Is this guy assuming we will eventually eliminate all of the thousands of nuclear weapons we currently have? What in the world does the poster mean by "on hand"?
The article's title is "Should nuclear devices be used to stop asteroids?". Makes me wonder if the submitter read TFA.
The article itself is kind of dumb. It talks about rethinking the Outer Space Treaty that bans nuclear weapons in space. If there was a global threat on the way, the time it would take to arm and configure a rocket to send the weapon to the asteroid would be insignificant. If the asteroid is close enough that something sitting in, say, geostationary orbit could touch it, we would all be dead. In fact, if the threat was any closer than a year from impact, no amount of nuclear weapons is going to help us, and we have no rockets capable of reaching an asteroid that far away.
The article writer is naive when it comes to orbital mechanics, the staggering kinetic energy of a significant asteroid, and that these guys actually have a chance at getting all nuclear weapons banned.