A scary story!
OWWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOO!
Posted on 09/03/2003 1:09:08 AM PDT by forewarning
On Aug. 7, I spoke on "The Bert Lee [Radio] Show” in Arizona about the expected ability of nanotechnology, being developed in China since 1986, along with at least six other postnuclear fields, to destroy the Western means of nuclear retaliation and thus to eliminate Mutual Assured Destruction, that is, to disarm the West.
The host of the show introduced me generously, but then objected to whatever I said with remarks like "But Professor, how come you know this and our entire political establishment does not?” I would reply: "You mean our entire political establishment does not want to know this.”
After half an hour of such exchanges, four listeners called, and three of them (75 percent) agreed with me. I will quote their astute remarks in one of my next columns.
The fourth of these four listeners also asked me to explain the strategic advantages of nano power over nuclear power, and this is what I said:
Nuclear (and thermonuclear) power can "burn” a city, but it cannot "burn” an ocean, the atmosphere or a continent. Hence the principle of Mutual Assured Destruction, on which world peace has rested. A nuclear country has means of nuclear retaliation – submarines deep under water, underground missiles, and bombers on duty high in the air. They all carry nuclear charges, and none of them can be destroyed by a nuclear attack. If attacked by nuclear weapons, a nuclear country activates its means of nuclear retaliation, and these destroy the attacker. Yes, Mutual Assured Destruction!
Nano power does not burn, explode or irradiate. It passes in between atoms and molecules, and "destroys from within” all means of nuclear retaliation, be it submarines, underground missiles or bombers, together with their nuclear charges.
I receive e-mails from nanotechnologists expressing approval and good wishes, as well as inquiring about nanotechnology in China.
In other words, we are no longer a few lonely custodians of the nanotechnological truth; our ranks are growing, and here I want to make public, with the author’s permission, Britt Gillette’s highly stimulating e-mail to me of Aug. 1. He graduated magna cum laude with distinction from James Madison University in 1999, and has been educating the public on the civilian benefits and the supernuclear geostrategic danger of nanotechnology. His nano sci-fi "Conquest of Paradise” I hope to review in my column. Following is his remarkable e-mail to me:
"I enjoyed the opportunity to read your article ‘The Mind of an American Specialist in Nanotechnology.’ I am intimately familiar with the plethora of policy challenges the free world will face with the emergence of [weaponized] molecular nanotechnology, and have read Mark Gubrud’s ‘Nanotechnology and International Security’ on several occasions. I agree with your conclusions, and I am disheartened by Mr. Gubrud’s naivete in relation to geopolitical realities.
"Like many within the nanotechnology community, Mr. Gubrud fails or refuses to recognize the inherent dangers of nanotechnology’s development. Since the prospect of two nanotechnic powers locked in confrontation would almost certainly lead to unparalleled planetary destruction, many apologists simply present the solution of ‘a single global regime’ as an answer to the problem. Like Mr. Gubrud, such people fail to mention the wide array of cultural and ideological values that make such an international alliance unworkable at best. In addition, such advocates fail to address what measures will be taken to check the power of ‘a single global regime.’ For a nanotechnic dictatorship cannot be defeated from within. I am also sorry to read that Mr. Gubrud replied to your inquiries in the manner in which he did.
"I suggest that instead you contact Dr. Eric Drexler, author of ‘Engines of Creation,’ which, ironically, and probably coincidentally, was published in 1986 – the year you cite as China’s inauguration of Project 863. In light of his past comments, Dr. Drexler is quite wary of the potential negative consequences of this probable superweapon. In addition, Mr. Chris Phoenix of The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology is a person grappling with similar questions in regard to the policy implications of molecular nanotechnology, and I recommend him as a person you should contact. [Coincidentally, a warm letter from Chris Phoenix, director of research, came in response to the column "The Mind of an American Specialist in Nanotechnology”.]
"I was drawn to your article because you’re the first person I’ve ever seen on a mainstream website to deal with the topic of ‘Superweapon #3’ in the realistic near-term, rather than as an ambiguous creation ‘decades in the future.’ I ardently believe ‘Superweapon #3’ will be a molecular assembler, and I have since 11 September devoted myself to the task of educating others in regard to its potential dangers. Your article today prompted me to go back and read through your NewsMax archives. All I can say is ‘Keep up the good work!’
"One article I read [WorldTribune, "Proof Positive of Post-Nuclear Weapons in China and Russia”] dealt with the comments of a Mr. William Stroupe, who stated the following: ‘It does intrigue me that if one could possibly down the crucial technological assets of the West in one fell swoop, without the use of nuclear weapons, then world domination on the part of the attacker would surely result. But how could this possibly be done, from a technological standpoint?’
"Such a prospect of world domination could easily be achieved with the creation of a molecular assembler – a device capable of breaking and creating the chemical bonds between atoms and molecules. Since a molecular assembler is by definition able to self-replicate, the first could build a duplicate copy of itself. Those two then become four, become eight, and so on. ... This compounding capital base could lead to a massive and decisive force within days. As Eric Drexler described in his book, ‘a state that makes the assembler breakthrough could rapidly create a decisive military force – if not literally overnight, then at least with unprecedented speed.’
"To answer to Mr. Stroupe’s question, such a device is capable of rapidly manufacturing and deploying billions of microscopic/macroscopic machines at relatively little cost. These machines could comb the oceans for enemy submarines and quickly disable the nuclear arsenals they carry. Similar acts of sabotage could be carried out simultaneously against land-based nuclear facilities and conventional military forces in a matter of hours, if not minutes.
"The race to build a molecular assembler, if won by China, will result in a worldwide nanotechnic dictatorship, and I appreciate your efforts to call attention to this important subject. We are certainly at a crucial juncture in history, not unlike 1938 and its nuclear scientists who foretold of the atom bomb. This time, we cannot afford to be caught sleeping.
"Currently, I am working on a fictional account of a future nanotechnic arms race in a novel scheduled for a January 2004 release. The premise revolves around the shortsightedness of America and its reluctance to take advantage of its current technological and economic advantages. If you’re interested, I’d love to get your feedback before publication.
"I hope you continue to press forward with informative articles. I’ve enjoyed reading them.”
A scary story!
OWWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOO!
hardly an expert...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.