IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v39y2019i11p2427-2442.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk–Risk Tradeoff Analysis of Nuclear Explosives for Asteroid Deflection

Author

Listed:
  • Seth D. Baum

Abstract

To prevent catastrophic asteroid–Earth collisions, it has been proposed to use nuclear explosives to deflect away earthbound asteroids. However, this policy of nuclear deflection could inadvertently increase the risk of nuclear war and other violent conflict. This article conducts risk–risk tradeoff analysis to assess whether nuclear deflection results in a net increase or decrease in risk. Assuming nonnuclear deflection options are also used, nuclear deflection may only be needed for the largest and most imminent asteroid collisions. These are low‐frequency, high‐severity events. The effect of nuclear deflection on violent conflict risk is more ambiguous due to the complex and dynamic social factors at play. Indeed, it is not clear whether nuclear deflection would cause a net increase or decrease in violent conflict risk. Similarly, this article cannot reach a precise conclusion on the overall risk–risk tradeoff. The value of this article comes less from specific quantitative conclusions and more from providing an analytical framework and a better overall understanding of the policy decision. The article demonstrates the importance of integrated analysis of global risks and the policies to address them, as well as the challenge of quantitative evaluation of complex social processes such as violent conflict.

Suggested Citation

  • Seth D. Baum, 2019. "Risk–Risk Tradeoff Analysis of Nuclear Explosives for Asteroid Deflection," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(11), pages 2427-2442, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:39:y:2019:i:11:p:2427-2442
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13339
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13339
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13339?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Seth D. Baum, 2018. "Uncertain human consequences in asteroid risk analysis and the global catastrophe threshold," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 94(2), pages 759-775, November.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Robert Sugden, 2005. "Experienced Utility as a Standard of Policy Evaluation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 161-181, September.
    3. Timothy M. Maher & Seth D. Baum, 2013. "Adaptation to and Recovery from Global Catastrophe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-19, March.
    4. Thomas C. Schelling, 2006. "An Astonishing Sixty Years: The Legacy of Hiroshima," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(4), pages 929-937, September.
    5. Sidel, V.W. & Levy, B.S., 2007. "Proliferation of nuclear weapons: Opportunities for control and abolition," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 97(9), pages 1589-1594.
    6. Alan Harris, 2008. "What Spaceguard did," Nature, Nature, vol. 453(7199), pages 1178-1179, June.
    7. Ragnar Lofstedt & Anne Schlag, 2017. "Risk-risk tradeoffs: what should we do in Europe?," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(8), pages 963-983, August.
    8. Yew-Kwang Ng, 2003. "From preference to happiness: Towards a more complete welfare economics," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 20(2), pages 307-350, March.
    9. Jason C. Reinhardt & Xi Chen & Wenhao Liu & Petar Manchev & M. Elisabeth Paté‐Cornell, 2016. "Asteroid Risk Assessment: A Probabilistic Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 244-261, February.
    10. Seth D. Baum & David C. Denkenberger & Joshua M. Pearce & Alan Robock & Richelle Winkler, 2015. "Resilience to global food supply catastrophes," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 301-313, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ilan Noy & Tomáš Uher, 2022. "Four New Horsemen of an Apocalypse? Solar Flares, Super-volcanoes, Pandemics, and Artificial Intelligence," Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 393-416, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Seth D. Baum, 2023. "Assessing natural global catastrophic risks," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 115(3), pages 2699-2719, February.
    2. Seth D. Baum, 2018. "Uncertain human consequences in asteroid risk analysis and the global catastrophe threshold," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 94(2), pages 759-775, November.
    3. Christian Schubert, 2012. "Pursuing Happiness," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(2), pages 245-261, May.
    4. Christian Schubert, 2013. "Is Novelty Always a Good Thing? Towards an Evolutionary Welfare Economics," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Guido Buenstorf & Uwe Cantner & Horst Hanusch & Michael Hutter & Hans-Walter Lorenz & Fritz Rahmeyer (ed.), The Two Sides of Innovation, edition 127, pages 209-242, Springer.
    5. Witt, Ulrich & Binder, Martin, 2013. "Disentangling motivational and experiential aspects of “utility” – A neuroeconomics perspective," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 27-40.
    6. Ilan Noy & Tomáš Uher, 2022. "Four New Horsemen of an Apocalypse? Solar Flares, Super-volcanoes, Pandemics, and Artificial Intelligence," Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 393-416, July.
    7. Heather McMillen & Lindsay K. Campbell & Erika S. Svendsen & Renae Reynolds, 2016. "Recognizing Stewardship Practices as Indicators of Social Resilience: In Living Memorials and in a Community Garden," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-26, August.
    8. van Hoorn, André, 2018. "Is the happiness approach to measuring preferences valid?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 53-65.
    9. Pedersen, Tore & Friman, Margareta & Kristensson, Per, 2011. "The role of predicted, on-line experienced and remembered satisfaction in current choice to use public transport services," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 471-475.
    10. Alpaslan Akay & Amelie Constant & Corrado Giulietti & Martin Guzi, 2017. "Ethnic diversity and well-being," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 30(1), pages 265-306, January.
    11. Gardner, Jonathan & Oswald, Andrew J., 2007. "Money and mental wellbeing: A longitudinal study of medium-sized lottery wins," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 49-60, January.
    12. Bartczak, Anna M. & Budziński, Wiktor & Jusypenko, Bartosz & Boros, Piotr W., 2024. "The Impact of Health Status and Experienced Disutility on Air Quality Valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    13. Vanberg Viktor J., 2014. "Evolving Preferences and Welfare Economics: The Perspective of Constitutional Political Economy," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 234(2-3), pages 328-349, April.
    14. Marlos Goes & Nancy Tuana & Klaus Keller, 2011. "The economics (or lack thereof) of aerosol geoengineering," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 109(3), pages 719-744, December.
    15. Gabriel Leite Mota, 2022. "Unsatisfying ordinalism: The breach through which happiness (re)entered economics," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(3), pages 513-528, June.
    16. Maya Abou-Zeid & Satoshi Fujii, 2016. "Travel satisfaction effects of changes in public transport usage," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 301-314, March.
    17. Ingebjørg Kristoffersen, 2010. "The Metrics of Subjective Wellbeing: Cardinality, Neutrality and Additivity," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 86(272), pages 98-123, March.
    18. Benno Torgler & Sascha L. Schmidt & Bruno S. Frey, 2006. "The Power of Positional Concerns: A Panel Analysis," CREMA Working Paper Series 2006-19, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    19. Heinz Welsch & Jan Kühling, 2011. "Anti-Inflation Policy Benefits the Poor: Evidence from Subjective Well-Being Data," Working Papers V-343-11, University of Oldenburg, Department of Economics, revised Dec 2011.
    20. Kant, Shashi & Vertinsky, Ilan & Zheng, Bin, 2016. "Valuation of First Nations peoples' social, cultural, and land use activities using life satisfaction approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 46-55.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:39:y:2019:i:11:p:2427-2442. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.