Newsgroup: it.cultura.religioni
Titolo: scenario x next-war

Nanotech Arms Races
We continue our look at CRN's thirty essential studies with the final
section, which covers "Policies and Policymaking". Recommended studies
in this section assume the existence of a general-purpose molecular
manufacturing system. All preliminary answers are based on diamondoid
nanofactory technology. 
Next on our list is a very significant study, #20: "What effect will
molecular manufacturing have on military and government capability and
planning, considering the implications of arms races and unbalanced
development?"
It has been predicted that a sufficiently advanced and general-purpose
molecular manufacturing (MM) technology could have a significant
destabilizing effect. This must be explored. 
Subquestion A: How quickly can new weapons be invented, designed and
deployed?
Preliminary answer: Very quickly. (See the previous few studies.)
Subquestion B: What new theatres or contexts for conflict will be
created? (Outer space, cyberspace, underground, other?)
Preliminary answer: It will become quite important to be able to
detect very small devices—perhaps even sub-microscopic devices. Outer
space will become much easier to reach. Millionfold increases in
computer power will create new opportunities. Extremely large-scale
sensor networks, backed by large-scale computers, may make some
environments (such as the ocean) less opaque. Living organisms
(especially humans) are high-value and perhaps high-resource targets,
and may require advanced engineering to monitor and protect without
excessive disruption. Data-mining from massive sensor arrays and human
transaction monitoring may be crucial; this will probably be limited
more by software than by hardware. The sensor networks themselves, and
disrupting or hiding from them, may be a focus of conflict, but one
that is likely to be won by the sensors (see David Brin, The
Transparent Society).
Subquestion C: To what extent will portable manufacturing allow forces
to be autonomous of supply?
Preliminary answer: Manufacturing of just about anything from clothing
to missiles should be feasible with only raw materials. Advances in
thermal depolymerization technology may allow conversion of local
plant matter into feedstock with a relatively small (man-portable)
chemical plant.
Subquestion D: To what extent will advanced technology allow forces to
be remotely or autonomously controlled?
Preliminary answer: Any algorithm that can be run on a supercomputer
today will be able to run onboard even a bullet or insect-format
robot. This implies rather good image recognition. Also, the ability
to field as many UAV or smart dust relays as desired will allow very
high-bandwidth networking. Improved robotics, displays, and sensory or
even neural interfaces can greatly enhance telepresence.
Subquestion E: What impacts will human augmentation (including direct
brain interface) have?
Preliminary answer: Unknown at this time, but probably includes
significantly improved reaction time, situational awareness,
telepresence, teleoperation of robots, fully immersive VR, and
enhanced memory/cognition.
Subquestion F: What impacts will advanced data gathering and data
processing have?
Preliminary answer: A full-coverage sensor network with full storage
seems plausible. This would give the ability to see and hear anything
from any angle at any time in the present or past (after the network
was installed, of course). Image processing should allow tracking of
people through time. Data mining based on image processing should
allow connections to be found and highlighted (for example, full
speech-to-text conversion of all conversations, followed by text
searching to determine where the other end of a phone call went). 
This could greatly surpass DARPA's TIA, and enable DARPA's LifeLog:
"an electronic diary to help the individual more accurately recall and
use his or her past experiences to be more effective in current or
future tasks." 
Subquestion G: To what extent will rapidly advancing technology reduce
the enemy's predictability?
Preliminary answer: If a full sensor network can be installed, the
enemy may be come extremely predictable. However, in the absence of
direct sensing, the speed with which new products and new types of
weapons can be conceptualized, developed, and deployed argues that it
will be very hard to know what the enemy's capability is or will be.
Subquestion H: How quickly and effectively can new doctrine be
invented or adapted to new capabilities on either side?
Preliminary answer: This is an institutional question. Note that a
failure of human institutions will tempt the development of automated
or adaptive threat detection and response, comparable to automated
computer virus characterization. Note further that such automated
response systems could be extremely dangerous.
Subquestion I: Will offense or defense be fundamentally stronger?
Preliminary answer: Since this question must be answered for each
possible class of weapon, and since MM makes many new classes of
weapon possible, it appears that offense will probably win. However,
this analysis is shallow; and because of the crucial importance of
this question, it should be studied carefully.
Subquestion J: How well can military targets be protected?
Preliminary answer: Military targets can be dispersed, miniaturized,
hardened with advanced materials, and rebuilt quickly. The main
vulnerability will be people, which again argues for automation.
Subquestion K: How well can civilian targets be protected?
Preliminary answer: Billions of toxin-carrying insectoid nanobots
could fit in a small packing crate. Orbital or UAV-based weapons can
be deployed on a large scale. It looks like civilians and civilian
property may not be defensible without major lifestyle changes. It's
possible that a comprehensive shield could protect against some forms
of attack, possibly including nano-scale robots, but long-range
high-energy weapons may require impractical amounts of shielding. 
The alternative is to prevent the deployment of such weapons in the
first place, but this would be quite difficult to achieve by any
means. A control-freak approach would be hugely oppressive (for the
protected civilians as well as non-citizens) and may not be
sustainable, and an effective policy-based approach will be difficult
to design. 
Subquestion L: Is an arms race likely to be unstable?
Preliminary answer: Yes. The nuclear arms race was stable for several
reasons. In virtually every way, the nano-arms race will be the
opposite. 
Nuclear weapons are hard to design, hard to build, require easily
monitored testing, do indiscriminate and lasting damage, do not
rapidly become obsolete, have almost no peaceful use, and are
universally abhorred. Nano capability will be easy to build (given a
nanofactory), will allow easily concealable testing, will be
relatively easy to control and deactivate, would become obsolete very
rapidly, almost every design is dual-use, and peaceful and non-lethal
(police) use will be common. Nukes are easier to stockpile than to
use; nano weapons are the opposite. 
Also, as Mark Gubrud pointed out, a deployed rapid-response net would
be unstable. (A hair-trigger complex system eventually will suffer a
false alarm.) One observer has argued that immune systems are not
generally unstable, and humans should be able to do even better. We
disagree on three counts. First, humans aren't close to understanding
the immune system yet, and we may have to design military systems
before we do understand it. Second, what's needed is not very
comparable to a biological immune system, so we'll be doing a lot of
new engineering that'll be hard either to test or to analyze. Third,
the instability that Gubrud analyzed is not from one defensive system
reacting to disorganized and localized threats—it's from two defensive
systems reacting to each other. The closest analogy from immunology
would be graft-vs-host disease, which is a great example of
instability. 
Subquestion M: How hard will it be to recover from a nanotech gap?
Preliminary answer: At the point where a nanofactory or equivalent
system is developed, even a few months difference could be
unrecoverable. The more advanced side would have access to vastly
better computers, and the technology would advance as rapidly as their
creativity allowed. There is no obvious plateau in capability that
would allow a laggard to catch up. Also, the advanced side would be in
a much better position to thwart development in its opponents, with or
without all-out war.
Subquestion N: Could a non-nano power defend itself against a nano
power?
Preliminary answer: No. And even a nuclear power might not be able to
deter a nano power: aerospace superiority (with rapid prototyping and
cheap manufacturing) could make it much easier to build an effective
missile shield. 
Subquestion O: How could governments use molecular manufacturing in
their own countries?
Preliminary answer: This deserves a whole study of its own. Abusive
and oppressive governments could become far worse. Any country could
modernize (and militarize) very fast, depending on how much expertise
it can buy or train locally. MM could enhance national character, for
example: Americans could become more independent / off-grid (which
could reduce vulnerability to terrorism); others could become more
socially linked through high-bandwidth connection and data-sharing;
there'll be plenty of opportunity for both laziness and productivity.
Provisional conclusion: Military practice and planning will have to
change a lot. An unstable arms race looks like a definite possibility.
Substantial innovation will be required to even begin to protect
civilians. Development of molecular manufacturing may have a crucial
impact on national strength.
Our initial basic findings (preliminary answers and provisional
conclusions) for all thirty studies should be verified as rapidly as
possible. Because our understanding points to a crisis, a parallel
process of conducting these studies is strongly preferred. 
By CNR
---------------------
la nostra e' un'eta' di scoiattoliche girano in gabbia su se stessi
e di minotauri che si guardano allo specchio 
_chiusi nel loro labirinto_ senza piu' vie d'uscita.
E&F Durrenmatt
((ndr: qs. e' il prezzo che si deve pagare all'individualismo))

