Panel 5—Short —8 7⁄16” x 11” 

have even greater potential than nuclear weapons to radically

change the balance of power. In anticipation of that possibility

the uniformed policymaker is likely to impose restrictions on the

development of technology in such a way as to inhibit commercial development (ultimately beneficial to mankind) while permitting those operating outside of the restrictive bounds to gain

an irrevocable advantage.18

General John Sheehan (Ret.), former Commander in Chief,

Atlantic/Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic, has gone further and

suggested that in this era, the principal role of the U.S. military is not

to fight and win wars but rather to prevent armed conflict. He has

argued that decisive solutions seldom, if ever, come from the use of

force anymore. In fact, new problems that continue for many years

can be unintended consequences of military action. The power of

modern weapon systems often produces destruction that is expensive in diplomatic and economic terms.

Sheehan believes that the principal function of the U.S. military is to help assure global stability for economic development. For

this reason, the military should be structured and positioned so that

it is unmatched at anticipating and defusing emerging instability

before it evolves into chaos requiring armed intervention. A requirement for the use of arms in traditional ways will continue, but the

military should become more proactive to emerging problems rather

than primarily reactive to those that have gotten out of hand.

Americans regularly ask whether technology is moving too

fast for society to keep up. They wonder

what the significant implications of

change might be that we do not yet

understand. They essentially are asking

whether we, in our thinking, policies, and

institutions, are moving as quickly as the

context is changing, and if not, whether

we could find ourselves facing serious

problems that we cannot effectively

respond to because our thinking did not

change with the times.

Advances in nanotechnology (as well as biotechnology) represent a sea change—a transition—into a new era for humanity that

is as different as the Industrial Age was from the Middle Ages, but in

this case, the change is much greater and coming much faster. Nanotechnology represents a fundamental shift in the capabilities that

are available not only to nations but also to individuals and small

groups. We must anticipate and respond to this change in turn.

Mark Avrum Gubrud has said:

The bombed-out cities of the Second World War, and the nuclear

holocausts of our imagination, have persuaded rational minds

that there can be no expectation of a meaningful victory in a

total war between states armed with hundreds of deliverable

nuclear weapons. From that point of view, war is obsolete, at

least direct and open war between great powers.

Nanotechnology will carry this evolution to the next step:

deterrence will become obsolete, as it will not be possible to

maintain a stable armed peace between nanotechnically armed

rivals. The implications of this statement stand in sharp contradiction to the traditions of a warrior culture and to the

assumptions that currently guide policy in the United States

and in its potential rivals.19

He further identifies a significant dilemma for the military:

It was technology, not policy, that forced the doctrine of deterrence on us, just as it was technology that determined the outlines of the nuclear arms race, once the decision to pursue

nuclear confrontation had been made. The logic of military

technology produced a confrontation so complex and unmanageable, and with such short time lines for decision and action,

that it threatened to explode in spite of “assured destruction.”

Again, people were intelligent enough to recognize realities, and

to place restraints on the offensive arms race while shelving

futile dreams of defense.

If technological realities now demand that we go further, and

give up the warrior tradition, the illusion of independence and

the vanity of sovereign self-defense, will we heed these

demands, or will we try to preserve the institutions and attitudes of an earlier epoch, until we are surprised by a disaster

beyond even our worst nuclear nightmares? If it is impossible to

maintain an armed confrontation between nanotechnologyarmed and hostile nations, then this is exactly our dilemma.20

Gubrud suggests that “Ultimately, the only way to avoid nanotechnic confrontation and the next world war is by evolving an integrated international security system, in effect a single global

regime.” He is arguing not for a world government but for an integrated international security system.

(How interesting that as the United

States attempts to put in place an initiative against global terrorism in the aftermath of September 11, it is attempting to

build a set of relationships that are a de

facto international security system.)

The parallels in the character and

fundamentals of the terrorism problem

and a nanotechnology world are apparent:

nonstate actors, decentralized organizations, very low cost, broadly accessible threat agents. Reasonable

security analysts question the utility of most of our weapon systems

in responding to terrorism. The same could be said in responding to

threats from nanotechnology.

Another aspect of nanosecurity should be considered. Like

money, nanotechnology is a value-neutral tool; it can be used for

both good and bad. If General Sheehan is correct and there is a new

role for the military in helping to prevent conflict—not just delivering force—then nanotechnology offers some extraordinary opportunities for a new, proactive approach to national security.

