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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
I have elaborated on the securitization of planetary defense in the past. For the link between securitization of the threat and possible commercialization of asteroid mining see (Schmidt 2017); for the broad discussion how to securitize planetary defense written for planetary defense community see (Schmidt 2018).
- 2.
Securitization theory in a nutshell is a critical security studies approach in the international relations discipline falling under political science. In the securitization theory, a security threat is a social construct—a political statement made by a security actor through speech acts claiming that something is a security threat to a referent object, in order to convince the audience to perform a political act. For more details, see Chap. 11.
- 3.
See also Balzacq (2010).
- 4.
For details on securitization of migration see (Huysmans 2006).
- 5.
I admit that I am making an opinion turn here. It is quite simple to be caught in our own carved perspective that some actions are normatively good when the argument is oriented on biosphere survival. However, the biosphere may flourish if the impact is strong enough to cause civilization collapse only. I thank to Pavel Dufek for this opinion turn as he lectured me in one of our discussion not to be caught in my conviction that the planetary defense endeavor is necessarily a normatively good effort. Evie Kendal discusses this ethical dilemma as well in Chap. 17.
References
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:10.1177/1354066107074290
Balzacq, T. (2010). Securitization Theory: How security problems emerge and dissolve. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203868508
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:10.1177/0967010611418714
Bucknam, M., & Gold, R. (2008). Asteroid Threat? The Problem of Planetary Defence. Survival, 50(5), 141–156. doi:10.1080/00396330802456502
Cochran, M. (2002). Deweyan Pragmatism and Post-Positivist Social Science in IR. Millennium - Journal of International Studies, 31(3), 525–548. doi:10.1177/03058298020310030801
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.
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/S026021050700753X
Floyd, R. (2011). Can Securitization Theory be Used in Normative Analysis? Towards a Just Securitization Theory. Security Dialogue, 42(4–5), 427–439. doi:10.1177/0967010611418712
Hughes, J. D. (2006). What is Environmental History? Cambridge: Polity Press.
Huysmans, J. (2006). The Politics of Insecurity: Fear, Migration and Asylum in the EU. London: Routledge.
James, W. (1910). Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. Cambridge University Press.
Jasanoff, S. (1990). The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policy- makers. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humiliation: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41(3), 223–244. doi:10.2307/41821248
Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of Knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. Routledge.
Lewis, J. (2013). Armageddon 2. Foreign Policy. http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/09/24/armageddon-2/. Accessed 18 December 2015
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.
Mellor, F. (2007). Colliding Worlds. Social Studies of Science (Vol. 37). doi:10.1177/0306312706075336
Neal, A. W. (2006). Foucault in Guantanamo: Towards an Archaeology of the Exception. Security Dialogue, 37(1), 31–46. doi:10.1177/0967010606064135
Nyman, J. (2016). Pragmatism, practice and the value of security. In Ethical security studies: A New Research Agenda (pp. 200–220).
Nyman, J., & Burke, A. (2016). Ethical Security Studies: A New Research Agenda. (J. Nyman & A. Burke, Eds.). Routledge.
Schmidt, N. (2016). The Birth of Cyber as a National Security Agenda (PhD Thesis). Charles University.
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.2017.0005
Schmidt, N. (2018). The Political Desirability, Feasibility, and Sustainability of Planetary Defense Governance (in review). Acta Astronautica.
Waever, O. (1993). Securitization and desecuritization. Centre for Peace and Conflict Research Copenhagen.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schmidt, N. (2019). Conceptualizing the Asteroid Threat and Searching for a Balanced Answer Between Effectiveness and Desirability. In: Schmidt, N. (eds) Planetary Defense. Space and Society. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01000-3_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01000-3_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-00999-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-01000-3
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)