"My own feelings went from disbelief to excitement to downright fear," says Carl Hergenrother, 23, an Arizona undergraduate who verified a large asteroid barreling toward Earth with a 230cm telescope atop nearby Kitt Peak. "It was scary, because there was the possibility that we were confirming the demise of some city somewhere, or some state or small country."
Well, not quite. Early last week, his celestial interloper whizzed by Earth, missing the planet by 450620 km--a hairbreadth in astronomical terms. Perhaps half a kilometer across, it was the largest object ever observed to pass that close to Earth.
Duncan Steel, an Australian astronomer, has calculated that if the asteroid had struck Earth, it would have hit at some 93460 km/h. The resulting explosion, scientists estimate, would have been in the 3000-to-12000-megaton range. That, says astronomer Eugene Shoemaker, a pioneer asteroid and comet hunter, "is like taking all of the U. S. and Soviet nuclear weapons, putting them in one pile and blowing them all up."
And what if one them is found to be on a collision course with Earth Scientists at the national laboratories at Livermore, California, and Los Alamos, New Mexico, have devised a number of ingenious plans that, given enough warning time, could protect Earth from a threatening NEO. Their defensive weapons of choice include long distance missiles with conventional or, more likely, nuclear warheads that could be used either to nudge an asteroid into a safe orbit or blast it to smithereens.
Many people including some astronomers--are understandably nervous about putting a standby squadron of nuclear tipped missiles in place. Hence the latest strategy, which in some cases would obviate the need for a nuclear defense: propelling a fusillade of cannonball-size steel spheres at an approaching asteroid. In a high-velocity encounter with a speeding NEO, explains Gregory Canavan, a senior scientist at Los Alamos, "the kinetic energy of the balls, would change into heat energy and blow the thing apart."
Some astronomers oppose any immediate defensive preparations, citing the high costs and low odds of a large object’s striking Earth in the coming decades. But at the very least, Shoemaker contends, NEO detection should be accelerated. "There’s this thing called the ’giggle factor’ in Congress," he says. "people in Congress and also at the top level in NASA still don’t take it seriously. But we should move ahead. It’s a matter of prudence."
The world, however, still seems largely unconcerned with the danger posed by large bodies hurtling in from space, despite the spectacle two years ago of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 riddling the planet Jupiter with mammoth explosions. It remains to be seen whether last week’s record near-miss has changed any minds.
From the first three paragraphs, we learn that

A:the earth narrowly escaped a catastrophe. B:one asteroid almost destroyed an entire city. C:asteroids are comparable to nuclear weapons. D:the planet earth is vulnerable to dangers.

Is it possible to persuade mankind to live without war War is an ancient institution which has existed for at least six thousand years. It was always wicked and usually foolish, but in the past the human race managed to live with it. Modern ingenuity has changed this. Either Man will abolish war, or war will abolish Man. For the present, it is nuclear weapons that cause the gravest danger, but bacteriological or chemical weapons may, before long, offer an even greater threat. If we succeed in abolishing nuclear weapons, our work will not be done. It will never be done until we have succeeded in abolishing war. To do this, we need to persuade mankind to look upon international questions in a new way, not as contests of force, in which the victory goes to the side which is most skilful in massacre, but by arbitration in accordance with agreed principles of law. It is not easy to change age-old mental habits, but this is what must be attempted.
There are those who say that the adoption of this or that ideology would prevent war. I believe this to be a profound error. All ideologies are based upon dogmatic assertions(主张)which are, at best, doubtful, and at worst, totally false. Their adherents believe in them so fanatically that they are willing to go to war in support of them.
The movement of world opinion during the past two years has been very largely such as we can welcome. It has become a commonplace that nuclear war must be avoided. Of course very difficult problems remain in the international sphere, but the spirit in which they are being approached is a better one than it was some years ago. It has begun to be thought, even by the powerful men who decide whether we shall live or die, that negotiations should reach agreements even if both sides do not find these agreements wholly satisfactory. It has begun to be understood that the important conflict nowadays is not between East and West, but between Man and the H-bomb.
The author believes that the only way to abolish war is to ______.

A:abolish nuclear weapons B:let the stronger side take over the world C:improve bacteriological and chemical weapons D:settle international issues through negotiation

Text 2

A:abolish nuclear weapons B:let the stronger side take over the world C:improve bacteriological and chemical weapons D:settle international issues through negotiation

Under no circumstances （　）the first to use nuclear weapons.

A:will China be B:China will be C:China is D:shall China be

Under no circumstances will we use nuclear weapons first.

The days of the hunter are almost over in India. This is partly because there is practically nothing left to kill, and partly because some steps have been taken, mainly by banning tiger-shooting, to protect those animals which still survive.
Some people say that Man is naturally a hunter. I disagree with this view. Surely our earliest forefathers, who at first possessed no weapons, spent their time digging for roots, and were no doubt themselves often hunted by meat-eating animals.
I believe the main reason why the modern hunter kills is that he thinks people will admire his courage in overpowering dangerous animals. Of course, there are some who truly believe that the killing is not really the important thing, and that the chief pleasure lies in the joy of the hunt and the beauties of the wild countryside. There are also those for whom hunting in fact offers a chance to prove themselves and risk death by design; these men go out after dangerous animals like tigers, even if they say they only do it to rid the countryside of a threat. I can respect reasons like these, but they are clearly different from the need to strengthen your high opinion of yourself.
The greatest big-game hunters expressed in their writings something of these finer motives (动机). One of them wrote:
"You must properly respect what you are after and shoot it cleanly and on the animal’s own territory (领地). You must fix forever in your mind all the wonders of that particular day. This is better than letting him grow a few years older to be attacked and wounded by his own son and eventually eaten, half alive, by other animals. Hunting is not a cruel and senseless killing—not if you respect the thing you kill, not if you kill to enrich your memories, not if you kill to feed your people. "
I can understand such beliefs, and can compare these hunters with those who hunted lions with spears (矛) and bravely caught them by the tail. But this is very different from many tiger-shoots I have seen, in which modem weapons were used. The so-called hunters fired from tall trees or from the backs of trained elephants. Such methods made tigers seem no more dangerous than rabbits.
What is the author’s view on the tiger-shoots he has seen

A:Modern hunters lack the courage to hunt face-to-face. B:Modem hunters should use more advanced weapons. C:Modem hunters like to hunt rabbits instead of tigers. D:Modem hunters should put their safety first.

It is saidA that Einstein felt very badlyB about the application ofC his tehories toD the creation of weapons.

C The days of the hunter are almost over in India. This is partly because there is practically nothing left to kill, and partly because some steps have been taken, mainly by banning tiger-shooting, to protect those animals which still survive. Some people say that Man is naturally a hunter. I disagree with this view. Surely our earliest forefathers, who at first possessed no weapons, spent their time digging for roots, and were no doubt themselves often hunted by meat-eating animals. I believe the main reason why the modem hunter kills is that he thinks people will admire his courage in overpowering dangerous animals. Of course, there are some who truly believe that the killing is not really the important thing, and that the chief pleasure lies in the joy of the hunt and the beauties of the wild countryside. There are also those for whom hunting in fact offers a chance to prove themselves and risk death by design; these men go out after dangerous animals like tigers, even if they say they only do it to rid the countryside of a threat. I can respect reasons like these, but they are clearly different from the need to strengthen your high opinion of yourself. The greatest big-game hunters expressed in their writings something of these finer motives (动机). One of them wrote: “You must properly respect what you are after and shoot it cleanly and on the animal’ s own territory (领地). You must fix forever in your mind all the wonders of that particular day. This is better than letting him grow a few years older to be attacked and wounded by his own son and eventually eaten, half alive, by other animals. Hunting is not a cruel and senseless killing--not if you respect the thing you kill, not if you kill to enrich your memories, not if you kill to feed your people.” I can understand such beliefs, and can compare these hunters with those who hunted lions with spears (矛) and bravely caught them by the tail. But this is very different from many tiger-shoots I have seen, in which modem weapons were used. The so-called hunters fired from tall trees or from the backs of trained elephants. Such methods made tigers seem no more dangerous than rabbits.

A:Modem hunters lack the courage to hunt face-to-face. B:Modem hunters should use more advanced weapons. C:Modem hunters like to hunt rabbits instead of tigers. D:Modem hunters should put their safety first.