CHAPTER 5
Nanotechnology, engineering on the nanometer (one-billionth of a meter) scale is often touted as the next “big thing” for society at large, and has already a host of existing military applications. The prefix “nano” is being used to promote, hype in many cases, many current and future products. There is controversy over many long-term aspects of nanotechnology, including debate over the feasibility of “assemblers,” multipurpose nanoscale devices capable of producing anything it has feed material for, including copies of itself. Speculation on nanotechnology ranges from technological singularity utopias to end-of-the-world scenarios. Predicted security and defense applications are no less ambitious, or controversial.
In general, nanotechnology is often heralded as a disruptive technology for the business world, specifically for investors looking to ride the next major wave in the economy; however, destabilization of existing economic norms is also potential fuel for conflict. Nanotechnology prophecies of eliminating material disputes in the very long term are beyond the scope of this discussion. Although it is likely nanotechnology will change society, the outcomes may not be so optimistic. Like any powerful tool, the biggest threat from nanotechnology is that someone else may use it to change the world to their version of paradise on earth.
Science and Engineering at the Nanometer Scale
The prefix “nano” refers to one-billionth—one nanometer being one-billionth of a meter. In comparison, the useful scale for cells in the human body is the micrometer (micron) scale—one-millionth of a meter. Nanotechnology in general involves products and controlled processes on the scale of cellular organelle (the “machinery” or “organs” inside a cell) and smaller. The U.S. government's National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) uses the following definition of nanotechnology:
Nanotechnology is the understanding and control of matter at dimensions between approximately 1 and 100 nanometers, where unique phenomena enable novel applications. Encompassing nanoscale science, engineering, and technology, nanotechnology involves imaging, measuring, modeling, and manipulating matter at this length scale.
A nanometer is one-billionth of a meter. A sheet of paper is about 100,000 nanometers thick; a single gold atom is about a third of a nanometer in diameter. Dimensions between approximately 1 and 100 nanometers are known as the nanoscale. Unusual physical, chemical, and biological properties can emerge in materials at the nanoscale. These properties may differ in important ways from the properties of bulk materials and single atoms or molecules.1
The phrase “unique phenomena,” refers to natural forces and interactions that manifest, or become a consideration, only at the very small scale. The academic notions that the atoms and molecules are in constant motion (relatively immobile vibrating of atoms in solids, much more random and mobile Brownian motion in gases and liquids) are major considerations for engineering and manufacturing at the nanoscale. In discussions on nanotechnology the effects of viscosity and surface tension become more pronounced as the object or system approaches the size of living cells and indeed approaches the size of the molecules that make up the fluid. The effects of scale and surface tension allow insects to walk on water whereas larger creatures must swim. These are all existing physical phenomena; only that common everyday experience at the large scale does not give us an intuitive appreciation of their effects at the very small scale.2
An example of unintuitive nanoscale effects is the replication of gecko setae, flexible nanoscale hairs covering a gecko's feet, which allow it to cling to surfaces without adhesive.3 Both natural and artificial setae use the van der Waals force4 to generate attraction between surfaces. The van der Waals force only becomes usable with extremely close contact between the molecules of different objects. Setae as nanoscale structures are able to press into rough textures of most surfaces, allowing a useful amount of van der Waals force to manifest.5 Engagement of the setae is directional, meaning a gecko can stick or unstick a foot with only a subtle movement of the limb. Both the strength and controllability of this adhesive-free stickiness has been replicated in the form of artificial setae formed into mass nanoscale arrays. Gecko-like climbing and clinging abilities have surveillance and military uses.6 Manufacturing quantities of artificial setae is, however, a barrier toward real-world use.
Although the origins of nanotechnology are often attributed to Richard Feynman's 1959 lecture, “There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom,”7 there are examples of regular use of nanoparticles from well before this. A commonly given example of nanotechnology from the period before the concept of nanotechnology became known is stained glass. Though the science was not recognized for centuries, some colors of stained glass are the result of correctly sized nanoparticles of gold and other materials forming in the glass.8 This phenomenon, structural color, is the result of the shape of the particle scattering and reflecting specific wavelengths of light, differing from pigments that absorb and reflect specific wavelengths of light. The visible portion of the spectrum has wavelengths in the hundreds of nanometers. Today's understanding of how light interacts with matter is being developed into increased control over light and other forms of electromagnetic (EM) radiation, the principles behind quantum dots and metamaterials.
There is debate over the definition and goals of the nanotechnology field centering on the concept of bottom-up, guided atom-by-atom construction of structures and devices. In policy, and in marketing, nanotechnology simply refers to products that are or work at less than 100 nanometers and does not make any distinction between how it is produced. Nanotechnology, as popularized by K. Eric Drexler in works such as the 1986 book, Engines of Creation, and later in the 1993 book, Unbounding the Future: The Nanotechnology Revolution, is very specific in referring to nanotechnology as being atomic-level construction, building up products via what are termed “molecular assemblers,” or simply, “assemblers.” Some have labeled this definition for nanotechnology as the “radical vision”9 or “futuristic nanotechnology.”10 Not only is it a break from established industrial models, but also promises to revolutionize the world by changing economic paradigms. If an atomic- and molecular-scale assembler were found to be possible then it could build any useful object, whether it is food, shelter, weapons, or copies of the assembler, efficiently with minimal feed materials, energy, and time. Thus far the molecular assembler remains theoretical; there is debate over whether such devices are practical.
Before discussing the nanotechnology assembler, it is useful to examine how nanoscale products are manufactured today—top-down processes. Top-down fabrication processes have physically large systems producing nanoscale products. Semiconductor computer chips, although not specifically labeled as nanotechnology, are a good example of the top-down approach. Mass production of computer chips is done in expensive fabrication plants where thin layers of material are alternatively coated on and removed to produce the necessary features of a chip. The most common technique used to produce computer chips is photolithography—the use of light and shadows to selectively activate light-reactive materials controlling whether they stay or are removed during the steps of production. With 32 nanometer features already common, and 22 nanometer products entering production as this is being written, the technology has moved far beyond the use of visible light—the color violet at around 400 nanometers is the smallest wavelength perceptible.11 The equipment used at each stage of manufacture is many times larger than the computer chips being manufactured, and indeed the “image” used in photolithography to define the chips is many times larger than the image cast on the silicon. The large investment found in retooling a semiconductor fabrication plant for every new generation of computer chip is a major problem when product obsolescence is measured in mere months.
Carbon nanotube (CNT), a product definitely associated with nanotechnology, is presently produced via top-down industrial processes. CNTs are particularly long chains of just carbon atoms that exhibit strength and conductivity properties which are of interest to a wide range of disciplines. Specifics of how the carbon atoms are arranged define the different mechanical and electrical properties of the different forms of carbon. Like CNT, diamonds and graphite are made up of just carbon arranged under specific conditions. Miniscule quantities of CNT form naturally, but in the quantities needed even for experimentation, it is a manufactured commodity. Carbon-bearing feed materials (organic molecules in other words) and catalysts are exposed to high temperatures and other conditions needed to first breakdown the organic molecules and then coax the carbon atoms to bond with other carbon atoms correctly to form the large molecules of the specific type of CNT being produced.12 Noncarbon elements from the feed material as well as the catalyst represent waste products that may be processed to recover useful elements or discarded.
Though only theorized, a bottom-up process would involve assembly of components atom by atom and molecule by molecule. For several decades now, technologies such as the scanning tunneling microscope (STM) and the atomic force microscope (AFM) have been pushing atoms and molecules around, one at a time. As most manufactured goods are composed of trillions of atoms, single atom-by-atom placement is of little use outside of very specialized research and media events.13 For anything useful to be mass produced, the individual placement of atoms and molecules would have to be multiplied into parallel-assembly processes where many atoms and molecules are deliberately moved and placed simultaneously. Parallel assembly leads to the nanotechnology assembler, independent nanoscale machines able to arrange atoms and molecules one at a time. Parallel work by thousands, if not millions of assemblers, is necessary for this concept to actually produce a high-technology product before it becomes obsolete.
One immediate problem is how start off with enough assemblers in the first place. As in all finely crafted machines, and it does not get any finer than the atomic level, the first assembler is expected to be a very expensive item. Discussions on assemblers led to the concepts of nanotechnology assemblers building more assemblers and exponential growth—in the time that it takes an assembler to build a copy of itself, a generation, the number of assemblers double. Although slow to start, the exponential growth of assemblers is envisioned to quickly take care of the numbers problem. Handling seemingly insurmountable tasks with self-replicating machines and systems is not unique to nanotechnology; mathematician John Von Neumann is generally credited with the idea of factories, machines, and systems (not necessarily at the nanoscale) building copies of themselves in the 1940s, leading these systems in general to be referred to as Von Neumann machines. These have appeared in science fiction, usually as a malevolent all-consuming force, though in Arthur C. Clarke's 2010: Odyssey Two it seems more a matter of the self-replicating monoliths being too busy to deliver more than a cryptic safety notice about their use of Jupiter as a construction zone. Recent alarm over nanotechnology assemblers running amok and consuming the world, the “gray goo” end-of-the-world scenario, is therefore nothing new. The term Von Neumann machine is even noted in the endnotes of Clarke's novel along with contemporary NASA interest in such systems to quickly and cheaply perform large-scale tasks.14 From the perspective of the theoretical nanotechnology assembler, fabricating something sized for human use is at first an impossibly large task, akin to the rapid industrialization of the moon that NASA was publically discussing in the 1980s. Like the nanotechnology assembler, the industrialization of the moon is not physically impossible, but faces great engineering challenges and even greater economic barriers.
Although autonomous self-assembling machines or systems would seem to be an overused science fiction cliché, proponents are quick to cite that their inspiration is nature itself. All multicell organisms, such as people, start off as a single cell. Chicken eggs are essentially a large single cell—when fertilized, and given the correct conditions, this one cell divides and differentiates until it forms a chicken, which can go off and produce more eggs, each of which can develop into another chicken. Life itself is by definition self-assembling and capable of exponential growth; given time, food, and security, all forms of life will seek to fill a given environment.
Many of the techniques suggested for use in a nanotechnology assembler, such as DNA-like computer tape, are borrowed directly from biology. Drexler speculated on direct mechanical and chemical methods of data input and storage at the nanoscale, sidestepping the problem of building electronic sub-systems to fit inside the already minimalistic assemblers. In several respects, this radical vision is much less ambitious than nature in that it is not aiming to produce initially anything as complex as a living cell. This is certainly true for pools of assemblers producing passive structural materials in bulk. The assembler form of nanotechnology promoted by Drexler and others faces many practical engineering difficulties but as a concept is not ruled out as being impossible due to the laws of science; if it were so then life would be impossible.15
Another aspect of the molecular assembly is that generally these are described as low-energy processes. Low-energy processes again mimic life, where slow chemical reactions generate all the organic (carbon containing) molecules, and energy needed to form first amino acids, then proteins, cells, and finally multicellular organisms. Most proponents of nanotechnology assembly see it as an efficient method to essentially “grow” all the products needed in future, and bring into reality projects that previously were too expensive to contemplate, such as armoring buildings against a wider range of natural disasters and manmade attacks.16 The low energy requirements for production of almost any product do of course have security implications if this capability first were to exist and, second, were to proliferate. In its ultimate form, the molecular assembler would minimize waste products by virtue of only using the molecules it needed and, unlike conventional top-down processes, not by starting with a bulk of material and carving it down to a finished product. That said, depending on what feed materials are needed there is still potential for industrial waste; if one is trying to produce atomically perfect steel, one has to still start off with raw ores and what is left after refinement is still a slag heap of some kind. Low energy simply means it may be viable to do more processing of the waste materials, but only if one chooses to.
It is also important to note that the below the scale of designer molecules is the world of high-energy physics and nuclear technology. Atoms are composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Chemical reactions occur with exchanges of electrons but do not affect atomic nuclei, which are cores of protons and neutrons. An element is defined by the number of protons in its atoms. Isotopes, or variants of an element, are defined by the number of neutrons. As an example, all atoms of the element hydrogen have one proton in the nucleus. Deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen, has a nucleus made up of one proton and one neutron. The syntheses of atoms, the transmutation of an atom of one element into another, are nuclear reactions.
Natural nuclear decay has large, relatively unstable, isotopes spontaneously shedding protons and neutrons to achieve lower energy (more stable) configurations. As protons and neutrons are involved, atomic decay transmutes atoms of one element into those of another. These released high-energy particles also constitute forms of ionizing radiation. Alpha decay is the release of an alpha particle, composed of two protons and two neutrons, which is otherwise itself an atom of helium, and specifically the isotope helium-4. Alpha particles cannot penetrate far, but are dangerous if a source of this radiation finds its way inside the body. This process, although natural and spontaneous, does release energy that may be harnessed as is done in radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs). At the time of writing, over 30 years after launch, the RTGs on the deep space Voyager probes were still operating. Induced fission nuclear reactions use high-energy particles to split a large atom. Depending on the atoms involved, the fission reaction may be self-sustaining through the release of high-energy particles to continue the process. Controlled, this is a fission nuclear reactor; uncontrolled, this is the chain reaction of an atomic warhead.
Of even greater energy is nuclear fusion—the process for building up atoms. Nuclear fusion takes atoms of lighter elements and forces them together to form heavier elements. In large particle accelerators, atoms can be smashed together to build up heavier elements, including short-lived unstable elements not found in nature. In thermonuclear warheads a fission explosive is used to initiate fusion in particular isotopes of hydrogen and lithium. Efficient controlled fusion, able to generate more usable energy than it consumes, has been continuously promised as being only a few decades away for the last few decades. In nature, the fusion of different elements describes the life cycle of stars—hydrogen, the simplest of atoms, fuses into helium initially. At the end of a star's life, fusion involves progressively heavier elements, thus producing all elements found in the natural universe.
Below the scale of neutrons, protons, and electrons are the dozen or so particles of the standard model. Individually these particles are of little direct consequence to security and defense; however, as little as a century ago the same could be argued for atoms.
The nature of matter means that atomic-scale fabrication is the finest precision possible. Atoms in general are fundamental stable building blocks. Molecular assembly is often presented as flawless replication of a product in theory. In reality, quality control would still be important. When dealing with billions of atoms there are bound to be flaws. Taking the mimicking of life further, flaws in a bottom-up construction is analogous to the growth of cancer cells. That said, any fabrication process could include an inspection capability during each step of the production process, identifying flaws shortly after they occur. Specifics of how nano-fabrication develops will determine the frequency and manner of quality control. A failure rate of 99 percent can always be justified by the right combination of low manufacturing cost and high market price for the one percent that meet standards.
Related to the nanoscale machines or manipulators assembling useful goods for home and national security are organisms that have been genetically modified (GM) to produce designer molecules. Instead of copying the chemical processes used by cells to transport and assemble atoms into molecules useful to life, this is simply reprogramming life to produce specific and tailored molecules useful to man. Much has been said about how spider silk compares favorably in strength to weight versus steel and manmade fibers such as Kevlar. Spider silk is composed of long molecule chains that combine tensile strength with flexibility. The major drawback is that spiders are not easily used in industrial processes. As of late there have been several universities and companies announcing success in genetically modifying organisms, both bacteria17 and animals,18 that can be easily used by industry to produce large amounts of spider silk molecule.
