![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/blank.gif) |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/blank.gif) |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/blank.gif) |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/blank.gif) |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/blank.gif) |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/blank.gif) |
|
Origin >
Dangerous Futures >
Nano-Guns, Nano-Germs, and Nano-Steel
Permanent link to this article: http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0658.html
Printable Version |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/blank.gif) |
|
|
Nano-Guns, Nano-Germs, and Nano-Steel
Within our lifetimes, we are likely to witness battles on a scale never before seen. Powered by molecular manufacturing, near-future wars may threaten our freedom, our way of life, and even our survival. Superior military technology allowed the Spanish to conquer the Incan empire in 1532. Could today’s most powerful civilization, the United States, be just as easily conquered by a nano-enabled attacker?
Originally published in Nanotechnology
Perceptions: A Review of Ultraprecision Engineering and Nanotechnology,
Volume 2, No. 1, March 27 2006. Reprinted with permission on KurzweilAI.net
March 29, 2006.
Conflicts, clashes, battles, and wars: this is the stuff of which
history is made. The world as we know it today is largely a product
of wars fought and peoples conquered.
We like to look back admiringly on other things our species has
produced: great works of art, brilliant inventions, sage philosophers,
brave explorers, and selfless peacemakers. But the real star of
the human story is war. In fact, very often those things we admire—philosophy,
technology, leadership, superb writing and speechmaking—are
put to maximum use in the service of war.
The story is not yet over. Within our lifetimes, we are likely
to witness battles on a scale never before seen. Powered by molecular
manufacturing, an advanced form of nanotechnology, these near-future
wars1 may threaten
our freedom, our way of life, and even our survival.
Some wars are between opponents of roughly equal fighting ability.
As a result, these conflicts tend to drag on, often for years and
killing millions, until finally one side emerges victorious. Recent
examples include the American Civil War, World War I, and World
War II.
Occasionally one adversary will possess huge advantages over the
other, in which case the war typically is quite short. A famous
instance is the spectacular one-sided victory of Spanish conquistador
Francisco Pizarro over the Incan empire in 1532. What makes this
story so remarkable is that an army of 80,000 soldiers was overwhelmed
and decimated in one day by a force of only 169 men.
Normally we would expect that an aggressor facing such great numbers
would be a decided underdog, virtually assured of defeat. Jared
Diamond, in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel,2
analyzes this historic event—clearly a major turning point
in the course of human civilization—and describes the elements
that gave the Spaniards a stunningly easy victory.
Diamond lists superior military technology based on guns, steel
weapons, and horses; infectious diseases; maritime technology; centralized
political organization; and writing.
These advantages can be categorized as follows (with items from
1532 in parentheses):
- Battle technology (guns, steel weapons, and horses)
- Physical fitness (infectious diseases)
- Transportation technology (maritime)
- Effective command and control (centralized organization)
- Communications technology (writing)
Looking forward, we can imagine a similar situation: an apparently
strong nation, a superpower or empire within their realm, suddenly
and overwhelmingly defeated by an adversary with superior technology
and other advantages.
Molecular manufacturing—the ability to construct powerful,
atomically precise products at an exponentially increasing pace—could
provide the tools for a spectacular one-sided victory by an apparent
underdog equipped with superior:
- Battle technology (nano-weapons)
- Physical fitness (nano-enabled biotechnology)
- Transportation technology (aerospace)
- Effective command and control (boosted by nano-computing)
- Communications technology (secure worldwide network)
Despite vastly greater numbers, the Incas—the most developed
civilization in the Americas—were not able to mount a serious
resistance against the advanced technology of Spain.
Could today’s most powerful civilization, the United States,
as easily be conquered by a nano-enabled attacker? This appears
possible, if molecular manufacturing does provide for huge gains
in all five areas, as many analysts (including this author) believe
it will.
No nation lacking the nanotech advantage will be able to resist
a foe—no matter how small or weak in conventional terms—that
wields the power of molecular manufacturing.3
It is not certain, of course, that large-scale war will occur within
the next few decades. But if it does, and if both (or all) sides
are nano-enabled, that event could last a relatively long time,
and casualties could be in the billions. If, on the other hand,
only one combatant possesses the awesome capabilities of nano-built
weapons, computers, and infrastructure, that war might be over very
quickly, and could leave the victor in total command of the world.
