NANOHYPE AWARD for May 2005

And the winner is Mike Treder of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology. STOP. First of all, I really like their web page (http://www.futurebrief.com/). Check out their Science, Science and Politics, and Science and Security Archives. Secondly, I really like them. They are great people and a pleasure to have as colleagues in the debate over nanotechnology because they bring a unique voice into the discussions.

The AWARD is about exaggeration and as such....

Mike Treder, "War, Independence, and Nanotechnology," FUTURE BRIEF, 2005.
Retrieved from http://www.futurebrief.com/miketrederwar002.asp on June 1, 2005.

The article includes many rhetorical flourishes, such as "looming just over the horizon is a grave threat. It is nanotechnology. From the dawn of the nuclear age until the present day, we have relied on two mechanisms to protect us from World War III: the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) and the growing interdependence of nations."

While I love the acronym MAD, the truth is we have stepped back from this doctrine for some time now. Sec. of Defense Brown in 1980 in a commencement address outlined Presidential Directive 59. Donald Snow, PPS from Alabama discusses it in detail at http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles
/aureview/1983/Nov-Dec/snow.html#snow. This counterforce strategy legitimated small nuclear bunker busters in Afghanistan. In addition, interdependence didn't seem to deter our recent foray into Iraq.

"However, in the very near future we may not be able to count on these controls. The tenuous balance of MAD and the worldwide network of commercial trade are both threatened by the rise of advanced nanotechnology." What controls?

This observation moots a concluding sentence. "When individual countries are able to provide their own goods and service, without the need for import or export trade, they will have less incentive to maintain good relations with others. When economic security is no longer an issue, the only remaining security concern will be military." Interdependence has had no effect on current military policies. Furthermore, with China owning a lot of our debt, you would have thought there would be reluctance to anger them with the Iraq venture and our revalidated policy on Taiwan.

Here's the primary rub. "Unless molecular manufacturing is contained, the number of nanotech-possessing nations in the world could be much higher than today's... increasing the chance of inflaming regional conflicts that could spin out of control..."

We remain no where near molecular manufacturing capability despite the long treatises on what could be given an extended series of breakthroughs, a series of events that would be affected by intervening variables that could easily mitigate or frustrate whatever connection the events has with a future event. Simply put, this is probability baiting. There are sufficient concerns in the present without directing us to bogeys in some probabilistic future.

For example, the EPA is holding a meeting in June because a PMN (pre-manufacture notification) has been filed by a company about to market carbon nanotubes. They are seeking a TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) review that could have serious environmental implications in the present.

I have NEVER said there is no reason to examine scenario constructions of distant future events. However, it is incredibly important that we inform readers that the bulk of our focus should deal with near and intermediate-term events. The CRN manifesto on molecular manufacturing is interesting but needs to be situated in an appropriate setting.

Maybe, we should be watching how nanoparticles and nanoelectronics might affect triggering devices for current nuclear weapons or how nano-armor and the human-free battlefield might make warfighting more likely once human damage is removed from the equation, etc.