Nanoscale fabrication by mobile and independent atomic manipulators is simply not something for near-term consideration, a reality that even its proponents would agree with. For now, and the near future, the majority of work on nanotechnology and nanoproduction will involve top-down processes. The March 2010 assessment of the U.S. NNI recommended a focus on bringing nanotechnology to market,19 which essentially means nanotechnology produced using developments of existing top-down processes. That said, NNI goals still include increasing funding for basic research, some of it toward better understanding on how molecules can be put together, but again no distinction is made between top-down and bottom-up processes.
3D Fabrication, Near-Term Adjunct to Nanotech or an Emerging Technology
A possible bridge toward nanoscale fabrication is the rapidly developing technology of three-dimensional (3D) printing. Three-dimensional printing, used interchangeably with the terms rapid prototyping, additive manufacturing, and desktop fabrication, is production via the laying and fixing in place of successive layers of material. Three-dimensional printers of increasingly high resolution are already operating at the micron (micrometer) scale.20 Of course if 3D printing technology achieves layer thicknesses of less than 100 nanometers (0.1 microns) or less it, would qualify for the U.S. government's definition of nanotechnology. Between changing how industry produces complex structural items, threatening future business for package delivery companies,21 and a growing enthusiast community constructing 3D printers for personal use, this technology is itself billed as an emerging technology with accompanying claims of being an “industrial revolution” in its own right.22
An important consideration with the development of these technologies is the cost-to-benefit ratio of increasing resolution, and the products that may justify the investment. Three-dimensional printing is presently being heralded for its ability to efficiently produce small production runs. For personal use this can include low cost but high-fidelity replication of household objects that one would normally only need one or two of. These items do not require nanometer precision. In industrial and military use the need for nanometer precision depends on the specific application. Some military goods, such as rifles, are produced in the thousands via existing manufacturing techniques; production via novel fabrication techniques would have to be quite low to justify their use.
One military-related product that could conceivably benefit from the development of atom-precise 3D printing and other molecular-level fabrication would be high-performance gas turbine (jet) engines. At present 3D printing is being used to produce aerospace structural components, where the ability to produce odd shapes that maximize strength while minimizing mass is being leveraged.23 With increases to the performance of jet engines there is a tendency for more complex turbine blades, whether in material, shape, or both. Advance engine blades are formed from single crystals of metal alloy grown with great care and expense.24 In turbine blade production, a degree of perfection is required, and today's processes are already expensive, making this an ideal starting point for economically viable molecular fabrication. It would also have security repercussions; the ability to produce military jet engines was a subject of major interest in considering Soviet military power, and today is a subject of interest when considering the military rise of China.25
Another possible offset to the cost of 3D printer fabrication is its potential to reduce logistical footprints. E-mail has changed how people communicate and do business, creating jobs in the IT sector, and challenging older forms of communication, such as mail and telegrams. Low marginal costs also allow for junk e-mail, spam to be a cost effective means of advertising. Among possible 3D printing futures is to use this technology to provide similar instant delivery and low marginal costs for physical products. Essentially one location would be able to e-mail a prototype or product sample to another location. As mentioned earlier this emerging capability already has raised concerns for delivery companies. Global power projection is dependent on being able to field military units far from home, and logistics for the military are more of a necessary evil than a profitable line of business. Structural spare parts, fasteners, and other simple, but necessary components, are expensive to stockpile, and/or expensive to ship as needed. There has long been military interest in using 3D printing to reduce the burden of storing these types of items. In a 1994 Discover magazine article, the term “fabber”26 was used to describe this technology and noted interest from the U.S. Navy on using “fabbers” to partially replace the large parts’ warehouse aboard aircraft carriers.27 Interestingly, the article's prediction of desktop “fabbers” being available within 15 years (of 1994) seems to have been accurate.
Moving beyond specialist components and on-demand spare parts, production of nearly complete devices and equipment from 3D printers is being experimented on. Notwithstanding the need for electronics, motors, wiring, and hand assembly, 3D printers have been able to copy themselves.28 Similarly the University of South Hampton, in the United Kingdom, flew in 2011 what is claimed to be the world's first unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) largely produced by a 3D printer.29
In the United States various military organizations are known to be acquiring 3D printers, possibly to augment existing capabilities to customize and produce small batches of specialized items. Understandably, the United States Special Operations Command is not commenting on their reasons for wanting this technology.30 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the case of the Manufacturing Experimentation and Outreach (MENTOR) subprogram to the Adaptive Vehicle Make (AVM) program has been more open, and it is teaming 3D printers with U.S. high schools in an effort to encourage interest in science and engineering studies, and possibly directly benefit from new ideas and innovations MENTOR generates.31
Now it must be remembered that 3D printing does not currently have nanometer precision, and therefore cannot yet be used to produce even moderately powerful computer chips, though some mixed material printers can produce functioning circuits. Although some 3D printers can produce complex items with moving parts, anything produced larger than its “print” volume would require some assembly. Under the amusingly alarmist headline of, “Is the Navy Trying to Start the Robot Apocalypse?” online magazine Wired noted U.S. Navy interest in combining 3D printer and robotics technology to someday allow for autonomous assembly.32 Object recognition by computers is still a major challenge, and the ability of artificial intelligence to comprehend and make plans in uncontrolled environments still very problematic. Dynamic assembly of loose parts is probably the more challenging problem than grafting a 3D printer onto a robot. Coordinating multiple robots toward the goal of assembling something is either again a macroscale precursor of the Drexler vision of molecular assembly, the electronic realization of “too many cooks,” or something in between.
Nanotechnology and Nations
Despite being vaguely defined, nanotechnology is widely regarded as important to the equally nebulous concept of national power. The U.S. government has since 2000 been funding the NNI, which has acted as a central point of contact and collaboration between various federal agencies and others involved with many aspects of this emerging technology from fundamental research; NNI conducts research on health and safety issues involved with nanotechnology, as well as specific applications along department and agency mandates. The Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Energy, NASA, and the U.S. intelligence community,33 are all involved with the NNI.
Science, which is not of a purely military nature, has both a tendency and a need to permeate national borders. Peer review, a staple of legitimate science, requires that findings be published for others to scrutinize and ultimately replicated to prove that results were not simply chance. U.S. government agencies and companies are active with international cooperation on nanotechnology matters. This includes participation in international bodies that have studied the general implications of nanotechnology, such as State Department and Environmental Protection Agency involvement with the International Risk Governance Council,34 as well as military organizations such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).35 During the Cold War there remained some contact between scientists on both sides of the Iron Curtain even as they raced to outdo each other in the pursuit of scientific advancement. The math behind the F-117 stealth fighter can be traced directly to a scientific paper published in Russia.36 Today, the sheer volume of scientific papers on nanotechnology being published in the People's Republic of China is being used in part to gauge this peer competitor's great interest and rapid rise in nanotechnology research.37
Although some of this international interest may be due to nanotechnology hype, there seems to be a shared recognition that it would be unwise to be caught on the wrong side of the “nano-divide” as far as industrial policy is concerned. Like many emerging technologies, nanotechnology may be viewed as a great leveler, and perhaps an opportunity to bypass catching up in present-day economic and military competitions, and simply move on to what is perceived to be the next competition that matters as far as national power goes. The “next competition” being a fresh playing field means that past achievements may not matter so much. As identified in U.S. Department of Defense reports, this is a major contributor to China's interest in nanotechnology research, “The PRC considers nanotechnology an area of research in which they are playing on a level field with the United States.”38 The potential of a new level playing field is the opportunity to be the ultimate winner of the next revolution in economic and military affairs.
Security and Defense Nanotechnology Opportunities
Nanotechnology is not one product or capability, but instead covers a whole host of products and capabilities. Many are simply extensions of current technology, improved through the ability to cram more capability in a given volume. On the other hand the nanoscale does open some completely new opportunities. This next section is by no means a complete list.
