Advertisement

Conceptualizing the Asteroid Threat and Searching for a Balanced Answer Between Effectiveness and Desirability

  • Nikola SchmidtEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Space and Society book series (SPSO)

Abstract

This chapter utilizes the theory of securitization, as previously explained, and applies it to the asteroid threat. As the threat itself is clearly detectable by scientific means, it might look as if there are no political implications. This chapter claims the opposite. The fact that we can scientifically detect an asteroid merely precedes a political decision on how best to deal with it, no matter whether it is on a collision course or not. Securitization not only brings the threat to the fore of global debates, but it also legitimizes certain mitigation measures. Planetary defense is a delicate topic because currently, the most effective mitigation measure is nuclear deflection. However, using a nuclear warhead euphemistically called a ‘Nuclear Explosive Device’ creates new dilemmas. Thinking about alternatives for planetary defense that could become part of a broader infrastructure in space provides more than just security defined as the absence of threat; rather, it provides an opportunity to promote human flourishing in space and on Earth. Scientific authorities produce knowledge applicable to threat mitigation, but at the same time this creates responsibility and requires ethical reflection. This chapter explains in detail how a decision based simultaneously on rational and normative values should look.

Keywords

Securitization Objectivation of science Pragmatism Sociology of knowledge Planetary defense 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This study was supported by the grant awarded by the Technological Agency of the Czech Republic, project TL01000181: “A multidisciplinary analysis of planetary defense from asteroids as the key national policy ensuring further flourishing and prosperity of humankind both on Earth and in Space,” and co-funded by the Institute of Political Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University in Prague.

References

  1. Aradau, C., & Van Munster, R. (2007). Governing Terrorism Through Risk: Taking Precautions, (un)Knowing the Future. European Journal of International Relations, 13(1), 89–115. doi:10.1177/1354066107074290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balzacq, T. (2010). Securitization Theory: How security problems emerge and dissolve. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203868508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berling, T. V. (2011). Science and securitization: Objectivation, the authority of the speaker and mobilization of scientific facts. Security Dialogue, 42(4–5), 385–397. doi:10.1177/0967010611418714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bucknam, M., & Gold, R. (2008). Asteroid Threat? The Problem of Planetary Defence. Survival, 50(5), 141–156. doi:10.1080/00396330802456502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cochran, M. (2002). Deweyan Pragmatism and Post-Positivist Social Science in IR. Millennium - Journal of International Studies, 31(3), 525–548. doi:10.1177/03058298020310030801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Evans, G., & Sahnoun, M. (2001). The Responsibility to Protect. Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Ottawa, Kanada: International Development Research Centre.Google Scholar
  7. Floyd, R. (2007). Towards a consequentialist evaluation of security: bringing together the Copenhagen and the Welsh Schools of security studies. Review of International Studies, 33(2), 327. doi:10.1017/S026021050700753XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Floyd, R. (2011). Can Securitization Theory be Used in Normative Analysis? Towards a Just Securitization Theory. Security Dialogue, 42(4–5), 427–439. doi:10.1177/0967010611418712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hughes, J. D. (2006). What is Environmental History? Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  10. Huysmans, J. (2006). The Politics of Insecurity: Fear, Migration and Asylum in the EU. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. James, W. (1910). Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Jasanoff, S. (1990). The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policy- makers. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humiliation: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41(3), 223–244. doi:10.2307/41821248Google Scholar
  14. Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of Knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Lewis, J. (2013). Armageddon 2. Foreign Policy. http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/09/24/armageddon-2/. Accessed 18 December 2015Google Scholar
  16. Marks, J. (2015). Heaven Can’t Wait: A Critique of Current Planetary Defence Policy. In J. Galliott (Ed.), Commercial Space Exploration: Ethics, Policy and Governance (pp. 71–90). Farnham UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  17. Mellor, F. (2007). Colliding Worlds. Social Studies of Science (Vol. 37). doi:10.1177/0306312706075336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Neal, A. W. (2006). Foucault in Guantanamo: Towards an Archaeology of the Exception. Security Dialogue, 37(1), 31–46. doi:10.1177/0967010606064135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nyman, J. (2016). Pragmatism, practice and the value of security. In Ethical security studies: A New Research Agenda (pp. 200–220).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nyman, J., & Burke, A. (2016). Ethical Security Studies: A New Research Agenda. (J. Nyman & A. Burke, Eds.). Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Schmidt, N. (2016). The Birth of Cyber as a National Security Agenda (PhD Thesis). Charles University.Google Scholar
  22. Schmidt, N. (2017). Planetary Defense as a Gateway to Space for Commercial and Deep Space Exploration. New Space, 5(4), 219–229. doi:10.1089/space.2017.0005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schmidt, N. (2018). The Political Desirability, Feasibility, and Sustainability of Planetary Defense Governance (in review). Acta Astronautica.Google Scholar
  24. Waever, O. (1993). Securitization and desecuritization. Centre for Peace and Conflict Research Copenhagen.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political Science, Institute of Political Studies, Faculty of Social SciencesCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations