--- Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> wrote:
In this case, the results are not devastating. Even those who have studied this (not me) say that it is not a world ending activity. The food chain will remain.
Unless you're near ground zero! I think "world ending" needs to be more clearly defined. It will be pretty darned devastating on a large scale, and it is fair to say that life for many will be drastically altered- not for the better. Many institutions of civilization will certainly suffer drastic changes. Standards of living even for those far from the impact area will be affected. It seems to me you are deliberately downplaying the negative side of a mountain-sized impactor.
I think the answer at this point in human development is that we don't have the necessary technology. All of that being said, if our existence were REALLY threatened, chances are pretty good that someone would come up with at least a modifier to lessen the devastation.
So there really is no point in talking about NASA deflecting an asteroid at this point. A collision course in the near future can't be changed with known 'modifiers'. What speculative 'modifiers' do you have in mind? Anybody who's criticized ideas floated so-far, what are your suggestions? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com