Future WMDs

Yesterday I attended and took part in a "Future Weapons of Mass Destruction" symposium in Arlington, VA, sponsored by the Stanley Foundation and the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. One of the most interesting outcomes was a general agreement that the WMD acronym probably should be broadened to included Weapons of Mass Disruption as well as Destruction.

I pointed out to the group that in forecasting the impacts of emerging technologies (nanotech, biotech, neurotech, etc.) on warfighting and security issues, we should think not only about the weapons themselves -- that is, the payload -- but also about the potential for radically enhanced methods of targeting, modes of delivery, and means of production. This last item, the means of production, is one that could be a lever for dramatically shifting balances of power.

Exponential general-purpose molecular manufacturing is likely to have a powerfully destabilizing effect on global security, unless effective and responsible planning is done well in advance. I'm grateful that people like the Stanley Foundation and the Potomac Institute are helping to get these vitally important conversations started.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Comments

Professional armies mostly destroy things in order to deny an enemy the power to inflict harm, and eventually break their will to resist, so that they no longer try to inflict harm (i.e. they surrender).

With a sufficient technological edge in the area of surveillance and smart targeting, it might become possible to deny an enemy power, with very minimal destruction or disruption.

E.g. if every person who tried planting an IED in Iraq got caught, and every suicide bomber experienced premature detonation, those forms of attack would soon cease.

24-7 high-def recorded surveillance of high risk areas might allow back-tracking or identifying anyone planting an IED.

Perhaps intense ultra-short pulsed ultrasonics could be used to create a "sound fence" that sets off shock-sensitive explosives (such as primers/blasting caps).

A micro-missile might fly up the barrel of an enemy's gun and superglue itself in place. A fog of smart dust might settle on engines and electronic devices, short them out - and actively resist any attempt to clean it off.

[Phillip Huggan]

The above will stop people but not robotics. There will be enough knowledge in every technical University (not to mention freely online) in the world in the future, to make surveilling every student too expensive, let alone desirable (from a Human Rights viewpoint, at least in some countries). If the USA is still there in 2020, they will have to face these such devices.

Now there is no way the US can intervene in the Chenyian separatists/terrorists vs Russia battle either...the Asian and European borders are very porous.

[Brian Wang]

why too expensive to surveille everyone? Let alone all students ? All students with engineering? all students with robotics aptitude , training.

It seems stupid not to have that surveillence when those with that knowledge could make WMDs. Just like it would be dumb not to surveille atomic weapon or bioweapon specialists now or explosives experts now.

[Tom Craver]

Phillip - note the phrase "With a sufficient technological edge". E.g in Iraq, I don't think the insurgents are going to be sending swarms of robots after our troops any time soon.

The same would apply if one side had MNT and the other had only current weapon technologies.

(That was my post, BTW - sorry - the name field got wiped out again without me noticing.)

[Phillip Huggan]

My above comment was to point out that assuming 2020 survellence infrastructures against 2006 robotics technologies is erroneous.
In the context of Iraq, right now you might be able to surveil say, the Green Zone of Baghdad, much like London's downtown is covered in a CCTV grid. But cameras/satellites/glider-drones are still too expensive to cover the whole country. By the time these surveillence costs come down, robotics tech. will have advanced.

IEDs are not WMDs (not that dirty bombs should be classified as WMDs). IEDs are just copper slabs attached to something (an explosive) that goes boom. I don't think engineering students in the region's Universities will ever be taught to make a WMD, but I do believe robotics technologies will be elementary in 2020. If 1%(?) of the population has this expertise that is too many to monitor IMO.

[Tom Craver]

Phillip -
It should be just as possible to back-track a 2006+ remote controlled robot (i.e. something about as big as the iRobot sometimes used by our troops, which insurgents might be able to put together by 2020). Having found its origin, one could identify human suspects, and if necessary backtrack them as well.

IEDs aren't WMDs - but represent the level of tech used by today's low-tech groups, which is why I used that example. Non-state groups may be supplied with higher tech weapons (e.g. Hezbolla getting Iranian missiles). But even today, Israel could probably put together a system capable of tracking all vehicles in Lebanon, allowing them to back-track missile set-up and delivery.

By 2020, non-state groups might be able to make their own "semi-guided" missiles, and might be able to acquire the equivalent of today's cruise missile and small nuclear warheads from "friendly" nations. But by then it'll be practical to back-track every individual in a nation, and vehicular traffic for a multi-nation region.