That the military is not alone in trying to harness this vaguely defined area of technology means that much of what will enter service will be dual-use items. An example of dual-use nanotechnology would be nanoscale structures and particles that inhibit microbial growth. These have applications that include germ-fighting hospital walls, athletic clothing that wards off odor-producing bacteria, biological weapons protection, and literally the kitchen sink, where again it is useful to prevent bacteria growth. Militaries have kitchens and hospitals where this form of passive nanotechnology may find its way into the background of military life as a disinfectant or hygiene supply. One such product, “sharkelet,” mimics the nanoscale texture found in natural shark skin that prevent algae growth,39 and had its origins in military research, and specifically U.S. Navy efforts to keep the hulls of warships and submarines clean.40
High-performance athletic equipment manufacturers and the aerospace industry have a common interest in high-strength lightweight materials. High-tech composites are ubiquitous elements in the design and construction of fighters and snowboards. In the near term, precisely tailored nanoscale features of fibers and other components of advance composites will allow for specific combinations of increases in tensile and compressive strength, improve elasticity, and weight reductions.
CNTs and graphene, another carbon-based nanomaterial, are two of the leading areas of interest for future high-strength lightweight materials. In concept these materials are very simple; in practice there remain many challenges to taping their properties. The bonding characteristics of carbon make it useful for the building blocks of life; organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon compounds. Long complex molecules made up of repeated combinations of carbon and other elements make up polymers, including synthetic plastics. Carbon can bond with itself, and when such bonds are repeated among many carbon atoms, it can form buckminsterfullerene (or buckyball), a sphere of 60 carbon atoms, which is able to cage other molecules. From the buckyball came the idea of elongating the carbon-only molecular structure into the carbon nanotubes. CNT-based materials have shown remarkable tensile strength. In recent years there has been much excitement about CNT being strong enough for the space elevator concept41—a tether reaching from geostationary orbit to a point on the equator that may be climbed to reach space cheaply. In the near term, CNTs are being mixed into composites to reinforce their strength.42
Graphene is the concept of carbon bonding to carbon in a flat sheet configuration. Although only one-atom thick, this sheet would have the strength of molecular bonds keeping it intact, making it in theory many times stronger than steel.43 That graphene is presently only available in the form of barely visible flakes means its near-term future is more likely to be found as a new material for smaller computer components due to its electrical properties44 than as a structural material. Extreme atomic-level precision coupled with a greater understanding as to how electrons flow in such structures promises to produce superior conductors and semiconductors out of everyday carbon.
Seemingly benign and unexciting to many, material and structural sciences are behind the armor and other passive defenses that have shaped history. Naval warfare changed due to the advent of ironclad warships, neatly highlighted during the U.S. Civil War first by the near invulnerability of the Confederate ironclad CSS Virginia to return fire, and later in the long, arguably tactically inconclusive, slugging match between the Virginia and the Union ironclad USS Monitor. The application of iron to naval hulls both brought about obsolescence and drove development of weapons and naval tactics. The culmination of this was an arms race between armor and naval cannon, ending with the Dreadnought arms race between the Great Powers that preceded World War I.
Similarly personal body armor, in the form of metal suits of armor, fell out of fashion due to the weight and restrictions on movement imposed by armor becoming more of a liability. Only within the last few decades have material science produced materials such as ballistic nylon, and later Kevlar and Spectra, which have allowed for resurgence in personal body armor. None of this would have been possible if it was not for advances made over the last century in chemical and material sciences.
Beyond a technology's intrinsic value to security, there are also second-order effects that may lead to a particular capability being dysfunctional to overall security. Although current material sciences has again made viable body armor for most combat troops, critics have argued that the overt and aggressive appearance of bulky body armor have negative consequences on current operations to win hearts and minds.45 Then there is the argument that U.S. soldiers possessing a degree of invulnerability is itself a deterrent to attack, and so on and so forth. Continued material advances that allow for less bulky and more protective body armor will change the dynamics of the arguments for and against the use of a specific type of technology. Again, these discussions would not have emerged if it was not for ongoing work on synthetic fibers. Continued advances in materials, including nanotechnology, will shape the future of these discussions.
Precisely controlled chemistry in the form of nanoscale solid reactants and nanoscale structures to contain or act as catalysts for other reactants, will unlock energetic processes from compact high explosives, to higher density batteries, and defenses against biological and chemical weapons. In reality it is not new chemistry; nanotechnology simply allows for an increase in surface area for reactions to take place. The rate, or an amount of reactions taking place at any one moment of time, is dependent on the amount of reactants in contact. Nanotechnology allows for extreme control over both the area and features of a surface allowing for the reliable and controlled reactions.
Materials that would barely smolder if exposed to fire explode at the smallest spark when in particle form. Grain silo explosions are an example of this; the correct ratio of grain dust floating in the air of a confined space, such as a partially empty silo, poses an explosion danger. Although grain and other particulate foodstuff46 can be used as the fuel in fuel air explosives (FAEs), military research has been investigating how to get more power out of aluminum metal when in the form of nanoscale particles. Aluminum perchlorate is widely used in solid rocket motors, including those used by missiles, hobby rockets, and until the end of the U.S. Space Shuttle program, in manned spaceflight. A nanoscale aluminum particle and water ice (ALICE) propellant rocket was demonstrated in 2009 in a joint Unites States Air Force (USAF), NASA, Purdue University, and Pennsylvania State University program.47 The 2009 report to congress on the U.S. Defense Nanotechnology Research and Development Program, listed nano-aluminum as a potential means to producing more compact warheads for bombs and missiles.48
The expense and interest would be wasted if the large quantities of chemical energy being unlocked via nanotechnology could not be controlled. A novel chemical reaction is worthless outside the lab if it cannot be produced in a form that only occurs on command under operational conditions. For a military product this means remaining inert when stockpiled, in transit, and preferably under all battlefield conditions barring an intentional detonation. That rapid oxidation of aluminum nanoparticles releases large amounts of energy is a reasonably expectation from all the previous use of aluminum as an energetic material; the research and development is in locking this energy in propellants and explosives that can be safely handled. The note on nano-aluminum in aforementioned 2009 report to congress on defense nanotechnology R&D was in the context of USAF research on how to stabilize the material for practical use.49
As the ability to control both the formation of materials and chemical reactions under industrial and operational conditions nears the molecular scale, the amount of energy that may be harnessed approaches the theoretical maximum. For explosives this means getting a bigger explosion out of a smaller charge. However, not every militarily useful chemical process involves a detonation and it is these less-spectacular reactions that may become an everyday part of military life in the near future.
A technology-dependent military, especially one with global reach, is certainly interested in compact portable sources of electricity. Many of the research being undertaken under the auspices of the NNI are energy related. In 2006, the Department of Energy, the agency responsible for the U.S. nuclear arsenal, established the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), and is quite openly based on the successful model of DARPA.50 Nanotechnology figures prominently in several ARPA-E projects, including next-generation batteries.51 Department of Defense agencies are also separately making progress in nanoscale technologies aimed at both increasing the energy density of batteries and lowering production costs.52 More near term are improved air-activated flameless ration heaters that use zinc53 nanoparticles configured to react in a much slower rate than that being harnessed for explosives and rocket-propellant applications. Perhaps these applications are mundane in comparison to controversial visions of nanoscale robots infiltrating enemy forces and tearing them apart from within, but they will become part of the U.S. ability to sustain high-technology forces globally.
Chemical and quantum reactions at the small scale also constitute avenues to improve military sensors. Molecular-scale detectors are already being proposed for everything from environmental monitoring, to the diagnosis of cancer and other diseases, to the detection of chemical and biological weapon agents. All these applications have in common the detection of small number of molecules, which may bond to receptors on the sensor via chemical means. Basically these sensors are chemical traps set off by a chemical or biological process occurring on the nanoscale tripwire. Some of these reactions produce a mechanical effect, others produce optical effects, and others change the electrical properties of the material—all producing an observable effect.