If stability is the objective, where in the world is instability

brewing? Those places where poverty, lack of education, and lack of

human rights are concentrated. In fact, one could argue that the

dichotomy between the haves and the have-nots (both in terms of

economic disparity and the “digital divide” that was the subject of

the World Economic Forum meetings) is by far the greatest looming

March 2002 Defense Horizons 5 

nanotechnology offers

some extraordinary

opportunities for a new,

proactive approach to

national security
Panel 2—8 

1

⁄2” x 11” 

Though there is some uncertainty about when the technology

will mature,3 nanotechnology is likely to be the manufacturing

wave of the future. In recognition of its importance, the National

Nanotechnology Initiative pumped almost half a billion dollars into

research in the year 2000 alone.4 Industry leaders believe that in 10

to 15 years, the global market for nanotech products will exceed $1

trillion annually.

Nanotech has potential implications for every area of human

activity, but initial work is being concentrated in medicine, materials (and nanostructured chemical catalysts), electronics, and

optics, all of which intersect with the interests of the national security community.

In the nanomedicine area, nanoscale objects made of inorganic materials can serve in biomedical research, disease diagnosis,

and therapy.5 Drugs will be delivered with nanoparticles that will

carry the active ingredient to just the right location in the body.

Minuscule building blocks may someday repair human tissues. Pioneers in nanotechnology envision the

day when small, molecular-sized

robots may autonomously cruise the

body and seek out and repair cells that

are not quite up to par because of disease or aging. Carlo Montemango at

Cornell University has already constructed a working biomolecular

motor less than one-fifth the size of a red blood cell. Adam Heller, a

biochemical engineer at the University of Texas, Austin, is looking

at harnessing biology to produce electricity within the body.

Quicker, more sensitive tests of selected substances (including biological agents) are likely, which should prove particularly useful for

sensing bioterrorist agents.

Similarly, computing will not be the same after nanodevices

become a reality. Nanoelectronics advances have recently resulted in

nanotransistors, diodes, relays, and logic gates, all of which are computer components.6 Nanotech researcher Ralph Merkle writes that

in the coming decades nanotechnology could yield a supercomputer

so small that it could barely be seen in a light microscope.7

Nanotechnology is developing very quickly. In 2001, the RAND

National Defense Research Institute published a report, The Global

Technology Revolution, that identified technology wildcards and

stated that “Another approach known as molecular electronics

would use chemically assembled logic switches organized in large

numbers to form a computer. These concepts are attractive because

of the huge number of parallel, low-power devices that could be

developed, but they are not anticipated to have significant effects by

2015.”8 But on October 18, 2001, The Washington Post reported the

success of Lucent Technology Bell Laboratories in creating the first

such device through “chemical self-assembly.”9 If this new device is

viable, at the rate of present technological change, it is unlikely that

it will take 13 years to convert this breakthrough into practical use.

Nanoelectronics researchers also are working on DNA computing, which could produce very large-scale parallel processing and

ultrasensitive detectors for gas molecules and biological compounds.

Nanodetectors of this kind could theoretically sense single atoms or

molecules of selected substances. Also, the Defense Advanced

Research Projects Agency has a nanoelectronics program that is

exploring and developing material processing technologies, quantum and conventional devices, and device architectures for a next

generation of information processing systems and subsystems.10

Nanomaterials development focuses mostly on a single device:

the carbon nanotube, a superthin pipe made of a rolled sheet of carbon atoms. Nanotubes have the greatest tensile strength of any

fiber—60 times greater than that of steel of the same weight—and

they also have extraordinary electrical properties. In certain configurations, they are semiconductors or insulators, while in others

they are electrical conductors, and

they might even be configured as

superconductors.

With nanofabrication techniques

that allow individual atom manipulation, carbon atoms (from crude oil, for

example) could easily be arranged in

the lattice structure of a diamond,

allowing a great number of things to be constructed of that material.

Consider the implications of things essentially built out of diamond:

such systems would be smaller, lighter, and stronger than present

ones. The manipulation of atoms and molecules will lead to new, custom-designed materials that will allow construction of devices that

are inconceivable today.

New nanoptical switches are likely to form the beginnings of an

all-optical telecom network backbone. These devices would convert

data packets from one wavelength to another in nanoseconds with

minuscule lasers that are only 8 nanometers wide.11 They enable engineers to reconfigure network traffic in a matter of nanoseconds and

redirect huge volumes of traffic across thousands of miles of networks.

Nanotech also could yield clean factories and clean, cheap,

and abundant power from low-cost solar cells and batteries. “Intelligent” materials with integral sensors and microprocessors, much

like the skin on the hand, would not only perform structural tasks

but also be highly sensitive to heat, pressure, electromagnetics, and

chemical compounds.

To the extent that bionanodevices successfully bridge the sensory gap among humans, new devices will emerge that amplify haptics to the degree that hearing and sight are extended around the

world today. Nanotechnology literally has the potential to produce a

real-time global nervous system. Billions of nanobotic devices

employing massive parallel computing in an asynchronous mode

could establish a collective consciousness in an “intelligent fog.” The

fog’s “knowledge” may be downloaded to other remote devices

through laser probing, radar probing, thermal emission, microwave

emission, or electromagnetic discharge (like a lightning bolt). Such

means of establishing new personal connections to a collective consciousness may have some interesting connections to mob psychology.

March 2002 Defense Horizons 2 

the manipulation of atoms

and molecules will lead to

construction of devices that

are inconceivable today

John L. Petersen is the president and founder of The Arlington Institute, a

Washington-area research institute that focuses on anticipating and understanding emerging global futures. He can be contacted at johnp@arlingtoninstitute.org. Captain Dennis M. Egan, USCG, is Chief of the National Response

Center at U.S. Coast Guard headquarters. He can be contacted at

degan@comdt.uscg.mil.
Panel 2—8 

1

⁄2” x 11” 

Though there is some uncertainty about when the technology

will mature,3 nanotechnology is likely to be the manufacturing

wave of the future. In recognition of its importance, the National

Nanotechnology Initiative pumped almost half a billion dollars into

research in the year 2000 alone.4 Industry leaders believe that in 10

to 15 years, the global market for nanotech products will exceed $1

trillion annually.

Nanotech has potential implications for every area of human

activity, but initial work is being concentrated in medicine, materials (and nanostructured chemical catalysts), electronics, and

optics, all of which intersect with the interests of the national security community.

In the nanomedicine area, nanoscale objects made of inorganic materials can serve in biomedical research, disease diagnosis,

and therapy.5 Drugs will be delivered with nanoparticles that will

carry the active ingredient to just the right location in the body.

Minuscule building blocks may someday repair human tissues. Pioneers in nanotechnology envision the

day when small, molecular-sized

robots may autonomously cruise the

body and seek out and repair cells that

are not quite up to par because of disease or aging. Carlo Montemango at

Cornell University has already constructed a working biomolecular

motor less than one-fifth the size of a red blood cell. Adam Heller, a

biochemical engineer at the University of Texas, Austin, is looking

at harnessing biology to produce electricity within the body.

Quicker, more sensitive tests of selected substances (including biological agents) are likely, which should prove particularly useful for

sensing bioterrorist agents.

Similarly, computing will not be the same after nanodevices

become a reality. Nanoelectronics advances have recently resulted in

nanotransistors, diodes, relays, and logic gates, all of which are computer components.6 Nanotech researcher Ralph Merkle writes that

in the coming decades nanotechnology could yield a supercomputer

so small that it could barely be seen in a light microscope.7

Nanotechnology is developing very quickly. In 2001, the RAND

National Defense Research Institute published a report, The Global

Technology Revolution, that identified technology wildcards and

stated that “Another approach known as molecular electronics

would use chemically assembled logic switches organized in large

numbers to form a computer. These concepts are attractive because

of the huge number of parallel, low-power devices that could be

developed, but they are not anticipated to have significant effects by

2015.”8 But on October 18, 2001, The Washington Post reported the

success of Lucent Technology Bell Laboratories in creating the first

such device through “chemical self-assembly.”9 If this new device is

viable, at the rate of present technological change, it is unlikely that

it will take 13 years to convert this breakthrough into practical use.

Nanoelectronics researchers also are working on DNA computing, which could produce very large-scale parallel processing and

ultrasensitive detectors for gas molecules and biological compounds.

Nanodetectors of this kind could theoretically sense single atoms or

molecules of selected substances. Also, the Defense Advanced

Research Projects Agency has a nanoelectronics program that is

exploring and developing material processing technologies, quantum and conventional devices, and device architectures for a next

generation of information processing systems and subsystems.10

Nanomaterials development focuses mostly on a single device:

the carbon nanotube, a superthin pipe made of a rolled sheet of carbon atoms. Nanotubes have the greatest tensile strength of any

fiber—60 times greater than that of steel of the same weight—and

they also have extraordinary electrical properties. In certain configurations, they are semiconductors or insulators, while in others

they are electrical conductors, and

they might even be configured as

superconductors.