It'll probably be necessary to extend MAD - any nation supplying WMDs that get used by "non-state actors", will be hit with WMD counter-strikes. Countries giving WMDs to groups who are merely *likely* to use them, may be subject to pre-emptive targetted attacks to prevent future deliveries.

For example: The fact that Iran supplied Hezbolla with missiles that got used against Israel, likely means that Israel has given Bush a deadline to blow up Iranian nuclear material refineries, or else they'll do it themselves. It's only a matter of who does it, when, and does it trigger war with Iran.

[Phillip Huggan]

I'm not anti-Semitic like Gibson, but I am anti-Israeli-foreign-policy. I'm happy someone is killing Israeli civilians for a change, rather than it always being them killing Arabs over the past decade (this hateful tit-for-tat killing is millenia old; both sides *deserve* an environment of insecurity).

I doubt non-state actors will be able to manufacture cruise missiles anytime soon. Hopefully they don't get their paws on smuggled Soviet-era nuclear materials either.

To backtrack as described requires a comprehensive security network. Any blindspots will be used by the smugglers. For example, to smuggle a (non-cruise) missile motor, just enclose the meeting place indoors (any old warehouse or garage will do.

I'll say again, it's not presently feasible to surveil all the vehicles in a small country. Lebanon is the equivalent of the whole state of New Jersey. Iraq (where the issue is suicide car bombers and not hypothetically smuggling contraband inside vehicles) resorted to martial law and curfews and vehicle bans to deal with this; not a solution that will win the local population's favour over the long-term.
Even when it does become feasible to surveil all vehicles, merely building an underground tunnel in the meeting facility beforehand will counter a ubiquitous camera network.

Thankfully, it is not yet easy for Conservative Western factions to inflict arbitrary tyrannies.

[Phillip Huggan]

When Israel blew up Iraq's nuclear reactor in the early 1980's, they knew exactly where it was. Iran has decentralized their nuclear facilities underground, beyond the reach of satellite photography. If Israel knew where the facilities were with any degree of certainty, they already would have been targetted. It appears there is no reliable Israeli-US-Western ground intel in Iran at present.

[Tom Craver]

To surveil Lebanon with current technology, one would need about 500 solar-powered blimp drones to optically monitor densely populated areas to one sq-m resolution, 500 fast moving drones that could be dispatched to monitor any area or collect more detailed ID info, and a geo-synch satellite that uses optical interference between one image and the same image optically delayed, to locate movement anywhere in the country, with perhaps 25-50 meter precision. The latter could track vehicle movements in low traffic areas.

Based on Lebanon's oil consumption, I'd estimate well under 1M vehicle movement hours per day in Lebanon. The processed tracking data should be well under 1TB for a whole year.

Maybe $5B to develop and put in place, $100M/yr to operate and maintain. Exporting the system to other nations could earn more than enough to pay for it.

If several similar vehicles go out of sight together, one would simply back-track them all when they reappear. Also, the area where they went out of sight becomes a target of interest for investigation or detailed monitoring.

[Tom Craver]

I expect the US government has pressured Israel to not attack Iran, in hopes that a diplomatic solution can be found, or perhaps to gain UN backing for military action against Iran. Look how long Bush delayed the attack on Iraq, trying to get "cover" from the UN.

Israel won't wait much longer, I think. Though from what I've read of them, the facilities are pretty well hardened - multiple layers of concrete and earth over them.

[Phillip Huggan]

I've read in news releases Iran is having some technical problems building a nuke and they might be at least two years away still. So I'm indifferent whether Israel attcks bunker facilities at present.

Tom, how well will the blimps respond to small arms fire? :)

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

Phillip, a line like "I'm happy someone is killing ______ civilians" is inherently incendiary. It's far too easy for others to respond to it out of context. Your post escaped summary deletion because it has some useful thoughts in it and you're a long-standing contributor, but please don't say things like that here again.

Chris

[Brian Wang]

Philip your statement makes no factual sense (factually wrong). Deaths on various sides over the last decade.

The death toll, both military and civilian, of the entire conflict in 2000-2006 is estimated to be over 3900 Palestinians and over 1,000 Israelis, although this number is criticized by some sources for not differentiating between combatants and civilians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Intifada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israel-Gaza_conflict
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict

you know this because you said tit for tat killing. Tit for tat means once side does something and then the other side does something.

