As we bring our discussion to a close, we issue the recommendations that follow. We also advance the caveat that simply because meteorologists include no data regarding planetary defense in their evening forecast is no reason to disregard or minimize such a significant issue.

The Planetary Defense System (PDS) will provide a functional defensive capability against threat objects from space by 2025-a capability that may prevent catastrophic destruction and loss of life and even save the human race from extinction. Obviously, there is no guarantee that an asteroid or comet will pose a threat before, during, or even after this time frame, but, in any case, the global community will be prepared once the PDS is developed and deployed. The previous chapter also listed numerous dual-use benefits for the PDS.

Although promising signs exist in terms of more frequent workshops, technical discussions, and increased international cooperation, we must address several issues to resolve the planetary defense problem by 2025. First and foremost, does the global community believe that an unacceptable risk to the EMS exists, and, if so, is it committed to developing a solution? Obviously, the concepts presented in this paper require many new technologies that will take much time, talent, and resources to develop. Commitment does not equate to paper studies alone-it must be supported by substantial research and funding for these studies to be followed up with action. In an era of declining budgets, this issue presents a significant dilemma for leaders across the world. It should be remembered, however, that the threat of nuclear war was uncertain and even improbable during the cold war period; yet, the US spent more than $3 trillion over this 50-year time frame to maintain its strength against this uncertainty. These authors suggest that one needs only to consider the potential catastrophic effects from a large (>1 km diameter) ECO impact to conclude that humanity has a moral obligation to protect humanity.

Second, once a PDS becomes functional, especially if nuclear weapons are used, who controls it? Is it the United States, the United Nations or, perhaps, a consortium of world leaders that contributed to its development? These authors contend that the UN should be the controlling authority for the PDS. We acknowledge that such countries as the US, Russia, China, and possibly members of the European Union should carry greater weight and provide primary leadership for an effort of this magnitude. To gain the support of other nations, however, it will likely be necessary to use the UN as the controlling authority.

Third, some alternate future worlds developed during the 2025 study present a bleak outlook for enhanced technical development and resourcing during the next 30 years. Although these worlds are not predictive in nature, they do highlight that, if global conditions do not favor large monetary expenditures and committed focus on technical development, including the US itself, needs and ideas will never result in the required technologies to support a PDS.

The planetary defense problem is real and deserves serious attention. In this regard, we provide the following recommendations.

1. It is imperative that the global community unite to discuss, debate, and agree upon a plan to deal with the planetary defense problem. The participation by an increasing number of countries during technical workshops is highly encouraging. However, it must be noted that this is only an initial step in a long-term process. It is recommended that these workshops continue at all costs, since they require commitment and support by all nations.
2. Recommend that a team of engineers and scientists from the US, Russia, China and the European Union brief Congress on the results of the planetary defense studies, emphasizing the ECO threat, by Spring 1997. Additionally, to garner support from other countries, recommend that this team, led by the deputy undersecretary of defense for space and the deputy director of space policy, present the planetary defense topic at a future combined session of the United Nations, preferably within the same timeframe. Hopefully, such an effort will lead to a cooperative spirit among these nations.
3. Working closely with other nations, recommend that the US take the lead in developing and executing a program to educate the public about the ECO threat problem. This program is not intended to create anxiety or panic; rather, it seeks to reduce them through increased awareness. As discussed earlier, television documentaries and such computer links as the Internet will serve as the best educational media. Properly developed and presented, these tools would also serve as means of increasing support for further research, resourcing, and, ultimately, the development of a PDS.
4. We recommend the formal establishment of a global PDS consortium, perhaps at the next ECO workshop or during the proposed UN session, to commit required research and development funds for initial studies and PDS strategy development that will be required for the ultimate production of a three-tier PDS for EMS defense against ECOs. As a sign of good faith, we also recommend that the US immediately restore the $20 million to support Clementine II and sign-on as a primary stockholder for planetary defense.
5. Recommend that a phased acquisition strategy be adopted and implemented, leading to the ultimate development and deployment of a complete three-tier (consisting of detection, C4I and mitigation subsystems at each tier) PDS by 2025. For the near term, recommend that most of the available resources be used to upgrade detection capabilities worldwide, enabling scientists to more efficiently detect, and classify unknown ECOs.

Historically, humankind has used ingenuity and cunning to develop solutions to life-threatening challenges. Some of these threats have been immediate; others possible but not probable; and still others extremely remote. But, although planetary defense falls into the latter category, one must consider the extreme consequences that would likely result from an ECO impact. The issue is not if, but when an asteroid or comet will suddenly be detected as an EMS threat, causing global chaos and panic and ultimately placing all of humanity at risk. Obviously, our forefathers thought highly enough about our species to invest in capabilities to ensure its survival. The obvious question, then, is: Do today's leaders possess the same conviction towards preserving the human race, and, are they willing to invest in the PDS as a "catastrophic health insurance policy" for planet Earth?

Back to 2025 Home Page