks that we have not covered in this paper – for example, nuclear war, or a catastrophic asteroid impact that can change the climate in such a way to make much of the earth uninhabitable for a significant period of time. There have been some attempts to quantify this latter risk (e.g., Reinhardt et al ( 2016 ) and Baum ( 2018 ) and there have also been explorations of ways to ameliorate it (e.g., Baum 2019 ). Our choice, ultimately, was to focus on the four risks we deem most significant, but of course this decision should be questioned, and re-evaluated repeatedly, as circumstances change, and new risks potentially emerge.…”

From impact refugees to deterritorialized states: foresighting extreme legal-policy cases in asteroid impact scenarios

“…Moreover, the most optimal method of deflection (e.g., high yield standoff bursts) could exacerbate nuclear tensions [41]. For this reason, it should be relegated as ultima ratio [10]. Following this example, the threatened state could decide to discard the nuclear deflection.…”

“…), suggesting promising approaches to avoid potential catastrophic asteroid-Earth collisions [8]. Some of these options, explosives in general (because of the risk of fragmentation) [9] and nuclear in particular (because of the risks of nuclear war and/or violent conflict) [10], may be counterproductive. A correction of asteroids' orbits is a candidate strategy to prevent impacts with the Earth, especially the Kinetic Impactor as evidenced by the interest in various experiments being carried out such as DART [11] and HERA [12].…”

Defence in Depth Against Human Extinction: Prevention, Response, Resilience, and Why They All Matter

“…Second, we have not considered interactions between different defence layers or different risks (Graham et al, ; Baum, ; Baum and Barrett, ; Martin and Pindyck, ). These can present both as tradeoffs or synergies.…”