Planetary Defense Depends On Transparency Not Reassurance

Near-Earth objects and fast-moving interstellar visitors present a unique accountability problem. Their trajectories evolve. Their physical behavior can change under gravitational or thermal stress. Small deviations can matter enormously when distances collapse from millions of kilometers to tens of thousands. In that environment, delayed disclosure is not a passive omission. It is a decision with consequences.

The public narrative often emphasizes reassurance. Objects are labeled “non-threatening,” encounters are described as “well understood,” and anomalies are downplayed as statistical noise. But reassurance is not a substitute for preparedness, and confidence is not evidence. From a legal standpoint, the suppression, minimization, or fragmentation of material data raises serious questions about whether agencies are meeting their duty of care.

Preparedness depends on more than internal review. It depends on external scrutiny. Independent scientists, international partners, and even informed public observers serve as a redundancy layer against institutional blind spots. When data is withheld, delayed, or released in degraded form, that redundancy collapses. The system becomes brittle precisely when it must be resilient.