With nanofabrication techniques

that allow individual atom manipulation, carbon atoms (from crude oil, for

example) could easily be arranged in

the lattice structure of a diamond,

allowing a great number of things to be constructed of that material.

Consider the implications of things essentially built out of diamond:

such systems would be smaller, lighter, and stronger than present

ones. The manipulation of atoms and molecules will lead to new, custom-designed materials that will allow construction of devices that

are inconceivable today.

New nanoptical switches are likely to form the beginnings of an

all-optical telecom network backbone. These devices would convert

data packets from one wavelength to another in nanoseconds with

minuscule lasers that are only 8 nanometers wide.11 They enable engineers to reconfigure network traffic in a matter of nanoseconds and

redirect huge volumes of traffic across thousands of miles of networks.

Nanotech also could yield clean factories and clean, cheap,

and abundant power from low-cost solar cells and batteries. “Intelligent” materials with integral sensors and microprocessors, much

like the skin on the hand, would not only perform structural tasks

but also be highly sensitive to heat, pressure, electromagnetics, and

chemical compounds.

To the extent that bionanodevices successfully bridge the sensory gap among humans, new devices will emerge that amplify haptics to the degree that hearing and sight are extended around the

world today. Nanotechnology literally has the potential to produce a

real-time global nervous system. Billions of nanobotic devices

employing massive parallel computing in an asynchronous mode

could establish a collective consciousness in an “intelligent fog.” The

fog’s “knowledge” may be downloaded to other remote devices

through laser probing, radar probing, thermal emission, microwave

emission, or electromagnetic discharge (like a lightning bolt). Such

means of establishing new personal connections to a collective consciousness may have some interesting connections to mob psychology.

March 2002 Defense Horizons 2 

the manipulation of atoms

and molecules will lead to

construction of devices that

are inconceivable today

John L. Petersen is the president and founder of The Arlington Institute, a

Washington-area research institute that focuses on anticipating and understanding emerging global futures. He can be contacted at johnp@arlingtoninstitute.org. Captain Dennis M. Egan, USCG, is Chief of the National Response

Center at U.S. Coast Guard headquarters. He can be contacted at

degan@comdt.uscg.mil.
Panel 2—8 

1

⁄2” x 11” 

Though there is some uncertainty about when the technology

will mature,3 nanotechnology is likely to be the manufacturing

wave of the future. In recognition of its importance, the National

Nanotechnology Initiative pumped almost half a billion dollars into

research in the year 2000 alone.4 Industry leaders believe that in 10

to 15 years, the global market for nanotech products will exceed $1

trillion annually.

Nanotech has potential implications for every area of human

activity, but initial work is being concentrated in medicine, materials (and nanostructured chemical catalysts), electronics, and

optics, all of which intersect with the interests of the national security community.

In the nanomedicine area, nanoscale objects made of inorganic materials can serve in biomedical research, disease diagnosis,

and therapy.5 Drugs will be delivered with nanoparticles that will

carry the active ingredient to just the right location in the body.

Minuscule building blocks may someday repair human tissues. Pioneers in nanotechnology envision the

day when small, molecular-sized

robots may autonomously cruise the

body and seek out and repair cells that

are not quite up to par because of disease or aging. Carlo Montemango at

Cornell University has already constructed a working biomolecular

motor less than one-fifth the size of a red blood cell. Adam Heller, a

biochemical engineer at the University of Texas, Austin, is looking

at harnessing biology to produce electricity within the body.

Quicker, more sensitive tests of selected substances (including biological agents) are likely, which should prove particularly useful for

sensing bioterrorist agents.

