Impact Calculus The inevitability of debris means that you must value our impacts above all else

in terms of probability
Thierry Snchal, MA in finances and economics, 2007, Space Debris Pollution: A Convention Proposal http://www.pon.org/downloads/ien16.2.Senechal.pdf Collisions at orbital velocities can be highly damaging to functioning satellites and space manned missions. At orbital velocities of more than 28,000 km/h (17,500 mph), an object as small as 1 cm in diameter has enough kinetic energy to disable an average-size spacecraft. Objects as small as 1 mm can damage sensitive portions of spacecraft, but these particles are not tracked. 8 At a typical impact velocity of 10 km/s, a 1 cm liquid sodiumpotassium droplet would have the destructive power of an exploding hand grenade. A fragment that is 10 cm long is roughly comparable to 25 sticks of dynamite. The chance of a collision and substantial damage is not insignificant. The Space Shuttle has maneuvered to avoid collisions with other objects on several occasions. Regarding satellite constellations, if a potential collision will lead to the creation of a debris cloud that may result in damage to other constellation members, it may be worthwhile to perform a collision avoidance maneuver. Large particles obviously cause serious damage when they hit something. Part of a defunct satellite or any large debris resulting from a space launch would almost certainly destroy a satellite or kill a space explorer on impact. A source of risk is found in the likelihood of a chain of collisions in the coming years. Under such a scenario, space debris would grow exponentially as they start to collide. As a result, collisions would become the most dominant debris-generating mechanism in the future. Several studies demonstrated, with assumed future launch rates, the production rate of new debris due to collisions exceeds the loss of objects due to orbital decay. 9 As a result, in some low Earth orbit (LEO) altitude regimes, where the density of objects is above a critical spatial density, more debris would be created. The growth of future debris populations is shown in the following two graphs (See Figure 2-2). They show the effective number of LEO objects, 10 cm and larger, from the LEGEND simulation. 10 A detailed analysis conducted by NASA specialists J. C. Liou and N. L. Johnson (2006) indicates that the predicted catastrophic collisions and the resulting population increase are nonuniform throughout LEO. They conclude that it is probable that about 60% of all catastrophic collisions will occur between 900 and 1000 km altitudes, with the number of objects 10 cm and larger tripling in 200 years, leading to a factor of 10 increase in collisional probabilities among objects in this region. They argue: Even without new launches, collisions will continue to occur in the LEO environment over the next 200 years, primarily driven by the high collision activities in the region between 900- and 1000-km altitudes, and will force the debris population to increase. In reality, the situation will undoubtedly be worse because spacecraft and their orbital stages will continue to be launched. 11

And, even if you let them win on probability or timeframe, our Magnitude outweighs, International War is the worst (or should we say, best?) Impact in the round, Over 70% of the U.S Population and 44% of the Russian population would die from the first strike, and many other countries will follow. Bostrom '08( Bostrom, Nick. Global Catastrophic Risks. Chapter 1 ed. Vol. Page 21. Jan. 2008. Web. <http://www.global-catastrophicrisks.com/docs/global-catastrophic-risks.pdf>. )

One is that relations between the United States and Russia might again worsen to the point where a crisis could trigger a nuclear war. Future arms races could lead to arsenals even larger than those of the past. The worlds supply of plutonium has been increasing steadily to about 2000 tons about 10 times as much as remains tied up in warheads and more could be produced. Some studies suggest that in an all-out war involving most of the weapons in the current US and Russian arsenals, 3577% of the US population (105230 million people) and 2040% of the Russian population (2856 million people) would be killed. Delayed and indirect effects such as economic collapse and a possible nuclear winter could make the nal death toll far greater. Another possibility is that nuclear war might erupt between nuclear powers other than the old Cold War rivals, a risk that is growing as more nations join the nuclear club, especially nations that are embroiled in volatile regional conicts, such as India and Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel, perhaps to be joined by Iran or others. One concern is that the more nations get the bomb, the harder it might be to prevent further proliferation. The technology and know-how would become more widely disseminated, lowering the
technical barriers, andnations that initially chose to forego nuclear weapons might feel compelled torethink their decision and to follow suit if they see their neighbours start downthe nuclear path. A third possibility is that global nuclear war could be started by mistake. According to Joseph Cirincione, this almost happened in January 1995: