Information and Warfare

Regarding the relationship between information and war -- especially now, in an age of accelerating technology -- here is a cogent analysis from Arnold Kling at Tech Central Station:

In The Singularity is Near, Ray Kurzweil argues that the information component of goods and services is rising relative to the value of the physical resources employed in production. All of our products are becoming information-intensive. Computer software and pharmaceuticals are bellwethers of this trend. If we ever achieve true nanotechnology (including molecular assemblers), then the information share of value will approach 100 percent, while the physical resource share will approach zero.

It seems to me that the nature of war is bound to be affected by this reduction in the relative importance of material resources and the increase in relative importance of information. Translated into military terms, the information age is one in which the physical quality of weapons -- speed, firepower, and armor -- is relatively less important. Instead, what matters most now for those of us who are not terrorists is the ability to detect and monitor those who are.

Kling seems to be saying that terrorism -- and combatting terrorists -- is the new paradigm for war. He may be right.

As we have seen, both the frequency and the severity of conventional wars have declined significantly in the last 25 years, while terrorist activity has gained a new prominence.

How will advanced nanotechnology affect these trends?

In one scary scenario, the destabilizing effect of nanotech-built weaponry could result in repeated military coups, devastating civil wars, and dissolution of nations into large numbers of hostile, unpredictable, immensely powerful tribes.

Another obvious concern is the emboldening of radical transnational groups who might be eager to use molecular manufacturing toward terrorist ends.

And this is where the connection with information comes in. Kling writes:

In order to be dangerous, terrorists must be hidden. An exposed terrorist is a neutralized terrorist -- or a dead one. . . If terrorist groups continue to be successful at concealment, then there is no defense that can prevent a major attack. Only surveillance supremacy can ensure security.

Surveillance supremacy. What might that entail?

The surveillance issue was well anticipated in The Transparent Society, a book that I have recommended before and will likely recommend again. Author David Brin suggests that we have to come to terms with the new technological paradigm, which includes on the one hand inexpensive weapons suitable to terrorists and on the other hand advanced apparatus for surveillance, such as miniature cameras and computer databases.

Many people instinctively resist the idea of trying to enhance surveillance capabilities. However, this is a difficult position to sustain. It would be like someone in 1940 advocating that his country refuse to build an air force because he believes that bombing is wrong. Bombing may indeed be wrong, but as long as there are bad guys in the world, the people who refuse to develop an air force are unlikely to survive.

Brin believes, and I concur, that powerful surveillance is inevitable. The question then becomes how to make surveillance work in a way that checks the power of those who have surveillance apparatus at their disposal.

That certainly is an important question. And I'm quite sure there is no simple solution.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Comments

[Phillip Huggan]

This would be perhaps the weakest part of a government MNT effort. Spies are endemic in military and intelligence bureaucracies. A particular reason to fear an arms race under this flavour of MNT development is because Nanhattans would achieve success at almost exactly the same time.

[Pace Arko]

The more I've thought about this the more I think sousveillance is our only answer for growing surveillance. If we can scrutinize the watchmen more closely than they watch us, abuse might minimized.

Sadly, it currently doesn't look like things are headed in the right direction. The laws appear to make it easier for large businesses and governments to watch us more closely than we can watch them. This inbalance needs to be corrected. We need to remember Rodney King and Abu Ghraib.