> A targeted disease would only work if the attacker has your genome, so
> that should be carefully protected.
Of course. But this might be tricky, especially if your enemy is
willing to kill off a few people similar to you. But in general,
anonymity makes it easier to survive *direct* attacks, but it doesn't
help against weapons of mass destruction.
> I can imagine some nanodefenses that would be effective against
> macroweapons. How about an exoskeleton made of cooperating nanomachines?
> It would block attacks when possible and move you out of harm's way when
> not.
To some extent they might act as a "smart bulletproof west", but as
anybody who had been shot while wearing a west knows, that is just
partial protection. With nanotech one could always come up with
nastier bullets and attacks the smart west doesn't expect.
> Such armor can reduce the kill radius of a nuclear bomb by protecting
> the occupant against thermal radiation and blast effects, and repairing
> damages from ionizing radiation.
Yes, it would *reduce* it slightly, but nukes are still bad. Even if
you survive the blast, you might get a building on top of you. And too
close, not even nanotech is going to save you.
> Nanotechnology can also help detect nuclear weapons by making sensors
> cheaper. Eventually every city will probably have a nuclear detector on
> every street corner.
I wonder if this is feasible. If you wrap the nuke in a lot of lead,
the radiation can probably be made so faint the detectors won't react
to it. It is a bit like hiding the smell of plastic explosives for
bomb dogs, it is very hard but doable.
The best way of protecting oneself in a world where many people can
unlesh destruction seems to be avoiding being there, and if you are
there, you should have some form of backup or distribution.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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