1. Treder, Mike (2005)
"War, Interdependence, & Nanotechnology" (Future Brief)
http://www.futurebrief.com/miketrederwar002.asp
2. Diamond, Jared (1997)
Guns, Germs, and Steel (W. W. Norton, New York)
3. Phoenix, Chris (2003)
"Molecular Manufacturing: Start Planning" (Public Interest Report,
56:2) http://www.fas.org/faspir/2003/v56n2/nanotech.htm
© 2006 Mike Treder
| | |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/blank.gif) |
|
Mind·X Discussion About This Article:
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/blank.gif) |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/blank.gif) |
|
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/images/round-left.gif) |
Re: Nano-Guns, Nano-Germs, and Nano-Steel
|
|
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/images/round-right.gif) |
|
Mike Treder quotes Jared Diamond's use of the famous victory of Pizarro and 169 men over the 80,000 man Inca army as Diamond himself used it in "Guns, Germs, and Steel," as a predominant example of superior technology prevailing in an otherwise unwinable battle.
I would argue that better weapons (plus horses and armor) was only one cause, and not the most important one, for the Spanish victory. I consider this a flaw in Diamond's otherwise excellent and thought-provoking book, since he uses this battle as a fulcrum in New World history, and a primary illustration of his thesis.
Why? Well,it should be obvious that an army of 80,000 men, even if armed only with clubs (and some of the Incas had bows and arrows), could have easily overwhelmed 170 men if they had simply pressed an attack without faltering. The Spanish, with their slow-loading muskets and steel blades, might have killed two-hundred or more at the front of the Inca assault, but the rest would have reached the soldiers and battered them (and their horses) to death.
Instead of launchng such an attack, the Incas apparently broke and fled when the Spanish charged them.
There was something in the mind-set, the psychology, the attitudes of the Inca warriors (which we cannot now study and analyze, unfortunately), that caused them to turn and flee from the Spanish. Superstituous fear? A sense of hopelessness, a belief they could not prevail against god-like people? A lack of real military discipline and leadership? Whatever it was, the battle was lost, in the minds and spirits of the Inca warriors, before the first musket fired or blade struck. The killing until the Spainard's sword arms became exhausted was just the follow-up.
In one famous battle with the Zulus (Islanwanda?), a British detachment was decimated when the Zulus took their losses and pressed the attack. In our own country, Custer and his much better armed men (most with repeating rifles, if memory serves) were nevertheless defeated and killed by less well-quipped Indians. Numbers can, and sometimes do, overcome technology.
The Inca warriors lost the decisive battle, and their country, in their heads; not to steel and technology.
|
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/blank.gif) |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/images/round-bottom-left.gif) |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/blank.gif) |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/images/round-bottom-right.gif) |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/blank.gif) |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/blank.gif) |
|
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/images/round-left.gif) |
Re: Nano-Guns, Nano-Germs, and Nano-Steel
|
|
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/images/round-right.gif) |
|
I don't want to turn this into an endless debate where no firm conclusion can be reached, so this will be my last post on this subject.
It's quite possible that the Spanish technology (guns, steel and horses) was the TRIGGER that started what was apparently an attack of mass panic among the Inca soldiers. My essential point is that something already existed in the minds of the Incas that made them VULNERABLE to such feelings of panic, hopelessness, whatever it was that caused them to turn and flee without fighting. Genius and mental impairment aside, I hold a firm conviction that all humans are essentially equal physiologically. But all human CULTURES! are not equal. Something in the Inca culture predisposed them to flee, rather than fight, when confronted by the Spainards. I think, but obviously can't prove, that it was religious superstition, a belief that gods they greatly feared existed, and the Spaniards were some form of manifestation of these gods. (The Spanish, by contrast, were assured by the priests traveling with them (this was standard procedure) that God was on their side, and supported their work.)
If those 80,000 Inca soldiers had been atheists (let's say), and free of such fears, they would defended their homeland by pressing an attack that would have killed the Spaniards within minutes. That's why I say it was not guns and steel that gave Pizarro the victory, but the mental state of the Incas.