 Nanotech Arms Races
ah..ecco perchè l'ottavo nano  si circonda di nani, ballerine e
saltimbanchi..
lui è il capo delle nano-capoccie...delle nano-politiche, delle
nano-riforme...
Saluti naneschi
Forex

nano-riforme...
invece in India....
The Arms Race Has Begun
Yesterday Mike posted an article on "Nanotech Arms Races". How
prophetic. Today, India's new President A. P. J. Abdul Kalam called
for India to develop nanotechnology -- including nanobots -- because
it will revolutionize warfare. 
Kalam is a rocket scientist. In fact, he's an "eminent nuclear and
missile scientist". He had previously called for nanotech to be
developed for cheaper space access and for health and food.
In a speech to scientists at the Weapons and Electronic Systems
Engineering Establishment (WESEE), a naval research and development
outfit, President Kalam asserted that "this would revolutionise the
total concepts of future warfare" and reportedly "asked the country's
scientists to make a breakthrough." This article mentions "super
strong, smart and intelligent structures in the field of material
science and this in turn could lead new production of nano robots with
new types of explosives and sensors for air, land and space systems."
This is probably the starting gun of the nano arms race. Every
government will have to take this seriously. We'll be watching for
reactions around the world, but we'd appreciate your help; please post
news stories in the comment section.
Chris Phoenix, Director of Research