You cry out against "conservative western factions".
>it is not yet easy for Conservative Western >factions to inflict arbitrary tyrannies.

When those with far less technology are able to impose tyrannies. How? By being bigger bastards. Saddam had a nicely looked down tyranny. How? By being willing to kill anyone who opposed him. Go down the list of stable tyrannies now and through history. If the conservative west was not trying to be relatively moral they would not be going to more advanced tech for a more discriminating approach.

[Phillip Huggan]

Sorry Chris, I'll rephrase: I'll be happy if Lebanese guerillas discover how to inflict $4.5 billion dollars worth of property damage (with no direct civilian casualties but plenty of health-care dollars shuffled towards reconstruction) on the state of Israel; the same cost of the 2006 invasion of Lebanon incurred by Lebanon's coffers ($1 billion paid for by the Saudi's, the other $3.5 billion will take decades for Lebanon's 0.5% annually growing economy to recoup).

Brian, your criticism of Saddam is laughable.

[Tom Craver]

Phillip:
The blimps would be well above small arms fire range. Anti-aircraft guns could take them out - but they would be nearly invisible visually and to radar.

Each blimp would be pretty cheap - most of the $billions I mention would go into R&D and the satellite - if they get shot down, just replace them.

[Brian Wang]

I was not criticizing Saddam. I was pointing out that him and African dictators can keep a tyrrany going easily with less technology and less of a military advantage over their opponents since they are willing to be more brutal.

The insurgency elements were easily kept in check under his rule because he killed those who opposed him. Al Sadr who is causing trouble now had his father and brothers killed by Saddam and if he had acted up at that time would have been killed by Saddam.

The US military rolled over the main Iraqi armed forces in weeks. Those were the same forces Saddam used to stay in power.

So the US militarily as we know is greater than the others. They are having trouble occupying because they are not willing to be really brutal occupiers.

You have indicated that you are encouraged by the failures of the US and the Israelis. If those who you are supporting push it far enough the restraint that the US and Israelis have shown gets lessened.

You can claim not to be anti-semitic but you seem to be cheering any damage and death that any arabs can inflict upon them. You may think there is a distinction I do not think you are putting much separation between yourself and anti-semites.

But it does not matter. The crap will probably hit the fan with Iran and Syria at some point and I think they will get the worst of it.

[Phillip Huggan]

Tom, I'm not purposely trying to be combatitive, just that I think the idea of surveilling vehicles has already been forwarded in military think-tanks and probably rejected for reasons like I'm pointing out. Something as simple as weather (winter is rainy season in Lebanon) will effectively counter a blimp camera network. I don't know the wide-scale resolution of blimp camera lenses...Lebanon is 10000km^2 in area, much of it hilly terrain. Many more than 500 blimps would be needed. Perhaps a better strategy would be to imbed quantum dots in weapons at the point of manufacture and backtrack for the breadcrumb trail in the event the weapon is stolen/smuggled.

Brian, I've no problem with any of Israel's tactical conduct in their wars during the 2nd half of the last century. I've no problem with their surgical bombing of the Osiris nuclear facility 25 years ago. I do have a problem with them bombing and invading Lebanon without provocation. I do have a problem with them sending special forces into Iraq in 2003 and assassinating non-military personnel. I do have a problem that the only two nations on the planet whose populations were in favour of the War in Iraq were Israel and the USA.

I've no problem with America's conduct in the 1st Gulf War, in the Cold War, in Kosovo, in Korea... minor issues with their present conduct in Afghanistan, Vietnam was a waste of Vietnamese lives...
America invaded Iraq for oil. This is the one decade America has in the sun (before demographics turn ugly), and this is what America does: destroy a country. I'm not happy the US is regressing and the world needs to find new leadership. But if it takes a scaling up of the 1/3 American soldiers in Iraq who have mental health problems, of the 1/30 who will have amputations, permanent brain and/or spinal cord injuries, and the 1/80? who will die; if thats what it takes to stop America from bankrupting her Senior Citizen's social security of 2015 today, and if it results in some needed troop reinforcements in Afghanistan, and removing one player from the complicated Iraq Civil War (hopefully saving a few Iraqi civilian lives), then yes I'll cheer for tactical military failures in Iraq.

