On the Future of Warfare

Today I gave an hour-long presentation on “Nanotechnology and the Future of Warfare” at the World Future Society's annual conference. About 60 people attended and peppered me with many excellent questions both during and after my talk. Overall, the audience was quite enthusiastic and responsive.

I opened by quoting from Harvard University professor Steven Pinker, who recently wrote:

Violence has been in decline over long stretches of history, and today we are probably living in the most peaceful moment of our species' time on earth…

In the decade of Darfur and Iraq, and shortly after the century of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, the claim that violence has been diminishing may seem somewhere between hallucinatory and obscene. Yet recent studies that seek to quantify the historical ebb and flow of violence point to exactly that conclusion.

The big question, of course, is whether this evident decline in violence can be expected to continue. I then discussed what I consider to be an approaching period of perilous geopolitical instability, when…

• Weapons of mass destruction will be more varied, more deadly, more available, cheaper to obtain, and easier to hide.
• The strength (and the ambitions) of regional powers will increase rapidly while the stabilizing might of the U.S. could be in decline.
• New technologies such as genetic engineering, robotics, nanotechnology, and possibly artificial intelligence could enable radical shifts in the balance of power.
• Global climatic conditions – including increased frequency and severity of killer storms, droughts, infrastructure damage, crop failures, and even whole ecosystem collapses – will contribute to growing tensions.

After reviewing the basics of nanotechnology and desktop manufacturing, I turned to the topic of WMDs and the future of warfare. I asked the audience to consider these three important points:

1. In modern warfare, the target of attack is not the opposing military – it is the will and capacity of states to make war.
2. The real target of WMDs is not the victims, but the survivors.
3. WMD = Not just weapons of destruction, but also of disruption.

We then spent some time talking about the four main elements that comprise weapons systems. These are: a) payloads; b) methods of targeting; c) modes of delivery; and d) means of production. In each area we are seeing rapid change, bringing radically enhanced, more dangerous, and potentially more disruptive military applications.

The most significant of these elements may be the last, the means of production. When applied to weapons of mass destruction/disruption, it could be a titanic lever for dramatically shifting balances of power.

Finally, I asked people to think about the future of warfare in four dimensions:

1. Technologies - Which will be the most powerful and possibly destabilizing future military technologies?
2. Timing - How soon could change arise, and what might take us by surprise?
3. Context - What other societal shifts, outside of technology, must be taken into account to envision a near future geopolitical environment?
4. Policies - Which combination of national, international, corporate, and civil society policy planning will lead to the safest world of tomorrow?

It’s difficult in just one hour to convey all the complexities of such a big topic, and it’s even tougher in a 500-word blog article. Obviously, we discussed a lot more than what I’m able to include here. Please ask if you want elaboration on any of these points.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Comments

[John B]

Mike -

IMO, it'll come down to resources. *wry grin* Of course, part of the problem will be IDENTIFYING the critical resources in the newly adapted economies.

I WOULD like a little further clarification on #2, Timing, with a focus on what happens if nanofacture doesn't happen in the expected timeline - IE, too early, OR too late. Both IMO have interesting (read 'thorny') problems...

-JB

[Mike Treder, CRN]

John, those are interesting questions that Chris and I and others involved with CRN have been discussing a lot recently.

We think that nanofactories *should* be developed as fast as it can be done safely and responsibly. The potential benefits -- in medicine, energy, climate change amelioration, etc. -- are just too important to delay.

But will that take place? Or will other factors blunt the development of molecular manufacturing until its impacts are comparatively slight? Still too early to tell...

[John B]

I'm glad to hear you folks are looking at the issues that early and late predictions of nanofacture would have, Mike. I think both cases have potential dangers, on and above the dangers inherent in nanofacture itself.

I agree that there needs to be some nanofacture research & development at speed. However, the problems that nanofacture brings up (either immediately on general release or in other, restricted scenarios) seem to me to become massively disruptive in almost no time at all.

Should it not be developed? Not in my opinion - relinquishing the possibility of such a technology is along the lines of ostriches & sand. It's going to be a balancing point between the various risks and secondary effects, in a typically overdetermined (ie, chaotic) environment.

Note that this is all incumbent on nanofacture as per the CRN concept thereof is not disproven - not something I expect, but I'm cautious enough to explicitly state the caveat.

Will this postulated rapid nanotech research & development take place? I'd say it already HAS happened at least in part, and the question should rather be how much MORE will happen. This includes what roadblocks - technological, political, social, and/or economic (most likely some combinations thereof) - will slow or redirect or stop it, as well as how it gets distributed within the world.

I dunno. Is it all going to be just the CRNano nanofacture way? Maybe. Maybe not. The obvious (and IMO important) follow on question is - what happens if other concepts for nanoscale manipulation of matter come to pass?

-John

[Sebastian]

First I want to thank You for this interesting article.

And I have got a question, what can You tell about “bionic hornet”?

[G. Y. Fortune, Ed. D.]

As an Interdisciplinary Social Scientist-Historian, I would have liked to hear your presentaion and discussion. The blog cannot give attention to the psycho-social aspects of the coming/current nano-technology. These are the most imporant in human and environmental terms.