If we examine what happened, I'd say an earthquake causing a tsunami has more chances to happen than a meteorite causing a tsunami.
Also, the East-West rivalry led to the conquest of space which led to a manned space program which led to building rockets with a high payload capacity, which might be useful against asteroids.
From our knowledge of rocks circulating in the Earth's vicinity, shouldn't we assume the chances of being hit by a small rock are higher than by a big one?
There is a rock size/mass threshold above which it becomes very dangerous. Are there plenty of them?
It seems the chances of being hit by a meteorite capable of destroying a city are far higher than an asteroid impact causing major cataclysmic changes on Earth. And yet, even the former hasn't happened yet, on recorded history.
When it does and causes huge damage, then priorities will change.
Space/Science » in reply to I agree, it would only take one
Risk assessment
The whole thread (26 posts)
- Mammoth-killing comet circa 13,000 BCE questioned
- What killed the Mammoths
- Bizarre
- re: Mammoth-killing comet circa 13,000 BCE questioned
- firestorms from the comet were supposed to be a major extinction cause
- re: firestorms from the comet were supposed to be a major extinction cause
- firestorms from the comet were supposed to be a major extinction cause