"The world’s superpowers will never allow it to happen"

False. Unfortunately, most leading scientists and humanists who have argued for a need for a global defence system have tried to appeal to world leaders on the ground of altruism and common sense. On the other hand protect-the-earth.org adopts a far more pragmatic set of arguments.

(1) It makes good economic sense to work towards a common system that both gives the global community a higher purpose and reduces a factor of risk. While the funds used for such a project might potentially have been used for more practical short term needs, the investment by nations is certain to generate a new found global confidence over a long and sustained period which in turn will help maintain global growth and prosperity;

(2) The goal of adopting a global defence network is integrated into the reform agenda of every major organisation and element proposed in the UCADIAN model from the United Nations, the network of six economic unions, the reform of major religious faiths and the creation of a new single minded global political party. There is no legitimate excuse a world leader can use to say there is no plan to move forward.

(3) Finally, the UCADIAN model has a failsafe mechanism for addressing national leaderships that simply won’t step up to their obligations- ensure that political parties are established with effective campaign systems to throw these people and parties out of power.

"There are greater risks to life on Earth than an asteroid"

True. On any rational list of likely global and regional disasters, such events as drought, disease, earthquakes, volcanoes and war rate much more likely events than a major global disaster from the impact of an asteroid.

That is why a comprehensive strategy has been put in place to reduce and in many cases eliminate such risks over the next twenty five years through the reformation of global governance (heal-the-earth.org), the introduction of new technologies and economic plans (u-s-m.org) to eliminate poverty, war and suffering.

However, with all these risks being addressed through comprehensive and detailed plans for every nation, there still remains the fact that an asteroid impact on Earth is still a risk.

The EarthNet Systems will eliminate that risk. However, in respect to the priority of issues for most governments in the world, the full systems of EarthNet are not proposed to be online until 2012, at which time other economic and social programs will have been well underway to help eliminate poverty and suffering.

"The EarthNet system is too big a risk for some global maniac to use against the Earth"

False. In respect to the great scientists and humanist Carl Sagan who once voiced similar concerns when he was alive, the EarthNet system is specifically designed with multiple failsafes and redundancies to eliminate such a risk from every happening.

(1) EarthNet is controlled by the Supreme Council of the reformed United Nations, not one nation. Therefore, no rogue person can in practice ever assume authority over it.

(2) EarthNet command is split into three units with audit and oversight overlaps so that the Sentry system has an oversight and monitoring duty for all objects, including EarthNet for any unauthorized movements. Secondly, the Protector command has an oversight of the Life Shield command as well.

(3) The protector command is bound by its function to also protect against the unlikely event of a wayward mine ever entering low Earth Orbit.

(4) Both the Protector and Life Shield Systems are each internally divided into eight (8) Directorates with active deployment more than three defence directorates requiring special command approval. This prevents the “whole system” from ever being live unless manual override and separate permissions are given. The only time such a permission would be given is in the unlikely event that the whole Earth was under attack.

Therefore, there is simply no way that the system can ever be effectively turned against its primary intention- that of defending the planet. Any argument then against the EarthNet on these ill founded fears should not be considered as either well informed or rational.