In 2003, the author presented an IISL paper to examine interdisciplinary obstacles that complicate the draft and implementation of a Near Earth Object (NEO) defense treaty. An updated analysis is justified by increasing government and societal attention on large-scale disaster planning, mitigation and response on Earth. Growing international attention is focusing on redefining environmental defense. This has evolved to include greater emphasis on impact hazard determination and policies which are required prior to the deflection of any large asteroid impact. The paper will argue how interpretations of Principles Relevant to Nuclear Power Sources in Space, the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, and other treaties, only appear to forbid 'environmental modification' that creates most notably, "widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage, or injury." Peaceful uses are explicitly allowed, and would thus support the idea of applying nuclear propulsion for eventual asteroid deflection. Such an initiative would benefit from coordinated, monitoring where roles would be outlined in a treaty. The implications of the U.S. position on the Kyoto Protocol, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, will be addressed alongside the evolution of efforts by the B612 Foundation, the World Federation of Scientists Permanent Monitoring Panel (PMP) for Defense Against Cosmic Objects, Spaceguard, and thernInternational Council for Science (ICSU), which strongly encourage negotiation of protocols before an impact is predicted. The paper will also make connections among the anticipated Promethius mission, international capacity-building and the perception of asteroid deflection strategy.
展开▼