Similarly, computing will not be the same after nanodevices

become a reality. Nanoelectronics advances have recently resulted in

nanotransistors, diodes, relays, and logic gates, all of which are computer components.6 Nanotech researcher Ralph Merkle writes that

in the coming decades nanotechnology could yield a supercomputer

so small that it could barely be seen in a light microscope.7

Nanotechnology is developing very quickly. In 2001, the RAND

National Defense Research Institute published a report, The Global

Technology Revolution, that identified technology wildcards and

stated that “Another approach known as molecular electronics

would use chemically assembled logic switches organized in large

numbers to form a computer. These concepts are attractive because

of the huge number of parallel, low-power devices that could be

developed, but they are not anticipated to have significant effects by

2015.”8 But on October 18, 2001, The Washington Post reported the

success of Lucent Technology Bell Laboratories in creating the first

such device through “chemical self-assembly.”9 If this new device is

viable, at the rate of present technological change, it is unlikely tha

it will take 13 years to convert this breakthrough into practical use

Nanoelectronics researchers also are working on DNA comput

ing, which could produce very large-scale parallel processing and

ultrasensitive detectors for gas molecules and biological compounds

Nanodetectors of this kind could theoretically sense single atoms o

molecules of selected substances. Also, the Defense Advanced

Research Projects Agency has a nanoelectronics program that i

exploring and developing material processing technologies, quan

tum and conventional devices, and device architectures for a nex

generation of information processing systems and subsystems.10

Nanomaterials development focuses mostly on a single device

the carbon nanotube, a superthin pipe made of a rolled sheet of car

bon atoms. Nanotubes have the greatest tensile strength of an

fiber—60 times greater than that of steel of the same weight—and

they also have extraordinary electrical properties. In certain con

figurations, they are semiconductors or insulators, while in other

they are electrical conductors, and

they might even be configured a

superconductors.

With nanofabrication technique

that allow individual atom manipula

tion, carbon atoms (from crude oil, fo

example) could easily be arranged in

the lattice structure of a diamond

allowing a great number of things to be constructed of that material

Consider the implications of things essentially built out of diamond

such systems would be smaller, lighter, and stronger than presen

ones. The manipulation of atoms and molecules will lead to new, cus

tom-designed materials that will allow construction of devices tha

are inconceivable today.

New nanoptical switches are likely to form the beginnings of an

all-optical telecom network backbone. These devices would conver

data packets from one wavelength to another in nanoseconds with

minuscule lasers that are only 8 nanometers wide.11 They enable engi

neers to reconfigure network traffic in a matter of nanoseconds and

redirect huge volumes of traffic across thousands of miles of networks

Nanotech also could yield clean factories and clean, cheap

and abundant power from low-cost solar cells and batteries. “Intel

ligent” materials with integral sensors and microprocessors, much

like the skin on the hand, would not only perform structural task

but also be highly sensitive to heat, pressure, electromagnetics, and

chemical compounds.

To the extent that bionanodevices successfully bridge the sen

sory gap among humans, new devices will emerge that amplify hap

tics to the degree that hearing and sight are extended around th

world today. Nanotechnology literally has the potential to produce 

real-time global nervous system. Billions of nanobotic device

employing massive parallel computing in an asynchronous mod

could establish a collective consciousness in an “intelligent fog.” Th

fog’s “knowledge” may be downloaded to other remote device

through laser probing, radar probing, thermal emission, microwav

emission, or electromagnetic discharge (like a lightning bolt). Such

means of establishing new personal connections to a collective con

sciousness may have some interesting connections to mob psychology

March 2002 Defense Horizons 2 

the manipulation of atoms

and molecules will lead to

construction of devices that

are inconceivable today

John L. Petersen is the president and founder of The Arlington Institute, a

Washington-area research institute that focuses on anticipating and understanding emerging global futures. He can be contacted at johnp@arlingtoninstitute.org. Captain Dennis M. Egan, USCG, is Chief of the National Response

Center at U.S. Coast Guard headquarters. He can be contacted at

degan@comdt.uscg.mil.
Panel 5—Short —8 7⁄16” x 11” 

have even greater potential than nuclear weapons to radically

change the balance of power. In anticipation of that possibility

the uniformed policymaker is likely to impose restrictions on the

development of technology in such a way as to inhibit commercial development (ultimately beneficial to mankind) while permitting those operating outside of the restrictive bounds to gain

an irrevocable advantage.18

General John Sheehan (Ret.), former Commander in Chief,

Atlantic/Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic, has gone further and

suggested that in this era, the principal role of the U.S. military is not

to fight and win wars but rather to prevent armed conflict. He has

argued that decisive solutions seldom, if ever, come from the use of

force anymore. In fact, new problems that continue for many years

can be unintended consequences of military action. The power of

modern weapon systems often produces destruction that is expensive in diplomatic and economic terms.

