On Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 10:54:54AM -0800, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>
> Actually, I think it will be unlikely to be a problem if any
> secular democratic society acquires military nanotechnology.
> We've generally avoided the use of offensive technologies
> unless we are attacked first.
So far, democratic nations have never declared war on each other (of
course, plenty of nations *call* themselves democratic, but we are here
talking about real democracies). So it seems likely that you can trust
democratic societies with nanotechnology, at least from a weapons point
of view. Possibly thic could change if ideas about the necessity of
first strikes and pre-emptice imperialism became prevalent, but it
doesn't seem that likely.
> Now whether they would be used
> for covert operations remains an open question. If the small
> arial drown reconnaissance technology is an example, military
> nanotechnology might actually save lives since the *really* bad
> apples who promote terrorism can be surgically removed.
>
> Now, of course the risks become whether or not one turns those
> technologies against ones own citizens or whether they become
> tools that political parties use against one another. Those are
> cases where "first use" really threatens to open a can of worms.
I think the covert operations side is the most dangerous; internal use
has to deal with accountability and the forces of an open society - a
nanogate may be far more dangerous to a party or government than a
watergate. Unfortunately national security is a great cover for all
sorts of unaccountable dirty business. Yet another reason to work for
the spread of minimalist governments before the spread of nanotech.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:21 MDT