Does anyone actually think it's a good idea to have the U.N. in charge of this? Here's how it would work. First there would be a global effort to raise the $300 million, which means America would pay about $290 million. Then the money would work it's way through the U.N. beauracracy, with everyone from the Secretary General, his extended family, every committee chairman from UNICEF to WHO, and their personal prostitutes taking a cut. After that, about $20 million might make it to a space agency to build the gravity generator thingy, who would be forced to bitch about the lack of funding, and publicly blame us greedy American bastards for not paying our fair share.

At that point, I'd be happy if the asteroid hit us, because we'd deserve it.

i have a feeling i'll be long dead by then, so.... meh.

if i'm not dead by then, i'll likely want to be. so meh too.

I would trust the NFL more then the UN. The NFL could raise the $300 million with an hours worth of advertising during the Super Bowl at the 2006 add rate.

Just hand it over to NASA. The guys that work their cream their pants every time they think about a possibility like this. They'd have a plan of action put together in no time. So long as they didn't leave the contracting work to the lowest bidder, as they usually do these days, they might actually even have working equipment to pull it off.

Interesting.

I am criticised for wanting to commit genocide against the entire Islamic religion. I have that desire because in my judgement, Islam is an evil cult of tyranny, death, and misogyny. The way I see it, when a muslim dies, the world becomes a better place to live.

Somehow that is seen as worse than this kind of apathy.

Who is more evil, a person who wants to see a specific group of people butchered for the oppression they inflict on others, or someone who doesn't give a fuck about the destruction of the entire planet because it probably won't impact their pathetic little life?

Actually, I think what you're asking is:

Who is more evil, a person who wants to see a group of people butchered based on the actions of a small sampling of that group, or someone who doesn't give a fuck about the destruction of the entire planet because it won't impact their pathetic little life.

I don't think evil comes into it, just two equal examples of wrong-minded thinking...of course, it's hard for human beings to give two shits about any future people beyond their own grandchildren, and it's easy to blame a whole group of people for the actions of a few members. That's why we allow for the raping of natural resources and deficit spending, and why so many people on DF like to bash Christians.

I could reply to this, with good points and sources, but it would become an excercise that we've been through before that would leave both of us feeling like the gif in your sig.

Yeah, I know...this dance has been danced before.

Getting back on topic, I wonder if anyone has any hard data available about how one would go about destroying/diverting an asteroid, and hopefully data that doesn't include any mention of the movie Armageddon.

Apparently, scientists theorize that simply launchng a space-craft of sufficient size within the range of an asteroids gravitational pull would be sufficient to divert it's course. I find it kind of funny to wonder if we might accidently pull it's course even more on target with Earth.

Which begs the question: What is considered "sufficient size?" I know that any body in space exerts some type of gravitational pull, but the idea that an asteroid the size of, say, Manhattan Island, could be influenced enough by something the size of the space shuttle, to divert course a few thousand miles seems a bit far-fetched to me.

If they really want to do it properly and with enough resources, ransom George Bush to whatever country hates him most at the time (which is going to take some incredibly detailed, long-winded research and will be one of the closest calls in history since William Tell asked his son if he wanted his ears pierced). I'm betting they'd pay 1000 million for his head on a plate. I know I would if I had that kind of money. Problem solved, no asteroid strike and America gets rid of a figurehead that is an insult to the "freedom", intelligence and human rights of it's people.

Who the hell do we think we are to imagine that we have the right to prevent it anyway? A decent strike right on target would probably be the best thing this planet has seen in a damn long time. Give the place a chance to start over. We've done a shit job; let the next intelligent species have a go.

By the way, S, I'm not stalking you; you just post the most interesting threads.

The species with the ability to prevent it, perhaps?

What right does the meteor have to just go around slamming into planets?

I'll go a bit further and say that we have the "right" to protect ourselves, just as any other animal in the world has. Every animal protects the survival of its genes in the ways it can, and we're no different...except that we can use nuclear weapons to blow celestial bodies into dust to do so.

Nuclear Weapons will not work. Armageddon was a joke movie. You would only have a more serious threat. What we need is a repulsor beam. A huge wave of anti-gravity shot at the moving body so its course is changed Into the sun hopefully so it is destroyed. We can barely get the damn old shuttles into orbit.... fuck if they will go any further... the new ones will... maybe.... they would need to build something out in space

I was being facetious; I've already stated in a previous post about how ridiculous the whole Armageddon idea was. I was just saying that we've got every right to excercise our survival instinct. If we can prevent an asteroid hit, we're damn well gonna do it.