Planetary Defense Depends On Transparency Not Reassurance

There is also a timing problem that law understands well. Warnings delivered after the window for meaningful response are not warnings at all. Courts routinely recognize that delayed disclosure can be as harmful as no disclosure, particularly when the risk profile demands early mitigation or contingency planning. Planetary defense operates on that same logic, even if the venue is not a courtroom.

As April 2029 approaches and asteroid Apophis prepares for an unprecedented close flyby, these accountability questions become unavoidable. Apophis is not expected to impact Earth. That is not the issue. The issue is whether the systems charged with protecting the public are structurally prepared to respond if assumptions change. Tidal forces, rotational shifts, surface shedding, or unanticipated acceleration are not science fiction. They are known physical possibilities.

If agencies possess real-time data indicating evolving risk, the obligation to disclose does not hinge on whether the risk crosses a preselected probability threshold. The obligation arises when the information would materially affect preparedness, public trust, or inter-agency coordination. Transparency is not alarmism. It is risk governance.