Future of Warfare PDF Posted

Having received numerous email requests for my presentation on “Nanotechnology and the Future of Warfare” given at the recent World Future Society conference, I have uploaded the document as a PDF. You can view it here -- and let me know what you think!

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Comments

[GaryK]

This presentation was, for me, a collection of assertions and speculations tied together with pleas based on emotion (otherwise why bring in all the babies who die in the Third World because they don’t have warm caps in the first few days after birth).

Yes, obviously nanotechnology has the potential to revolutionize almost everything but, give me the details, show me a well-argued case, backed up with examples and facts.

[GaryK]

This presentation was, for me, a collection of assertions and speculations tied together with pleas based on emotion (otherwise why bring in all the babies who die in the Third World because they don’t have warm caps in the first few days after birth).

Yes, obviously nanotechnology has the potential to revolutionize almost everything but, give me the details, show me a well-argued case, backed up with examples and facts.

[tom]

"Of course it could, but that's not really the
point. The fact is that we already have the
technology we need to prevent almost all of
these senseless deaths of innocent babies.
What we don't have is the WILL."

Is will really the problem? Just like food aid (we have plenty of food to feed pretty much everyone), it is a problem of logisitics (getting the food to the people who need it) and governments.

That is, can we really force our way into every house and hospital and force a knit cap onto every newborn's head?

We can make sure every hosptial in the first world has one, but even if we made enough and shipped them all to the appropriate nations, governments and theives would find a way to intercept them and try to profit from them at the expense of the lives of newborn babies.

That is something over which we don't have a lot of control.

[Tom Craver]

Thanks, Mike.

I think I understand why you included the "baby hats" slide - but perhaps something more directly showing our lack of will to think ahead and avoid arms build-ups would have "fit" better. E.g. the arms races leading up to WW1 and in the Cold War.

Or how about the fact that we continue to build and deploy weapons that will be FAR more effective and likely to be used against us, than to be effectively used against pretty much anyone else in the world? E.g. devices to interfere with electronics or electricity distribution. Or that "hornet" MAV of Israel's - if you know where a terrorist is, you can take him out by conventional means - you don't need a C4-packed hornet. But if you want to instill terror, it'll be very effective.

[John]

The main question is, why are governments going to become interested in military conquest? Most conflicts these days are internal. Nanotech may reduce the costs of constructing individual military systems, but war itself will not be cheap because so much would have to be invested in research and such a large number of weapons systems would be needed.

Non-state actors are indeed a problem, but it seems likely that the early dividends on technological breakthroughs will always be exercised by states. Nanotech developments thus should allow states a period of enhanced capabilities to deal with non-state actors.

[John B]

John -

I'm sorry, I disagree. It's simply that external conflicts are 'cheaper' to resolve in other manners than military expenditure due to the international rule of law. Examples include the ongoing resource reallocation 'conflicts' between Europe, Asia, and North America affecting pricing and availability of materials each 'side' needs. (IE, economics can replace military strategy - both are the same general thing, bodies of knowledge specializing in how to get what you want, just with different assumptions & prerequisites going in.)

This state of affairs, however, could easily be threatened in a scenario where nanofacture is developed. The international rule of law would (will?) be stressed with nanofacture rapidly and radically reallocating scarcity across the products of the various players. Those that adapt quickly to these changes will be capable of massive profits at the detriment of others - which 'unexpected' stress on the international fabric of trade would potentially be quite destabilizing.

Quoting tom quoting Mike -

""What we don't have is the WILL"
Is will really the problem?"

In my opinion - yes. We don't have the will to confront & correct the inefficiency and outright corruption in the systems you comment on. We collectively don't have the will to take the painful steps needed to begin to address the problems on our own front porch - which really is the precursor to reaching further and further to handle such issues.

Mike -

Good brief from a spinmeister perspective. It is full of strong heartstring-stirring bits. I don't personally like it - very content-light, IMO, and I rather dislike being 'spun' - but perhaps given your audience you thought to keep it light on detail. In which case, good job, you achieved what appears to be your goal.

For a more detailed brief, some topics you might have addressed:
- Exponential growth via nanofacture
- Limiting factors on exponential growth (power, heat, feedstock, templates, etc)
- How nanofacture could break some or all of those limits (solar/mechanical, cooling, disassembly/sorting, dissassembly feeding information into patterns, etc)
- Direct use of nanofacture in military scenarios
- Other uses of nanofacture that will have military implications (AI/computer capability, power generation/transfer/storage, ease of concealment, sensors, etc...)

You admittedly did touch on some of the differences between nuke and nano, but IMO you miss lots of 'interesting' (read, 'deadly' or 'disturbing') implications of joining our understanding of nuke to the potential of nano, and you didn't touch on exponential growth scenarios that are the IMO critical factor leading to nanofacture problems.

-John B

[Mike Treder, CRN]

John B,

Thanks for the constructive criticism. Remember that this talk was not given at a nanotech conference. It was a general futures conference, and for many of the attendees (most of whom were tech novices), this was their first introduction to the concept of molecular manufacturing. That's why I chose not to go into a lot of depth but to give a broad overview of issues.

[Tom Craver]

One key risk I think many people miss in thinking about nanofactories and the military:

Nanofactories threaten to cut the purse strings by which a civilian government controls a modern military. And the civilian government will likely encourage this, in the name of cutting the military budget and assuring military supply lines.

- Manufacturing independence - each base able to make everything it needs, from uniforms and boots to missiles and bombers.
- Energy independence through solar farms on military bases.
- Excess energy sold to pay troops' wages.
- Robotic systems reduce number of troops needed.
- Etc.

In some less stable countries, generals will become dictators, or make civilian leaders into puppets.

More stable countries may find themselves over-reliant on the patriotism and tradition of obedience of their military.

[John B]

Tom -

Agreed, good catch, but I think that Dr Bostrom's "Scream" existential risk scenario is more likely than a pure military take over - IE, high degrees of automated surveillance and automated and/or human-directed coercion.

-John B