I get why so many Western people side with Israel and the USA reflexively in Middle Eastern matters. We like Israel's culture of learning and we erroneously think all Arabs are radical Muslims. But there is only so many times Israel can use the Holocaust as an excuse to commit atrocities of her own. Same for the USA and the Cold War. An occupying soldier can be just as much a terrorist as a suicide bomber.

[Brian Wang]

You are mistaken in thinking that a military setback will end the conflict. You are mistaken about costs generated from the war stopping America. For political reasons there may or may not be some kind of pause coming.

You have pointed to some of the pieces yourself. Thousands of years of conflict, constant tit for tat. Did the 67 war end it when the Arabs lost badly ? Did 73 ?

The Russians left the Balkans then came back after the apartment bombings and attacks in Moscow.

The reason the US populace and Israeli populace supported the conflicts is that they felt geniunely threatened. Isreal was not quoting the holocaust they were quoting the stuff this year (killing and kidnapping of soldiers etc...). The Arabs always generate a new provocation. Israel apparently provocates them by existing.

Not all and maybe most Arabs are not radical or terrorists but the moderate ones are not effectively acting to control those who are. If a neighborhood cannot control its crime problem then when it spills over those outside may need to act to stop it at its source.

So I predict there will be some form of backtracking system that is effective and deployed within 10 years.
I predict that there will be other provocations from the Arab side that will re-invigorates conflicts between Isreal and the USA within 4 years. Probably before any US troop withdrawal is fully implemented.
Not a matter of right or wrong just what I think is going to happen. If you have some counter bets we can retroactively see who has a more accurate world view.

[Tom Craver]

Phillip -

500 blimps was my estimate of what's needed to cover the densely poluated areas to 1 sq-m resolution. Assuming just 10Mpixel cameras, that's up to 5000 sq-km coverage.

Yep, weather could blind optical cameras and a satellite. Given that, would you be happy to have such a system implemented over your home town? Or would you consider it to be an effective means of spying on you most of the year?

[Tom Craver]

Brian:
I have to believe that Israel isn't going to wait for Iran to get nuclear weapons.

The Bush administration will probably decide that a direct Israeli attack on Iran would be too provocative, cause to much popular demand for other nations of the region to attack Israel. So when it comes, it'll probably be the US dropping bunker busters on Iran's facilities.

Iran will have to respond. They'll likely invade Iraq, promising the Shi'ites there that they'll put them in power once the US is driven out.

[Phillip Huggan]

Perhaps to steer this thread in a more constructive direction, what is a good definition for what is required for an war/invasion to be justified? I definitely don't think the kidnapping of two soldiers is enough, but I do think America (and allies) were justified in invading Afghanistan in 2001 after 2900 cilivians were slaughtered on 9-11. I'm not sure where the dividing line is in my mind.

"Not all and maybe most Arabs are not radical or terrorists but the moderate ones are not effectively acting to control those who are. If a neighborhood cannot control its crime problem then when it spills over those outside may need to act to stop it at its source. "

Brian, this is the same shallow reasoning the Arab leaders are using to support the idea all Israelis/Americans/Westerners are infidels and not just the soldiers/neocons. The Lebanon invasion was about a new Israeli leader proving himself. I can't believe you honestly think two Israeli soldiers kidnapped in retaliation for an early Israeli soldier killing of a Lebanese civilian, is a good excuse to start a war.

Tom, I wouldn't mind the camera network if it was used like a police helicopter is. For catching weapons smugglers is fine, violent crime and major property crimes too. But without any safeguards in place, it may be used to enforce laws that aren't just under a surveillence society. The laws would have to be rewritten or the cameras would have to be limited to a limited subset of crimes (including smuggled weapons in that set).

[Brian Wang]

From wikipedia:
Lebanon has long failed to control militancy within its borders, and Israel has had a history of using force in Lebanon in response to militant attacks.

At around 9:00 AM local time (06:00 UTC), on 12 July 2006, Hezbollah initiated diversionary rocket attacks toward Israeli military positions near the coast and near the border village of Zar'it as well as on the Israeli town of Shlomi. At the same time, a ground contingent of Hezbollah crossed the border into Israeli territory and attacked two Israeli armoured Humvees patrolling on the Israeli side of the Israel-Lebanon border, near Zar'it, killing three, injuring two, and capturing two Israeli soldiers. Five more Israeli soldiers were killed later on the Lebanese side of the border during an attempt to rescue the two kidnapped soldiers.