Using computer chip manufacturing techniques, multiple chemical and biological detectors can be etched into what are termed lab-on-a-chip (LOC) devices. These compact laboratories are expected to facilitate continuous and ubiquitous surveillance, whether it is for medical or man-made threats. Instead of specialist hazmat teams being sent in to investigate possible nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) hazards, autonomous LOC sensors could be scattered across a battlefield, monitoring for these dangers. Against the threat of terrorists acquiring biological, chemical, and radiological weapons, LOC technology would allow for affordable monitoring of public spaces, ports of entry, and other soft targets for these types of attacks. LOC devices essentially replicate the ability of the sniffer dog's nose to detect traces of explosives, drugs, and other contraband.
The sensor may not actually have to be in the form of a device per se. Instead nanomaterials that react on exposure to specific molecules can be embedded into clothing and surfaces. In the presence of a hazardous material these materials would visibly change color. Moving beyond simple detection are materials that will also react to the presence of a danger. If a material can be engineered to change color on contact with a target molecule, it can also be engineered to neutralize the target molecule on contact by acting as a catalyst to its breakdown or other methods.54 As noted earlier this is already a feature found in some commercially available clothing, though the microbes being suppressed are the less-dangerous variety that cause body odor.
Electronic devices in general would be a given for nanotechnology, especially as the cutting edge is already at the nanoscale. That said, the nanoscale actually represents a barrier to the continued shrinking of electronics. Phenomena that only manifest at these small scales are producing challenges that were not present only a few years ago. At the nanoscale, quantum effects have a bearing on how a device or system operates, disrupting the orderly world of electrical engineering. Quantum tunneling, where particles cross what would under other physics be impenetrable barriers, becomes a concern once data-bearing circuits are miniaturized beyond a certain size. Electrons that would constitute signals in separate data pathways would leap from one another in an uncontrolled manner through quantum effects, corrupting the data that was being transmitted. On the other hand, quantum effects may be harnessed as in the case of ongoing work to produce a viable quantum computer. Quantum computers are regularly promoted as being able to, in theory, break any digital encryption scheme, and therefore are generating vast amounts of real-world interest from intelligence agencies and other national security entities.
Besides manipulating digital information, devices crafted via the same processes used to make computer chips will be able to interact with the physical world in more ways. Display and optics technology are among the easier means for small devices to interact with the world. While the media have been recently captivated by the prospect of “invisibility cloaks” made from metamaterials—materials with nanoscale features engineered to bend and shape EM radiation so that it flows around an object passively—the problem with metamaterials is that thus far they only work on specific wavelengths of light and can only enclose small volumes. The ability to selectively steer parts of the EM spectrum, however, has applications in optics, computing, and other devices. Near-term optical camouflage is more likely to be produced by embedding in the exteriors of vehicles and in uniforms very small electronic elements that change color, and emitting the correct amount of light so as to blend in with ambient conditions. The smaller the active elements are, the more effective this form of camouflage is—a skin of active nanoelectronic optical elements representing the ultimate form of this capability. Active camouflage has run into problems with real-world engineering, costs, and acceptance (counter-illumination was tested during World War II55), but is slowly making it to market in lower-resolution forms, and across limited portions of the EM spectrum.56 It is possible that the cost and robustness challenges will be overcome in related active display technology that is used in billboards and large-scale outdoor displays, meaning active camouflage may come from a dual-use product.
The current (or last, depending on the pundit) Revolution in Military Affairs is information hungry, leading to interest in producing a smart dust, small electronic sensor platforms networked together by wireless, to cover the battlefield. The smart dust concept is attributed to Dr. Kris Pister,57 and though it is now being marketed as general networking technology, it had its roots in a DARPA project.58 The smart dust concept is somewhat related to ubiquitous computing, another potential emerging technology, where everyday objects would be equipped with computer processing and be networked to be capable of forming a “network of things.” Blanketing the battlefield with sensors and computers will go a long way toward pushing back the fog of war, but may also increase friction due to information overload.
Programmable matter is for some the ultimate computing input and output device, or more correctly collection of devices. Basically programmable matter, as worked on by DARPA,59 is a collection of particles that each have the ability to act as structural material, electronic/optical device, locomotion, and controlled attachment. As pixels form images on television and computer screens, collections of modular nanoscale robots would link together to form 3D objects. Another term used for this concept is claytronics.60 This is in all likelihood a long-term vision; aside from the nanoscale challenges of constructing one of these multipurpose robots, let alone the millions needed, would be the computational task of coordinating them.
In between the immobile smart dust and swarms of modular robots of programmable matter are projects aiming to produce bird- or insect-sized robots for surveillance and military applications.61 The small robot form of drone strikes would, however, be somewhat challenging from a policy standpoint—at the size of an insect or below, not much of an explosive warhead could be delivered. Lethal payloads that could be delivered by an insect-sized weapons platform seem to be problematic with the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), and the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), or both.
Nanoscience and Engineering: As the Latest World-Shattering Worry
Although there is always some opposition to new technologies, let alone technologies with military applicability, nanotechnology seems to have gained extra attention. Much of this stems from recognition that the emerging technology of nanotechnology is likely to change the world. The economic impact is clear; at the very least nanotechnology will bring many novel products to market, and if the more radical visions of nanotechnology bear fruit then the very foundations of manufacturing will undergo a revolution. From an international-relations perspective, massive changes to economic and systemic norms are generally something to be concerned with as these are contributors to international tensions. With any change to the status quo there are always winners and losers, and therefore if one accepts a particular technological change, then it would be useful to consider how to come out ahead.
Nanotechnology is often compared to the nuclear sciences—a powerful technology, once hyped as the future, but now facing scrutiny over its health effects, as well as its potential for destruction. In the 1950s, civilian nuclear technology seemed to be promoted for all areas of civilian life, including powering automobiles. The nuclear arms race and worries over the safety of nuclear power led to a backlash against this technology. This backlash against nuclear technology in general has in recent years been mitigated by the perceived need for energy sources that do not generate pollution in the form of greenhouse gases.
Both the pro- and anti-nanotechnology sides of the controversy can also find parallels in the scrutiny and arguably unwarranted hysteria, with that being faced by GM foods in Europe—rightly or wrongly, in a scientific or public policy sense, GM foods have gained an emotive stigma that has thus far limited what was once a promising area of research. Opponents of nanotechnology and of GM foods often place emphasis on the risks these technologies present, including the threat of presently unknown risks.62 Many of the same groups opposed to GM foods, “see nanotechnology as the next natural target.”63 Proponents of nanotechnology on the other hand are keen to avoid having their field succumbing to the same hysteria, backlash to overselling, and marketing missteps of the GM food industry.64 Nanotechnology, like GM agriculture, and nuclear technology for that matter, has risks, benefits, and a great potential for emotion to cloud the debate.
Appropriate risk assessment is now part of the debate that will shape how nanotechnology enters society. With many of the desired properties of nanotechnology still in the realm of theory and speculation, the undesirable qualities are subject to similar unknowns. It is quite possible that many harmful, if not deadly, effects will only become apparent over time. Unlike the early days of nuclear science, where radiation was hyped as a cure all, nanotechnological promises are accompanied with scrutiny and a degree of caution.
There are two schools of thought on nanomaterials safety: nanomaterials are often forms of commonly used elements and compounds, with known health and safety properties; or they represent totally new materials that must face consideration as such. One of the cited promises of nanotechnology is “unique phenomena” that only become manifest with the small sizes of the particles and structures involved. At this scale, it is feared that unexpected and potentially unhealthy phenomena would occur. Some have even argued that this potential for harm is too great and call for a slowing of all nanotechnology development until all such effects can be studied.
