Re: No nanotech before AI

From: Michael S. Lorrey (
Date: Wed Jul 12 2000 - 14:07:09 MDT

"Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:
> Now, with isotopic separation *where* do you get the raw uranium
> (or plutonium)? Can this be hidden from current nonproliferation
> checks or satellite observations? Even if you have mass-produced
> nuclear weapons -- would you use them? Bioweapons development wasn't
> enough to induce the use of nuclear weapons, why should nanoweapons
> development be any different?

Signor countries of the NNPT that do not have nuclear capability can get much
aid in peaceful nuclear development, which is how most newer nuke powers got
their weapons, by using the Nonproliferation agreement to get basic nuclear
power and uranium processing facilities built as allowed under the agreement,
then pulling out of the agreement under the 90 day pullout clause, and
continuing their nuclear program with a new focus toward higher concentration

With nano scale isotopic separation, the expensive centrifuge facilities that
are a difficult separation step toward weapons grade isotopes are now bypassed.

> > If nanotech comes first, the two key questions are military
> > destabilization and the effect of nanocomputers on AI.
> You have made the key statement -- "destabilization". Currently
> the country in the forefront of nanotech and biotech is the U.S.
> Other countries are probably 2-10 years behind us. Can you make
> a case that this situation is likely to change?

When WE make isotope separators at nano scale, someone will eventually smuggle a
few such devices in the adhesive of an airmail envelope to a third world retire and receive millions in their encrypted offshore account a
few days later.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:27 MDT