1. So it was rocket attacks and 3 killed, 2 injured and 2 captured in the onset.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli

Casus belli can be used to avoid loss of morale in the country or nation or to gain the support of the people. If a country attacked another country with no stated reason, it may cause discontent among its populace and loss of faith in their leaders and may, in extreme cases, lead to revolt or other kinds of civil uprisings.

So casus belli is whatever your people think is justified so that they stick with war.

The bar clearly gets lowered if two groups are constantly fighting. Then both sides are ready to go at it. It would make no sense for one to say Ok 2 guys or 10 guys is OK. Over what period. Per day. Per week. Per month.

Also, no one has to be killed. A cause for could be the initiation of an attempted blockade. Any unauthorized crossing of a border.

The Arab Leaders are mainly warlords and they don't need to point to truth or reasoning or mean words to justify attacks. Also, you say it was an Israeli president out to prove himself. You do not note that a lot of the Arab side is to distract the populace from the fact that the Arab leaders cannot run an economy or that they generally keep most of benefits to the inner circle and that they are mostly highly corrupt. Only a few have enough control of their country (like Egypt) so that they can honor peace agreements. You notice the two palestinian gangs are fighting with each other. Why are you not denouncing them for sending violent forces over. Where was their justifiable provocation ? Are you saying that my statements and those of others who say "look how bad they are" is their casus belli ? If you have standards then they need to be applied equally.

You also seem to have this bizarre separation of neocons or anyone who is not in lockstep with the liberal thinking on the war. Your analysis lacks intellectual integrity if you only blame the "neocons" and give your nice little Arab leaders and militants a pass. The Arabs were forced to cross the border and kill people because the neocons called them names.

Do the suicide bombers or an IED take a field poll and say who voted Democrat? Ok you guys can leave.

Back to the Casus belli. It is all about does your side believe what the people you are choosing to follow are saying enough to hang in when the crap hits the fan. I think there is enough motivation on the Israeli side for them to take whatever tactical and strategic actions deemed to improve their security. The US will need to gets it popular motivation back up. (probably the next big action on the other side will get them remotivated) OR they find or manufacture something that the Iranians did OR the US will get its robotic forces and other tech rolled out enough to make things more sanitized. So long as the populace believe the strategy will be effective. Iran is successfully casting itself as a danger that must be dealth with. As Tom says, support is there for initiation of action on either side and having it viewed as part of the long struggle. Threats from the Iranian president and others have lowered the bar (the lets destroy israel and kill all isreali's).

Those who don't want a war need to work harder to remove the long term problems and come to stable and peaceful arrangements. The Arabs could say OK Israel is building a wall and they will stay on their side we cann let it go or we can talk to them about shifting things a few blocks here and there.

You would have a more realistic view of what is happening if you focused less on the morality of what is happening and more on who has the power to do what, who has the support to do what, what are the short, medium and long term interests.

[Brian Wang]

btw: you could notice that the way casus belli works in the USA is since those who are reflexively against wars (other than the occasional post 9/11 Afghanistan or post/Pearl Harbor WW2) are not the majority. Those who run the war usually do not need try to convince people like Philip(85-99 percentile). Probably it is up to the 60th percentile for a nice start to the war (more is nice but not necessary). and then try to maintain at 51% ongoing and if it slipped to 40 percent at some points it is OK because presidential veto can prevent disruption. But it can actually keep going longer because no democrat wants to create more risks for troops in the field etc...

In the Arab world, it is just convince yourself and maybe a handful of others. Strap some bombs or get some guns and get busy. If you got yourself a few dozen really hard core believers, then you are a movement. Get yourself a nice little name. Some funders of the hard core are always around. You will be able to get money, spokespeople (some Imam). It is like a terrorism startup. The equivalent of institutions and limited partners that would back a venture capitalist in this context are the countries and their intelligence forces. (Iran, Pakistan etc...)

[Tom Craver]

Phillip -

So you agree that it could be effective against crime, even if sometimes limited by weather, and you agree that it would be effective enough that you need to be concerned about what laws it is used to enforce.

[Mike Treder: META]

META: Everyone, please try to keep these discussions about military and political matters at a high level. That is, instead of arguing about blame for past and current conflicts, focus on what might be needed to avoid the worst outcomes in future, nano-enabled conflicts.