Sheehan believes that the principal function of the U.S. military is to help assure global stability for economic development. For

this reason, the military should be structured and positioned so that

it is unmatched at anticipating and defusing emerging instability

before it evolves into chaos requiring armed intervention. A requirement for the use of arms in traditional ways will continue, but the

military should become more proactive to emerging problems rather

than primarily reactive to those that have gotten out of hand.

Americans regularly ask whether technology is moving too

fast for society to keep up. They wonder

what the significant implications of

change might be that we do not yet

understand. They essentially are asking

whether we, in our thinking, policies, and

institutions, are moving as quickly as the

context is changing, and if not, whether

we could find ourselves facing serious

problems that we cannot effectively

respond to because our thinking did not

change with the times.

Advances in nanotechnology (as well as biotechnology) represent a sea change—a transition—into a new era for humanity that

is as different as the Industrial Age was from the Middle Ages, but in

this case, the change is much greater and coming much faster. Nanotechnology represents a fundamental shift in the capabilities that

are available not only to nations but also to individuals and small

groups. We must anticipate and respond to this change in turn.

Mark Avrum Gubrud has said:

The bombed-out cities of the Second World War, and the nuclear

holocausts of our imagination, have persuaded rational minds

that there can be no expectation of a meaningful victory in a

total war between states armed with hundreds of deliverable

nuclear weapons. From that point of view, war is obsolete, at

least direct and open war between great powers.

Nanotechnology will carry this evolution to the next step:

deterrence will become obsolete, as it will not be possible to

maintain a stable armed peace between nanotechnically armed

rivals. The implications of this statement stand in sharp contradiction to the traditions of a warrior culture and to the

assumptions that currently guide policy in the United States

and in its potential rivals.19

He further identifies a significant dilemma for the military:

It was technology, not policy, that forced the doctrine of deterrence on us, just as it was technology that determined the outlines of the nuclear arms race, once the decision to pursue

nuclear confrontation had been made. The logic of military

technology produced a confrontation so complex and unmanageable, and with such short time lines for decision and action,

that it threatened to explode in spite of “assured destruction.”

Again, people were intelligent enough to recognize realities, and

to place restraints on the offensive arms race while shelving

futile dreams of defense.

If technological realities now demand that we go further, and

give up the warrior tradition, the illusion of independence and

the vanity of sovereign self-defense, will we heed these

demands, or will we try to preserve the institutions and attitudes of an earlier epoch, until we are surprised by a disaster

beyond even our worst nuclear nightmares? If it is impossible to

maintain an armed confrontation between nanotechnologyarmed and hostile nations, then this is exactly our dilemma.20

Gubrud suggests that “Ultimately, the only way to avoid nanotechnic confrontation and the next world war is by evolving an integrated international security system, in effect a single global

regime.” He is arguing not for a world government but for an integrated international security system.

(How interesting that as the United

States attempts to put in place an initiative against global terrorism in the aftermath of September 11, it is attempting to

build a set of relationships that are a de

facto international security system.)

The parallels in the character and

fundamentals of the terrorism problem

and a nanotechnology world are apparent:

nonstate actors, decentralized organizations, very low cost, broadly accessible threat agents. Reasonable

security analysts question the utility of most of our weapon systems

in responding to terrorism. The same could be said in responding to

threats from nanotechnology.

Another aspect of nanosecurity should be considered. Like

money, nanotechnology is a value-neutral tool; it can be used for

both good and bad. If General Sheehan is correct and there is a new

role for the military in helping to prevent conflict—not just delivering force—then nanotechnology offers some extraordinary opportunities for a new, proactive approach to national security.

If stability is the objective, where in the world is instability

brewing? Those places where poverty, lack of education, and lack of

human rights are concentrated. In fact, one could argue that the

dichotomy between the haves and the have-nots (both in terms of

economic disparity and the “digital divide” that was the subject of

the World Economic Forum meetings) is by far the greatest looming

March 2002 Defense Horizons 5 

nanotechnology offers

some extraordinary

opportunities for a new,

proactive approach to

national security
Panel 5—Short —8 7⁄16” x 11” 

have even greater potential than nuclear weapons to radically

change the balance of power. In anticipation of that possibility

the uniformed policymaker is likely to impose restrictions on the

development of technology in such a way as to inhibit commercial development (ultimately beneficial to mankind) while permitting those operating outside of the restrictive bounds to gain

an irrevocable advantage.18

General John Sheehan (Ret.), former Commander in Chief,

Atlantic/Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic, has gone further and

suggested that in this era, the principal role of the U.S. military is not

to fight and win wars but rather to prevent armed conflict. He has

argued that decisive solutions seldom, if ever, come from the use of

force anymore. In fact, new problems that continue for many years

can be unintended consequences of military action. The power of

modern weapon systems often produces destruction that is expensive in diplomatic and economic terms.

