Comments on: Facing up to military nanotechnology

By: Arileo

Arileo — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 07:57:02 +0000

The use of new technology for weapons is naturally contentious; however it is surely beyond contention that preventing civilian/human casualties of war is a worthwhile humanitarian goal that is consistent with the mission of The Foresight Institute.

By: Ben Tippmann

Ben Tippmann — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 19:06:55 +0000

Excellent article I think it’s really difficult to say how much role ultimately something like nano technology can or can’t do for military operations but the idea is definitely interesting.

By: C.F.

C.F. — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 15:00:23 +0000

John and Christine – thank you for picking up on those points.

John, I think you’re right, that some societies may be faced with aggressors whose aim it is “…to maximize civilian and human casualties”. I guess it is a question of morals and politics, concerning how said societies form their policies towards this kind of aggression, and this forms a new debate.

However, it brings us to the point that society would do well to equip itself against a broad range of conflict, from trivial to apocalyptic, and all possible forms of attack. I think you and Jason are expressing this point in a similar way, right?

It is my hope and objective that those governments in control of new and powerful technology equip their militarily in ways that meet the kinds of humanitarian missions described by the Foresight Institute with the addition of the challenge that I mentioned previously.

With the right weapons and defences, one hopes that conflict is settled primarily through diplomacy, but when military action is needed, that:
a) all form of aggression and conflict can be met and neutralised thoroughly and appropriately
b) conflict is resolved without loss of life
c) less damage is inflicted by wayward foreign policy during times when governments act carelessly
d) foreign nations are given less cause for further or renewed aggression.

So what to do? In my opinion, it is paramount that military research using NT be conducted urgently and carefully, that military and foreign policies be coupled to guide that research, that those policies recognise and encourage the possibility that we may build positive, lasting relationships between nations, and that we may forget why we ever needed weapons in the first place.

By: Lucaria Chavez

Lucaria Chavez — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:01:55 +0000

I work for a National Laboratory and one of my staff would like a copy of the new book by German physicist Jürgen Altmann of Dortmund University, “Military Nanotechnology: Potential Applications and Preventive Arms Control (Routledge, 2006). If it has not been released, he’s asked that I request a review copy if possible. Can you direct me to who I should contact to get this book? Thank you for your help.

Lucaria Chavez
Sandia National Laboratories
Albuquerque, NM

By: Jason Grimes

Jason Grimes — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:54:09 +0000

I think that knowledge is our best bet in preventing some sort of nanotechnological catastrophy. This is why I’m hoping that we do not put to many hasty limits on the development of nanotechnology. The first thing we would need to worry about is the detection of a threat. If we have not fully explored as much of the various aspects of nanotechnology as we can, a threat could slip through without our knowledge. Next we would need to develope an answer for the threat. Again, if we don’t fully understand everything we can about nanotechnology it is going to be that much more difficult to develope responces to the threat. I’m not saying that we don’t have any controls of the development, just that we put in these controls prudently. The bad guys creating the threat will not be putting any of the same kind of controls in their research. As long as we try and stay on top of the knowledge curve as best we can, the better off we will be I think.

Jason

By: John DeCicco

John DeCicco — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 02:38:32 +0000

Good thought, Chris, but we now live in a different world. No longer do armies line up in the fields and mow each other down. I do agree that “…it is surely beyond contention that preventing civilian/human casualties of war is a worthwhile humanitarian goal.” The problem arises that not all share the same view, and not all states “play” by the same rules. It is some society’s aim, as we know, to maximize civilian and human casualties. What to do?

John

By: Kyle Haviland

Kyle Haviland — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 22:01:02 +0000

I think regulating the type of weaponry created and deployed by groups researching nanotechnology is just as impossible as preventing conflict. Researchers will stumble onto new techniques to exploit this science with every passing year. As I understand this is why the field is progressing so slowly as is. There has always been a major fear that an accident could happen that would turn us all into grey goo.

By: Christine Peterson

Christine Peterson — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 04:04:25 +0000

Very interesting point, C.F. I expect this idea will be debated a great deal in the decades to come.
–Christine

By: C.F.

C.F. — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 06:56:44 +0000

There is an important, humanitarian challenge for nanotechnology that has not been published by The Foresight Institute, in ‘Nanotechnology Challenges’. That challenge is preventing civilian, or maybe even human, casualties of war.

In all forms of war, be it the use of weapons, economic constraint, denial of essential resources, forced human displacement, etc., there is potential for innocent civilian/human casualties. Indeed, this product is too rarely avoided and often sought.

How then to meet such a challenge? It seems to me that the most effective method, besides preventing every form of conflict forever (which is probably impossible, arguably undesirable, and definitely beyond the scope of nanotechnology), would be to develop weapons and defence systems that reduce the risk to civilians/humans while remaining, albeit regrettably, effective instruments of war.

So “Cry havoc! and let loose the…” soft, cuddly bunny rabbits of war? Not really… but extremely smart, covert bunnies maybe.

By: Jamie Henderson

Jamie Henderson — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 02:34:51 +0000

Utopian sentiment Kyle, unfortunately. The same could be said of nuclear weapons, but, despite witnessing their destructive capability, they have simply been refined, the world over, Nanotechnology has the most terrific and terrifying potential for the future; as you state, the ability to heal (and possibly augment) the body, but also the capacity to attack on a cellular, molecular, even genetic level. Imagine the availability of such weapons to e.g. a vehmently apartheid state?
So much promise, yet so much to be held in check.