In the rush to find applications for new materials, there have been several examples of seemingly useful materials proving hazardous to human health over time. A perhaps more relevant comparison of the potential short-term hazards of nanotechnology is the natural fiber asbestos and other potentially dangerous industrial substances.65 All small particles have the potential to enter the body and cause health effects ranging from simple irritation to increased risk of cancer. By virtue of being at the scale of cellular organelles, or smaller, there is concern that nanoscale particles and fibers would have all manners of unexpected effects on human health. Asbestos is among the most notorious, being the subject of numerous lawsuits over its carcinogenic effects.
The very same properties that may allow risky materials to penetrate living cells are also being investigated for their potential as mechanisms to deliver treatments for cancers and other illness. Therefore it is largely a matter of context and control, or lack of control, that is the problem. It must be remembered that it is not nanomaterials in general that are hazardous, but that under specific circumstances materials, such as CNTs66 and gold-based quantum dots,67 may have unwanted health effects. A consequence of this very real concern over unwanted, and especially unexpected, reactions between nanomaterials and living tissue is investment in research to seek out these effects and mitigate them when possible.68 All industries, from heavy industry, to food production, and even call centers, have occupational hazards.
In the military realm, depleted uranium (DU) is the contemporary material under the spotlight due to its possible health effects. DU is slightly radio-active, though only dangerous internally. DU is also a heavy metal, though its effects are less than that of common industrial metals, cadmium, lead, and mercury.69 DU is a very hard material, making it very useful as both armor plate and as kinetic-energy penetrators for defeating armor. Unlike the ordinary U.S. workplace, the battlefield exposes DU and other novel materials to the extremes of combat. The use of DU in warfare may result in the formation and release of possibly dangerous compounds and particles. DU in addition to being extremely hard also burns very hot. Although the pyrophoric (self-igniting) properties of DU are militarily useful secondary effects,70 the toxic by-products have come under criticism from both the international community71 as well as U.S. personnel who may be exposed to its effects in the course of their duties.72 It must, however, be noted that there is at present still no conclusive link between battlefield use of DU and health issues afterward.73
Like DU, the great promises of nanotechnology outweigh the many known and speculated on risks. Being overcautious is a risk in itself as nations are vying to create favorable conditions to become the leader in what is widely thought to be a critical technology for the foreseeable future. Although it is fair to say that risk assessment for military applications is different from that for civilian use, most would consider it callous, possibly treasonous, for policy makers in most Western nations to carelessly poison their own service members. That this has arguably happened before with the legacy of the defoliant Agent Orange is stark warning for many. It must, however, also be remembered that some security opportunities are so great that, even if hazardous, they must be pursued.
As with many military emerging technologies there are those that wish to bring into place treaties to limit its potential for damage. This extends up to the point of proscribing some areas of research, including the entire “radical vision” of nanotechnology. In another parallel with nuclear technology, nanotechnology in more extreme predictions, is not only a weapon of mass destruction (WMD), but is argued as having greater potential than nuclear arms to bring about the end of civilization. This line of thought has been put forth by Ray Kurzweil, who generally views nanotechnology as beneficial. 74 Many areas of nanotechnology remain purely in the theoretical realm today, and opponents of weaponized nanotechnology and even nanotechnology in general, see a need to halt progress well before the worse-case consequences are within reach.75
Among the worse-case consequences is the gray goo scenario. A viable universal molecular assembler would also have to be capable of disassembling matter as an initial step in reconstituting it into a desired product; if this capability is applied in a coercive manner, the destruction of a nation's military equipment, infrastructure and/or personnel, for instance, this industrial tool becomes a weapon. The universal molecular assembler, if viable, is dual use. Related to the intentional use of the theoretical molecular assembler as a weapon, is the possibility of a runaway “gray goo” scenario due to malfunction.76 A self-replicating assembler may have from the very beginning flawed software or flawed design leading to loss of human control. These flaws may even arise due to errors in the self-replication process, when a process is replicated millions of times, there must be some percentage of errors.
Another position is that this emerging technology should guided by an all-inclusive international body for the purposes of directing it toward what “civil society” would call global benefits.77 Although some may find this idealism inspiring, it must be remembered that compared to debates over the health effects of nanotechnology, let alone the threat of nanotechnological “gray goo,” there has been several magnitudes more controversy, and blood-shed, over what constitutes worthwhile global benefits and the proper order of things in the world. This includes the reality that an absolute end to global disparity may not necessarily be worth the price. Moreover there it would be irrational for any powerful nation state to voluntarily hamstring itself in security or economic terms purely out of charity or sentiment.
Staying firmly grounded in the real world of international relations, where knowledge of another international actor's motives and plans must always be treated as imperfect, nations have in a few narrow instances found utility in the banning of certain military technologies—though not without cases of cheating. Biological weapons, another existing WMD the world has to deal with, are not only subject to particular abhorrence by the world at large, but are also specifically banned by the 1972 BWC.78 Now the caveat is that verification methods for the BWC were not part of the original 1972 treaty; indeed treaty verification is often a sticking point especially when dealing with governments with poor reputations for transparency. Admissions by the Russian government79 confirm the existence of a biological weapons program well after the Soviet Union (the signatory state to which Russia is the successor) was subject to the BWC.
The nanotech assembler once created would be hard to monitor. As a dual-use technology it would be impossible to prevent it from being reprogrammed for military use. With self-assembly, only a small sample, potentially only one weaponized assembler, would need to be kept hidden for the treaty to be rendered meaningless. One assembler could through exponential growth quickly rebuild swarms of weaponized assemblers. The ease at which one could cheat with nanotechnology would seem to make any treaty pointless.
This leads to the broader debate over whether there can there be instances where an arms race is preferable to an imperfect treaty? Common to both existing biological weapon treaties and suggested nanotechnology limits are fears that such regimes may actually decrease security by preventing nations from investigating effective countermeasures. To understand the threat, both from intentional and accidental destructive release of self-replicating nano-assemblers into an environment, requires a stock of such devices, but under controlled circumstances. This is analogous to the remaining samples of the small pox virus, kept in the United States and Russia for research purposes. Small pox was once a major killer, and even used as a biological-warfare agent; through international efforts it was the first human disease to be totally eradicated, outside of samples kept controversially in the United States and Russia. Among the reasons for keeping these samples is continued research into countermeasures against it as a potential bioweapon if it were ever to be reintroduced to the world.
Then there are treaties that have become obsolete, or dysfunctional, for technological or political reasons. The Bush administration's withdrawal from the 1972 antiballistic missile (ABM) treaty in 2001 was made on the basis that this treaty would hinder U.S. security by preventing it from deploying limited missile defense systems to counter the threat from rogue states possessing rudimentary intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and nuclear weapons technology. During the ABM treaty's inception, it was argued that missile defense efforts by the United States or the Soviet Union, targeted against the other's strategic missiles, would be a destabilizing factor. In this sense the role of the ABM treaty, as originally envisioned, was to protect the effectiveness of strategic nuclear missiles. Nuclear deterrence arguably kept the Cold War stable, where the actual limitation, let alone banning, of offensive weapons between the United States and Soviet Union (succeeded by Russia) has been difficult to achieve. The Cold War is over, but new nuclear threats are potentially only years away. Moreover a limited missile defense is not capable of changing the balance of terror, that is, nuclear deterrence between great powers.
In the hype surrounding the “gray goo” scenario, it has been suggested that the ultimate countermeasure to a cloud of nanoscale assemblers programmed to attack, or simply run amuck, would be another cloud of nanoscale assemblers programmed to attack the threat cloud. Under this argument to have options in defending against a rogue swarm of assemblers, a nation cannot be prevented from constructing its own swarm of assemblers.