Sheehan believes that the principal function of the U.S. military is to help assure global stability for economic development. For

this reason, the military should be structured and positioned so that

it is unmatched at anticipating and defusing emerging instability

before it evolves into chaos requiring armed intervention. A requirement for the use of arms in traditional ways will continue, but the

military should become more proactive to emerging problems rather

than primarily reactive to those that have gotten out of hand.

Americans regularly ask whether technology is moving too

fast for society to keep up. They wonder

what the significant implications of

change might be that we do not yet

understand. They essentially are asking

whether we, in our thinking, policies, and

institutions, are moving as quickly as the

context is changing, and if not, whether

we could find ourselves facing serious

problems that we cannot effectively

respond to because our thinking did not

change with the times.

Advances in nanotechnology (as well as biotechnology) represent a sea change—a transition—into a new era for humanity that

is as different as the Industrial Age was from the Middle Ages, but in

this case, the change is much greater and coming much faster. Nanotechnology represents a fundamental shift in the capabilities that

are available not only to nations but also to individuals and small

groups. We must anticipate and respond to this change in turn.

Mark Avrum Gubrud has said:

The bombed-out cities of the Second World War, and the nuclear

holocausts of our imagination, have persuaded rational minds

that there can be no expectation of a meaningful victory in a

total war between states armed with hundreds of deliverable

nuclear weapons. From that point of view, war is obsolete, at

least direct and open war between great powers.

Nanotechnology will carry this evolution to the next step:

deterrence will become obsolete, as it will not be possible to

maintain a stable armed peace between nanotechnically armed

rivals. The implications of this statement stand in sharp contradiction to the traditions of a warrior culture and to the

assumptions that currently guide policy in the United States

and in its potential rivals.19

He further identifies a significant dilemma for the military:

It was technology, not policy, that forced the doctrine of deterrence on us, just as it was technology that determined the outlines of the nuclear arms race, once the decision to pursue

nuclear confrontation had been made. The logic of military

technology produced a confrontation so complex and unmanageable, and with such short time lines for decision and action,

that it threatened to explode in spite of “assured destruction.”

Again, people were intelligent enough to recognize realities, and

to place restraints on the offensive arms race while shelving

futile dreams of defense.

If technological realities now demand that we go further, and

give up the warrior tradition, the illusion of independence and

the vanity of sovereign self-defense, will we heed these

demands, or will we try to preserve the institutions and attitudes of an earlier epoch, until we are surprised by a disaster

beyond even our worst nuclear nightmares? If it is impossible to

maintain an armed confrontation between nanotechnologyarmed and hostile nations, then this is exactly our dilemma.20

Gubrud suggests that “Ultimately, the only way to avoid nanotechnic confrontation and the next world war is by evolving an integrated international security system, in effect a single global

regime.” He is arguing not for a world government but for an integrated international security system.

(How interesting that as the United

States attempts to put in place an initiative against global terrorism in the aftermath of September 11, it is attempting to

build a set of relationships that are a de

facto international security system.)

The parallels in the character and

fundamentals of the terrorism problem

and a nanotechnology world are apparent:

nonstate actors, decentralized organizations, very low cost, broadly accessible threat agents. Reasonable

security analysts question the utility of most of our weapon systems

in responding to terrorism. The same could be said in responding to

threats from nanotechnology.

Another aspect of nanosecurity should be considered. Like

money, nanotechnology is a value-neutral tool; it can be used for

both good and bad. If General Sheehan is correct and there is a new

role for the military in helping to prevent conflict—not just delivering force—then nanotechnology offers some extraordinary opportunities for a new, proactive approach to national security.

If stability is the objective, where in the world is instability

brewing? Those places where poverty, lack of education, and lack of

human rights are concentrated. In fact, one could argue that the

dichotomy between the haves and the have-nots (both in terms of

economic disparity and the “digital divide” that was the subject of

the World Economic Forum meetings) is by far the greatest looming

March 2002 Defense Horizons 5 

nanotechnology offers

some extraordinary

opportunities for a new,

proactive approach to

national security