test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
How would the world change/react if a nation were able to control an asteroid?
lonnehart
Member Posts: 846 Arc User
Suppose a technologically advanced nation (not necessarily the U.S.A.) were able to somehow guide an asteroid in orbit around earth above its territory, and then somehow have it gently touch down within its borders so they can mine it, how would everyone else in the world react? How would things change? Would the price of those "rare earth" materials come crashing down? Or would fear grip the world in such a way that the technology would be destroyed?
*sings* "I like Gammera! He's so neat!!! He is full of turtle meat!!!"
"Hah! You are doomed! You're only armed with that pathetic excuse for a musical instrument!!!" *the Savage Beast moments before Lonnehart the Bard used music to soothe him... then beat him to death with his Fat Lute*
"Hah! You are doomed! You're only armed with that pathetic excuse for a musical instrument!!!" *the Savage Beast moments before Lonnehart the Bard used music to soothe him... then beat him to death with his Fat Lute*
Post edited by lonnehart on
0
Comments
Obviously it depends on the size of the asteroid, but to be mining efficient, it would have to be quite big. And stopping such a thing and bring it "gently"?? Eheh
The positive side would be that we would be safe from asteroid collisions :P
It wouldn't be destroyed, but the "ability to drop a continent-sized rock on our enemies" technology would be seized by whoever won the inevitable power struggle. Because, y'know. that's too much power to be in "the wrong hands" which means it has to be taken by whoever can claim to be "the right hands" for safekeeping.
Anyone who thinks it would be destroyed needs to think long and hard about why we still have nuclear weapons, and how that applies to this scenario. :P
Never mind what kind of effort it would take to do it. I'm merely asking what if it could be done?
Oh, great... What did Bones say about that in Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan again?
"Hah! You are doomed! You're only armed with that pathetic excuse for a musical instrument!!!" *the Savage Beast moments before Lonnehart the Bard used music to soothe him... then beat him to death with his Fat Lute*
Pretty good book about Earth (The countries) being locked up by a few countries who have monopolized oil and NASA captures an asteroid into earth's orbit to try and break the world free of oil reliance.
It may not be all that great, but its still a decent read.
2. An asteroid would be of better use in orbit since it could be used as an orbital station which might be attached to a space elevator.
3. Asteroids with Rare Earth materials are likely to be very rare and it is not currently worth our time to get rocks that are made of mostly ice, nickel, iron, and other common materials. Assuming we have people living in space, then asteroids would be a good source of resources for them, but currently not for Earth. Besides if a civilization is advanced enough to get an asteroid to Earth, then they are advanced enough to mine the asteroid where they found it and send the good resources to Earth. There is no need to send asteroids to Earth just for resources.
So the only reason to send asteroids to Earth from a purely peaceful position is to build ships and orbital stations since a bunch of rock is good protection from radiation and small interstellar debris.
OK, but the how you do it is important in context. For instance, you can disregard it as a weapon. Because if you were advanced enough to do this you'd have many more effective ways of destroying things.
Let's see if I can explain myself correctly...
The way an asteroid is a great weapon is precisely the same way it is not. Meaning, it is destructive when it's big and it brings speed, but it's also too much destructive. It's like using explosives to kill an ant. You kill the ant but you destroy the place she is in, and probably yourself along the process. If you downgrade the magnitude of destruction it becomes a much poorer option.
Now, concerning your question in your first post, if indeed you are able to increase the presence of materials, then their rarity goes down and so does the price. It would benefit some things and harm others. Economy could suffer a blow if for instance we suddenly had 10 times the amount of gold and we would need to adapt to other standards. But gold also has many other uses we don't fully explore precisely because it's rare and expensive. Just an example.
There is a significant difference between nuclear weapons and that scenario.
The reason why the use of nuclear weapons might mean the end of mankind as we know it it not necessarily the original use, it's the counter offensive and the resulting war throwing arround dozens of them. A single nuclear weapon is bad enough. No question. But it would not DIRECTLY kill everybody.
An asteroid of that size weaponised would do exactly that. If for example Russia throws an asteroid at the USA... Well the USA would be the lucky ones. It will be over for them faster, but the Russians would be as dead ultimately, from the ideate impact. If there even would be a difference.
Obviously some people don't get the finer points of how our world works and how it relies on perfect balance of things.
lets just say DOOOOOOOOOOOM is what would happen mostly because introducing another body outside our atmosphere such as the OP suggested and the size of an asteroid big enough to be worth while even mining or something like that would effect the earths gravity and not to mention the pull and effect the moon has in regulating our climate in such was as to keep us alive.
so yer wouldnt happen couldnt happen not in any of our lifetimes or even poss for the next 100+ yrs
The rest of the world would likely react badly. This would be strange technology and given the scope of the project, there would be no small amount of protest and objection. After all, we all share the same planet.
You would see neighboring countries of the country in question protest its use, likely the entire hemisphere(s) it may reside in -- if not the globe in general, since the slightest mistake could spell disaster for the entire planet, not just the country in question.
Space is considered international territory, but the planet itself obviously is not. If any unexpected consequences of this project were to harm other countries in the process, the country in question who can harness this power would be held liable for reparations.
Then again, if it was America -- we likely wouldn't pay anyone. I think we're still holding the bill for crashing SkyLab into Australia (I could be wrong, but I don't think we paid the Aussies out of our government funds).
If something did go wrong, you could be looking at a full-scale war with the country in question out of safety concerns for its neighbors.
However, in the best case scenario, nothing goes wrong and everything goes off without a hitch?