Adding to the many challenges of getting comprehensive agreement between nations to limit nanotechnology's more destructive aspects is the fact that the promise of nanotechnology goes beyond the empowerment of largely responsible great powers. Although nations may be able to agree, or at least be deterred from using nanotech weapons, individuals may not. After all it may take just one assembler programmed to bring into being a destructive assembler swarm, if it was possible, to be unleashed on the world. A handful of fanatics with money for flying lessons were able to bring terror to the U.S. homeland. A single maladjusted individual with access to a nanotech assembler would be able to threaten the world. Utopian claims of the radical “vision” of nanotechnology being democratizing, putting the engines of a new industrial revolution in the hands of people everywhere, would seem to be somewhat naive in the face of the capacity for evil found in some individuals.
Although it must be stressed that the nanotech assembler is still a far-off prospect, possibly not even commercially viable (rendering the gray goo fears similarly remote),80 other forms of manufacturing related to nanotechnology bring along their own worries. In one critical respect, proliferation, the comparison with nuclear technology breaks down. Nuclear technology in general is difficult to master and, due to its obvious military applications, highly regulated. As a large-scale industrial process, the refinement of nuclear materials into fuel and weapons’ grade materials is difficult, though not impossible, to hide. Since the mid-1940s only a small number of nations have been able to acquire the full spectrum of nuclear capabilities. International regimes exist, providing both incentives and penalties, to stop additional nations from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Three-dimensional fabrication hints at the possibility of personal factories, or fabricators, able to produce anything for which the necessary materials are available. Aside from disrupting entire sectors of the global manufacturing economy, these small factories if programmed to produce military goods would allow weapons’ proliferation on a scale unimaginable today. Not only small arms, but also sophisticated weapons such as antiaircraft missiles would be within grasp of many subnational threats such as terrorists and criminal elements. All the existing regimes limiting access to many advance weapons could be circumvented once one of these fabricators made its way into a rogue state or organization. Once in place, all it would need would be raw materials and the exquisitely detailed blueprints that this technology requires to produce fully working copies of any weapon within its manufacturing capabilities.
A nation's ability to produce effective armaments is part of its strategic capabilities. This ability is not purely manufacturing, or purely defense research and development. Instead it is achieving the correct balance between cutting-edge military research and the ability to produce effective quantities of usable weapons. This balance, the seemingly eternal quantity-versus-quality debate, changes throughout time. The World War II lasted for years and throughout the conflict both sides were presented with difficult choices over continuing with tried and trusted weaponry or gambling with new technology. The United States’ manufacturing capability became, as President Roosevelt put it, the “arsenal of democracy”; however, the United States also hosted the Manhattan Project to develop a bomb based on what was for its time cutting-edge physics. The Cold War that followed was punctuated with a need for constant vigilance; a major systemic war between the West and the communist spheres of influence was expected to be a brief and sharp affair leaving little time to build up. Additionally, weapons were becoming more complex—shifting more emphasis toward a nation's ability to produce high-technology items. Many arguments are made about the “defense death spiral”—where the cost and complexity of newer platforms result in fewer of these platforms entering service and, consequently, being of less utility over time.
Wide-scale proliferation of small-scale fabrication would potentially allow for both mass and quality to be available at low cost. Combined with espionage, even the most secret of high-tech weapons would be available for the price of the stolen data. Large investments in military research and development would be meaningless if the data could not be secured. This was one of the potential pitfalls of nanotechnology discussed by Drexler in his 1993 book, Unbounding the Future: The Nanotechnology Revolution, with the example of hypothetical Singapore, in the real world a small city state, though one with a modern high-tech economy, using nanotechnology to emerge suddenly from out of nowhere as a military superpower to challenge the United States and Japan.81
Although the use of Singapore was used to highlight nanotechnology's capacity to rapidly shift conventional power balances, the scenario presented by Drexler hinted also that warfare would become borderless. If personal fabrication technology became ubiquitous, and capable of producing hi-tech goods, then small teams, whether they be spies or terrorists or simply disaffected citizens who had been swayed by a hostile ideology, and armed only with the plans for a weapon such as a UAV or even the triggering mechanism for an improvised explosive device (IED), could attack a country with open borders, such as the United States, from within. With terrorism using modern social networking tools to spread not only their ideology, but also the technical knowledge to carry out an attack82 advance fabrication would only be tool for rapidly assembling an attack seemingly from out of nowhere.
Nanotechnology, for all the worry about it falling into the wrong hands and debate over how it should be used, is still ultimately a tool—potentially powerful in the extreme but still a tool nonetheless. Molecular-level manipulation touches on all areas of industry, warfare, and life, meaning it will certainly be in demand, and hard to suppress. It is only an enabler for human motivations; so like all technologies once it is available, it will be perhaps better to worry less about the tools, and more about the motivations that drive its use.
Notes
1. The National Nanotechnology Initiative, Supplement to the President's FY 2012 Budget, http://www.nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/nni_2012_budget_supplement.pdf.
2. Richard A. L. Jones, Soft Machines: Nanotechnology and Life (New York: Oxford University Press), 55.
3. Kevin Bullis, “Climbing Walls with Carbon Nanotubes,” Technology Review, June 25, 2007, http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/18966/?mod=related.
4. The van der Waals force is in turn simply the net magnetic forces between atoms. Atoms have north and south poles; when two solid materials are brought close enough together, surface atoms are in close enough proximity that magnetic attractions between the atoms are appreciable.
5. Kevin Bullis, “Climbing Walls with Carbon Nanotubes,” Technology Review, June 25, 2007, http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/18966/?mod=related.
6. Defense Advanced Research Product Agency, “Z-Man,” http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/DSO/Programs/Z_Man.aspx.
7. Foresight Institute, “About Nanotechnology,” http://www.foresight.org/nano/index.html.
8. Richard A. L. Jones, Soft Machines: Nanotechnology and Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 83–85.
9. Ibid., 3.
10. Dónal P. O'Mathúna, Nanoethics: Big Ethical Issues with Small Technology (United Kingdom: Continuum, 2009), ix.
11. Ibid., 22.
12. Jon Evans, “Manufacturing the Carbon Nanotube Market,” Chemistry World, November 2007, Vol. 4, No. 11, http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2007/November/ManufacturingCarbonNanotubeMarket.asp.
13. IBM, “IBM Spelled with 35 Xenon Atoms,” September 28, 2009, http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/photo/28500.wss.
14. Arthur C. Clarke, 2010: Odyssey Two (New York: Del Rey, 1982), 334.
15. K. Eric Drexler, Unbounding the Future: The Nanotechnology Revolution (Foresight Institute, 1983), http://www.foresight.org/UTF/download/unbound.pdf.
16. Douglas Mulhal, Our Molecular Future—How Nanotechnology, Robotics, Genetics, and Artificial Intelligence Will Transform Our World (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2002), 277–81.
17. European Science Foundation, “Big Molecules Join Together Will Lead to Better Drugs, Workshop Found,” February 20, 2008, http://www.esf.org/media-centre/ext-single-news/article/new-understanding-of-how-big-molecules-join-together-will-lead-to-better-drugs-synthetic-organic-ma.html.
18. Rebecca Boyle, “How Modified Worms and Goats Can Mass-Produce Nature's Toughest Fiber,” Popular Science, October 6, 2010, http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010–10/fabrics-spider-silk-get-closer-reality.
19. Report to the President and Congress on the Third Assessment of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, March 12, 2010, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-nano-report.pdf.
20. Filton, “The Printed World,” The Economist, February 10, 2011, http://www.economist.com/node/18114221?story_id=18114221.
21. Ibid.
22. Duncan Graham-Rowe, “‘Gadget Printer’ Promises Industrial Revolution,” New Scientist, January 8, 2003, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3238.
