|
 Provocations
Michael
LaBossiere
Number
Five: The Case for Nanoweapons
Advances
in nanotechnology have made nanoweapons a very real possibility.
Put briefly, a nanoweapon would consist of nanomachines and the
intended use of the machines would be to inflict harm on an enemy.
These nanomachines would be tiny robots that share a very important
trait with living organisms: they would be capable of replication
using resources gathered from the environment.
It
might be wondered how such tiny machines could be used as effective
weapons. As an answer, consider the army ant and bacteria. Army
ants are rather small, yet can do terrible damage to whatever happens
to have the misfortune of being caught in their path. Bacteria are
even smaller than ants, but as the plague demonstrated very effectively,
they can be extremely dangerous. Nanoweapons can take similar approaches.
One type could function like army ants: simply disassembling their
targets and using the raw materials to build more nanomachines which
would, in turn, disassemble more targets and so on. Although it
is rather gruesome to think about, human beings and other animals
could serve quite nicely as "food" for some types of nanomachines.
Another type of nanoweapon could function like bacteria-entering
the bodies of humans and other living things and doing, no doubt,
terrible things.
Based
on their programming, such nanoweapons could be targeted very specifically-a
single building or perhaps even a single object (like a plane or
missile) or person. They could, of course, also be much less discriminating.
This, combined with their capacity for self replication, gives nanoweapons
the potential to be weapons of mass destruction.
Given
the terrible potential of such weapons, it would seem reasonable
to want to nip their development in the bud (assuming, of course,
that they are not already being stockpiled). However, such weapons
should be developed and a moral argument can be given in defense
of this seemingly mad claim.
The
ethical debates over nuclear weapons seem to have culminated, in
general, in the view that the existence of such weapons of mass
destruction is morally acceptable, provided that they serve to deter
the very war they were created to fight. In any event, a strong
case can be made that the weapons have, ironically, helped to keep
the general peace-and this seems to be a good thing.
The
deterrence value of nuclear weapons rests, in part, in their horrible
nature-they are rightfully regarded as too horrible to use. Nanoweapons
also seem to have this trait. A suitable nanoweapon could literally
eat a city and its inhabitants alive-and this seems suitably horrifying.
Thus, if nuclear weapons can be justified morally as deterrents,
so to can certain nanoweapons.
It
is, of course, reasonable to inquire as to why nanoweapons would
be needed given the vast stockpiles of nuclear (not to mention biological
and chemical) weapons that already exist. The answer is as follows.
Nuclear,
chemical, biological and even conventional weapons have a major
drawback-they only destroy. Nuclear weapons not only do vast amounts
of damage, they also create massive radioactive contamination that
can plague the earth for a very long time. Chemical and biological
weapons, in addition to their initial harm, can also cause lasting
damage to the environment and living creatures. Conventional weapons,
like bombs, tend not to produce long term effects but they can,
of course, create a great deal of destruction.
It
might be thought that nanoweapons would be as destructive as these
other weapons, perhaps even worse. For example, one common concern
among those who study nanotechnology is the problem of the "gray
goo." Put roughly, the problem is that self-replicating nanomachines
could get out of hand and simply consume everything-leaving behind
nothing but a "gray goo" of nanomachines. Clearly, this
could be far worse than the effects of any of the other weapons.
Fortunately, nanoweapons could be programmed to limit their replication.
Even more importantly, nanoweapons could be programmed to do more
than replicate-they can also be programmed to build other things.
For example, a nanoweapon could be designed that converts target
structures and vehicles into raw materials suitable for future use.
With suitable technological advances it would even be possible to
develop nanoweapons that would literally turn, for example, tanks
into tractors or military structures into houses. Thus, in addition
to its quality as a weapon of terrible mass destruction nanoweapons,
unlike the other weapons, could be designed to be far less "destructive."
After all, if a city were hit with a nuclear weapon all that would
be left would be a radioactive nightmare. A city destroyed by a
nanoweapon could be transformed into materials suitable for building
another city.
As
a final point, a massive war fought with nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons would literally scorch the earth. A war fought with suitable
nanoweapons might also result in the end of humanity-but the earth
could survive nicely and be ready to give rise to a new species,
hopefully one not so stupidly self-destructive.
Provocations
will next be updated early January 2003
Join
Our Café mailing list
To
receive *very* short messages, letting you know when the Café
has been updated, just fill in your email address below - and press
submit.
[If
you wish to unsubscribe from the mailing list, simply fill in your
subscriber email address, select "Unsubscribe", and press Submit.]
Previous
Provocations
1.
2.
3.
4.
|