It depends on what this asteroid is comprised of. It would need to be made out of mostly platinum (just as an example) to even be considered viable for this kind of extraction operation.
You would see this country become an economic powerhouse (if it was not one already), and it likely would have signed exclusive deals with other countries for the export of outer space platinum (most likely before it even happened), since it has numerous industrial and medical uses -- which is partially why platinum is usually more expensive than gold (when the economy is strong anyway).
The more likely scenario, however... is it would not be just one country, but a group of countries that occupy the same area. They would each share a part of the responsibility, and thus would each take a share of the benefits reaped from this asteroid mining operation. An insurance agreement would need to be put into effect to compensate any countries harmed by the operation.
If this agreement would eventually be ignored (in the event of something going wrong), you're looking at the other countries placing economic sanctions on the belligerant party, or full-scale military action depending on the severity of the outcome, to protect themselves -- or to get satisfaction. It would transcend politics, since the very safety of your neighbors are in jeopardy when you're talking about taking an asteroid down to earth to be mined.
North Korea would be flattened like a pancake.
(as the United States brought it down for a "gentle landing")
--->Ground Combat General Bugs Directory
Real join date: March 2012 / PvP Veteran since May 2012 (Ground and Space)
Okay? Who would go to war with a country that can drop asteroids from orbit?
Also I dunno about countries, but for a geologist to get their hands on a whole asteroid. You would need a war to get it off them.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
P.S. Please, Please, don't hit me with your big rock. I'll do anything. Quote: President of the (Nation that doesn't controll the asteroid).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/401227.stm
http://qz.com/47232/the-crazy-economics-of-mining-asteroids-for-gold-and-platinum/
433 Eros, which is a larger asteroid at 34x11x11 kilometers in size, would be an ideal candidate for asteroid mining as it has huge gold and platinum reserves. In fact, it has an estimated 20 trillion dollars of gold in it. While we don't have the technology to land it on earth safely, it might be possible to push it with chemical rockets and bring it into earth orbit. This would be made easier by the fact that it's a so-called "Mars-crosser" asteroid that comes within the orbit of Mars when it is closest to the sun. That would be the most ideal point in it's orbit to try pushing it closer to Earth. IMO just crashing 433 Eros into the Moon would make it worthwhile to send astronauts to the moon again.
Two companies, Deep Space Industries and Planetary Resources are already investigating the possibility of mining asteroids for profit.
Which means - it depends on a lot of factors, including rationality and own counter-measures.
And just because they can bring this one asteroid down safely, doesn't mean it can be easily done or often done.
---
It would probably have a strong economical impact, but I think the net effect would be positive - Having more rare earth can allow us to build more stuff based on them, even stuff that might seem wasteful (but if possible, very convenient/useful) today.
That is assuming that getting the asteroid here safely doesn't cost us too much.
Most countries will have their own nukes or deterrent programme, or be closely allied with someone who has.
Who has an anti-asteroid programme?
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
They make sense in science fiction as a weapon of planetary bombardment, if you intend to destroy the entire planet. But it's not a good idea if you are living on said planet.
So your deterrence is usually that you have your own nukes. And whether you attack such a country with nukes, vastly superior ground and air forces, or asteroids, they have the option of retaliating with nukes.
And think about what would happent o anyone that would start lobbing asteroids at people - it could very well lead to other countries deciding that they'd rather see your country destroyed then risk being the next one to fall under an asteroid.
We already have WMDs. You better find something more finesse or subtle, unless you're suicidal
That in itself will be a weapon that any power can and is wielding now, not with water but natural gas and energy supplies.
The only way I can see something like this haveing a peaceful existence would be for the technology to be shared openly for any nation to use, what that would do to the world economy though can only be guessed at but I think like others have said would mean that once precious metals and substances would loose value and in itself cause instability as once powerful nations would find themselves on the loosing end as the globe rebalances itself.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
i'd be like, "yeah, great, i'm not jealous"
Ice asteroids would be valuable for terraforming Mars. The equator on Mars can reach about 20 degrees Celsius in summer - and this is with it's relatively thin atmosphere compared to earth. If ice asteroids can be targeted at the equator it would only be a matter of time before they start to melt. Once you get an ocean forming the water vapor would start creating a greenhouse effect that would warm the planet, which may start melting the ice caps, which would further accelerate the process. The north polar cap on Mars is estimated to contain frozen water about 30% as large as Greenland's ice sheet (197,000 cubic miles of water ice). Even if the water ice didn't melt, just sublimating all the frozen carbon dioxide would help thicken the atmosphere.
That's the easy part though. The hard part would be seeding life that would produce oxygen and make the atmosphere habitable for humans. Once an ocean is formed, this might be accomplished using some kind of phytoplankton - which account for over 50% of the oxygen production on Earth. I would think that ice asteroids + phytoplankton would be the key ingredients for a habitable Mars. While I don't know much about plankton, I would think that they would thrive in mineral-rich waters on a freshly watered Mars, but again I don't know anything about them. If our current earth plankton don't work though, maybe some could be selectively bred to survive in harsh climates?
Once a breathable atmosphere is present, humans could go there and start cultivating anything else they would need. Mars doesn't need to have lush green fields of grass, or forests full of trees before we think about colonizing it. It just needs water and oxygen. we can plant everything else later.
I've also read that perhaps some kind of rock lichen could survive on the surface of Mars as it is right now. Lichens do produce oxygen but not much, and I don't think they would be a quick or efficient way to build a breathable atmosphere. But they would still help.
Now for Preparation H.