23. Filton, “The Printed World,” The Economist, February 10, 2011, http://www.economist.com/node/18114221.
24. Lee S. Langston, “Crown Jewels: These Crystals Are the Gems of Turbine Efficiency,” Mechanical Engineering Magazine, February 2006, http://memagazine.asme.org/Articles/2006/February/Crown_Jewels.cfm.
25. Bradley Perrett, “China Aims For Gas Turbine Catch-Up,” Aviation Week, September 30, 2011, http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/awst/2011/10/03/AW_10_03_2011_p22–376290.xml&headline=China%20Aims%20For%20Gas%20Turbine%20Catch-up.
26. Scott Faber, “Printing in 3-D,” Discovery, September 1994, http://discovermagazine.com/1994/sep/printingin3d426/?searchterm=3d.
27. Ibid.
28. Ben Rooney, “The 3D Printer That Prints Itself,” Wall Street Journal, June 10, 2011, http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2011/06/10/the-3d-printer-that-prints-itself/.
29. Paul Marks, “3D printing: The World's First Printed Plane,” New Scientist, August 1, 2011, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20737–3d-printing-the-worlds-first-printed-plane.html?full=true.
30. Adam Rawnsley, “MakerBot Commandos: Special Ops Seek 3D Printer,” Wired, August 12, 2011, http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/08/special-ops-meets-makerbot-commandos-want-3d-printer/.
31. DARPA, “Adaptive Vehicle Make (AVM),” http://www.darpa.mil/AVM.aspx.
32. Adam Rawnsley, “Is the Navy Trying to Start the Robot Apocalypse?” Wired, March 3, 2011, http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/03/navy-robot-apocalypse/.
33. NSET's Participating Federal Partners, http://nano.gov/partners.
34. International Risk Governance Council, Nanotechnology Risk Governance, 2007, http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/PB_nanoFINAL2_2_.pdf.
35. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 179 STCME 05 E—The Security Implications of Nanotechnology, http://www.nato-pa.int/default.asp?SHORTCUT=677.
36. Ben Rich and Leo Janos, Skunk Works (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1994), 19.
37. Department of Defense; Director, Defense Research and Engineering, Defense Nanotechnology Research and Development Program: Report to Congress, December 1, 2009, http://nano.gov/node/621.
38. Ibid.
39. Sharklet Technologies, Inc. “Technology,” http://www.sharklet.com/technology/.
40. Ibid.
41. NASA, “Audacious & Outrageous: Space Elevators,” September 7, 2000, http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast07sep_1/.
42. J. Makar, J. Margeson, and J. Luh “Carbon Nanotube/Cement Composites—Early Results and Potential Applications,” http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/nrcc47643/nrcc47643.pdf.
43. Alex Hudson, “Is Graphene a Miracle Material?” BBC, May 21, 2011, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/9491789.stm.
44. Alexis Madrigal, “Scientists Build World's Smallest Transistor, Gordon Moore Sighs with Relief,” Wired, April 17, 2008, http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/04/scientists-buil/.
45. Tim Blackmore, War X: Human Extensions in Battlespace (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005).
46. Popular science entertainment program Mythbusters demonstrated the effectiveness of nondairy coffee creamer as the fuel in a fuel air reaction.
47. “AFOSR and NASA Launch First-Ever Test Rocket Fueled by Environmentally-Friendly, Safe Aluminum-Ice Propellant,” August 21, 2009, http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123164277.
48. Department of Defense; Director, Defense Research and Engineering, Defense Nanotechnology Research and Development Program: Report to Congress, December 1, 2009, http://nano.gov/node/621.
49. Ibid.
50. Department of Energy, Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy, “About,” http://arpa-e.energy.gov/About/About.aspx.
51. The National Nanotechnology Initiative, Supplement to the President's 2012 Budget, http://www.nano.gov/node/602.
52. Ibid.
53. Department of Defense; Director, Defense Research and Engineering, Defense Nanotechnology Research and Development Program: Report to Congress, December 1, 2009, http://nano.gov/node/621.
54. Ibid.
55. David Hambling, “Cloak of Light Makes Drone Invisible,” Wired, May 9, 2008, http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/05/invisible-drone.
56. “Tanks Test Infrared Invisibility Cloak,” BBC, September 5, 2011, http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-14788009.
57. Dust Networks, “Company Background,” http://www.dustnetworks.com/about/company_overview.
58. “What Is Smart Dust, Anyway?” Wired, June 2003, http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.06/start.html?pg=10.
59. Henry S. Kenyon, “Programmable Matter Research Solidifies,” Signal, June 2009, http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/templates/Signal_Article_Template.asp?articleid=1964.
60. Seth Copen Goldstein, Jason D. Campbell, and Todd C. Mowry, “Programmable Matter,” IEEE Computer 38(6): 99–101, June 2005, http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~claytronics/papers/goldstein-computer05.pdf.
61. P. W. Singer, Wired for War (New York: The Penguin Press, 2009), 118.
62. Toby Shelly, Nanotechnology: New Promises, New Dangers (Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing), 82–86.
63. Richard A. L. Jones, Soft Machines: Nanotechnology and Life (New York: Oxford University Press), 5.
64. Ibid.
65. Dónal P. O'Mathúna, Nanoethics: Big Ethical Issues with Small Technology (United Kingdom: Continuum, 2009), 69.
66. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Nanotechnology,” http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/review/peer/HISA/nano-pr.html.
67. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology,” 2009, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2009–125/.
68. National Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology, “National Nanotechnology Initiative Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Strategy,”
October 2011, http://www.nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/nni_2011_ehs_research_strategy.pdf.
69. D. R. Goodman “Nephrotoxicity. Toxic Effects in the Kidneys,” in Industrial Toxicology Safety and Health Applications in the Workplace, ed. P. L. Williams and J. L. Burson (New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1985), 106–22.
Quoted in CDC http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp150-c3.pdf.
70. Under the UN Convention on Conventional Weapons, Protocol III, a secondary incendiary effect would not have DU ammunition classified as an incendiary weapon. The primary effect of DU ammunition is armor penetration.
71. Avril McDonald, “Depleted Uranium Weapons: The Next Target for Disarmament?” Disarmament Forum, Vol. three, 2008, http://www.unidir.org/pdf/articles/pdf-art2757.pdf.
72. Naomi Harley, et al. “A Review of the Scientific Literature as It Pertains to Gulf War Illnesses Volume 7: Depleted Uranium” (RAND Corporation, 1999), http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1018z7.html.
73. Ibid.
74. Ray Kurzweil, The Age of Spiritual Machines (New York: Viking, 1999), 141–42.
75. Bill Joy, “Why the Future Doesn't Need Us,” Wired, April 2000, Issue 8.4, http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html.
76. Sean Howard, “Nanotechnology and Mass Destruction: The Need for an Inner Space Treaty,” Disarmament Diplomacy, No. 65, July-August 2002, http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd65/65op1.htm?.
77. Toby Shelley, Nanotechnology: New Promises, New Dangers (Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing, 2006), 131–50.
78. Gregory D. Koblentz, Living Weapons (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009), 7.
79. Brigadier General Russ Zajtchuk, editor, et al., Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological Warfare (Bethesda: Office of The Surgeon General, Department of the Army, United States of America, 1997), http://www.bordeninstitute.army.mil/published_volumes/chemBio/chembio.html.
80. Paul Rincon, “Nanotech Guru Turns Back on ‘Goo’,” BBC, June 9, 2004, http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3788673.stm.
81. K. Eric Drexler. Unbounding the Future: The Nanotechnology Revolution (Foresight Institute, 1983), http://www.foresight.org/UTF/download/unbound.pdf.
82. Michael Holden, “Make Cupcakes, Not Bombs,” Reuters, June 3, 2011, http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/06/03/uk-britain-mi6-hackers-idUKLNE75203220110603.