Nasa admit huge asteroid could destroy Earth in just NINETEEN years

[Guztav.]

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/345942/Nasa-admit-huge-asteroid-could-destroy-Earth-in-just-NINETEEN-years

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/18/were_doomed_again_as_astronomers_spot_asteroid_that_could_hit_earth_in_2032/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2465563/Will-world-end-2032-Ukrainian-astronomers-discover-massive-asteroid-hit-earth-power-2-500-nuclear-bombs.html

...thoughts?

[Old Crow]

Daily Star, the US Weekly of news aka its bullshit.

[Guztav.]

Daily Star, the US Weekly of news aka its bullshit.

There's actually a few more sources I believe, but yep you never know when it comes to these sites

[Old Crow]

Give me BBC, NY times or WSJ. If I don't see it there, then its not reliable.

Edit: Also did you even read the articles dude?? Russian boss says it (yeah, they have been doing a stellar job lately ),
 and one of the articles you posted says NASA says its a 99.984% miss chance, so now you are confusing me.

[arth987]

Give me BBC, NY times or WSJ. If I don't see it there, then its not reliable.

Edit: Also did you even read the articles dude?? Russian boss says it (yeah, they have been doing a stellar job lately ),
 and one of the articles you posted says NASA says its a 99.984% miss chance, so now you are confusing me.

LOL the liberal vibe you put out.... Ny times is shit BBC is shit. WSJ in particular is shit.

[Old Crow]

Give me BBC, NY times or WSJ. If I don't see it there, then its not reliable.

Edit: Also did you even read the articles dude?? Russian boss says it (yeah, they have been doing a stellar job lately ),
 and one of the articles you posted says NASA says its a 99.984% miss chance, so now you are confusing me.

LOL the liberal vibe you put out.... Ny times is shit BBC is shit. WSJ in particular is shit.

BBC is consistently known as the best and most unbiased news source. The others aren't as unbiased but still good.

Leet, TBH you have nothing to worry about. 1) Its predicted for 2032. 2) 99.984% chance its going to miss. 3) A few years before it gets close, NASA will be able to predict its path better, so stop freaking out!

[Christovski]

BBC is consistently known as the most unbiased news source

This, it still is gonna have some bias, but it is much more trustworthy than most of the other sensationalist shitty news sources.

And as has been stated, We've had these near misses in the past, it is nothing new and nothing to panic about.  With that good of a chance of missing, it would be easy to knock it the tiniest bit off course if it comes that close.

[Tictactoe360]

Good, earth needs a nice ass kicking for all the shit it caused.
Poor Pluto never did anything to anybody and then we took his title away because we thought he was too little.

Besides the Earth is the asshole in this group
"Oh look at me, I've got life on me."

Oh shut up Earth, nobody cares anymore it's lost the novelty value.

[Dante]

Even if that .1% chance happened, couldn't we just nuke it?

[Leetgrain]

If it's real, then... I don't know, may just be me being apathetic today, but I'm not worried - and I'm not saying that it won't hit, but I'm saying I'm not worried is because there's no need for me to be, 19 years is a long time, and I will have opportunities to do everything I want to do. If it's certain oblivion, then I'm just going to live on as usual, and when the time comes close, I'm going to tie up any loose ends, fix out any regrets I may have, and take a holiday somewhere beautiful with my partners, and watch the end of the world with the two people I love and adore.

Actually sounds pretty tranquil.

[Billy]

Who cares?

If it happens, neat. If it doesn't, boring.

[Guztav.]

Give me BBC, NY times or WSJ. If I don't see it there, then its not reliable.

Edit: Also did you even read the articles dude?? Russian boss says it (yeah, they have been doing a stellar job lately ),
 and one of the articles you posted says NASA says its a 99.984% miss chance, so now you are confusing me.

I skimmed through the other 2, just to show that there were other sources, and whatever, it's not that big of a difference

[Leninade]

Even if that .1% chance happened, couldn't we just nuke it?

Think pretty much every international space treaty signed by just about everyone prohibits doing stuff like that. Nukes in high orbit = very bad things for a lot of people. Fallout in jetstreams isn't a good thing.

But yeah, we could probably hit it with your regular store-brand ICBM. Just no nuclear payload.

[Dante]

Even if that .1% chance happened, couldn't we just nuke it?

Think pretty much every international space treaty signed by just about everyone prohibits doing stuff like that. Nukes in high orbit = very bad things for a lot of people. Fallout in jetstreams isn't a good thing.

But yeah, we could probably hit it with your regular store-brand ICBM. Just no nuclear payload.

Who said in the Atmosphere? Im talking before it even gets close to the moon.

[Inject OH 4]

New generally doesn't lie... it over hypes or extenuates. It's up for the common man to read between the lines.

The source then therefore should be mostly irrelevant.
NASA says it could hit us in 19 years....
This happens all the time. What are the chances? 1 in 2000? Yeah... we are fine.

Also we have protection from this kind of stuff, so if we found it would hit us we could still protect our self.

So while you may not like the source. It wasn't lieing it just made it seem like a big deal when it isn't as all. Thus it is still relevant news.