Joseph Green |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/blank.gif) |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/images/round-bottom-left.gif) |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/blank.gif) |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/images/round-bottom-right.gif) |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/blank.gif) |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/blank.gif) |
|
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/images/round-left.gif) |
Re: Nano-Guns, Nano-Germs, and Nano-Steel
|
|
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/images/round-right.gif) |
|
I would have to agree with Mr. Green. The cultures are a huge aspect to keep in consideration. I am sure it is no surprise to anyone that there are many historical battles where the statistics tend to shift dramatically based on the many important variables which will ultimately decide which side will prove to be more dominant. <br> Other than the tools used, Mr. Green has pointed out that there is another significantly large variable which "could" have a substantial effect on the turnout of the battle, the fact that they have different cultures. <br> Lets look at another historic battle, (whether or not it was a quality film, the main plot has an interesting concept) The Last Samurai. The concept of this film was that the country has decided to arm their forced with weapons and upgrade their troops with modern tactics which would keep their country competitive. A large portion of the Samurai troops have defected from the government and had formed a rebellious force to oppose the movement. Needless to say there were battles, and the final battle consisted of the dramatically outnumbered Samurai troops (armed with swords, horses, bows, etc.) and the Japanese military (armed with muskets, standard close combat weapons, and mounted machine guns). If we were to take a look at the statistics of the battle, the Samurai (despite their defeat) proved to be a difficult opponent, the kill/death ratio was well in favor of the Samurai troops (whose mentality were that THEY were the better force, even with outdated weapons). The death toll was staggering and undoubtedly a battle to remember. <br>
So this simply goes to show that there are many things to consider. But needless to say, better technology IS an advantage, BUT there are other variables which can mold a high variety of outcomes. If one side had more advanced hardware, and was confident, then the other side better have "something" to either even the odds, or conquer the opposition.... otherwise, physics and statistics will surely show them who is the more dominant force. – GIL
|
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/blank.gif) |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/images/round-bottom-left.gif) |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/blank.gif) |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/images/round-bottom-right.gif) |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/blank.gif) |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/blank.gif) |
|
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/images/round-left.gif) |
Re: Nano-Guns, Nano-Germs, and Nano-Steel
|
|
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/images/round-right.gif) |
|
I don't have much time, but I'd like to add a few new thoughts to this dialogue.
First: For anyone who's read Engines of Creation, the initial point of the essay stands on its own. Drexlerian nanotech is not comparable to guns, germs, or steel --this is apples to oranges.
Overwhelming numbers of people are insignificant against a programmed and invisible invader unleashed to control a territory. The whole point of nanotech warfare would be that the equalizer of guns and the desire to obtain undamaged collateral labor of the conquered nation's people could be rendered meaningless. IE: Even being equally armed to the attacking general infantry (and keep in mind it's most likely to be a totalitarian government acting against it's own "expendable" citizens, not a foreign invader) would mean nothing without better programming and intellectual design abilities. Numbers of men can overcome men with just a few guns among them (ie the warsaw ghetto uprising) -not so with nanotechnology. Automatically being able to run through the forest or the city, keep relatively out of sight, and shoot people with a rifle doesn't give you the ability to avoid microscopic robots homed into your body heat and chemical makeup. --Those "simple" (nearly automatic) human abilities aren't any protection against something you can't see and can't understand. --And virtually noone in the general populace can understand them...
Next: Governments exist to parasitize material wealth generated by other human beings. They justify their existence by sometimes acting in defense of justice (just enough to justify their existence to 51% of a gullible, easily deceived, and credulous citizenry). What happens when they have the material wealth of nanotech working for them, and no reason to parasitize other people? Historically, governments have had no problem killing or imprisoning millions of innocent people (their own citizens) during peacetime, without legitimate justification (a logical refutation of "illegitimate" government functions is easy, but takes time, so I won't bore you here. Itf you want to educate yourself, I'll follow this with my typical recommendations.)
Again, these points have already been made in Drexler's "Engines of Creation" http://www.foresight.org/EOC .
In addition to that masterwork, I recommend:
"Unintended Consequences" by John Ross
http://www.john-ross.net
"The Democratic Peace" by R.J. Rummel
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills
"The Ominous Parallels" by Leonard Peikoff
"Why Government Doesn't Work" by Harry Browne
"Free To Choose" by Milton Friedman
"The Shadow University" by Charles Alan Kors and Harvey Silverglate --This is especially good, because it allows you to see how afraid the establishment (from the lowest rent-a-cop to the president of the United States) is of simple free speech. It also allows you to see that other people do not view free speech as a simple "given" and that it must be continually fought for, with blood, sweat and tears. --A reader of this book gets a glimpse into my world, where one must continually face down bullies and thugs armed with guns and badges, intent on silencing you for the sake of mindless conformity to illogical and inhumane rules.
It shows you clearly that people DO wish to use force against one another to get what they want. It also shows that they are typically too cowardly to even face the people they wish to use force against --so they advocate the use of force by voting for the bullies amongst them to have free reign --just as long as some of the spoils of the theivery are turned their way. They never think about what they're doing, because they never want to admit they've been doing anything wrong by voting for such immense evil. The people who are victimized are out of sight and out of mind.
And I deal with the cops and their damned billy clubs to fight for what precious little right to free speech hasn't already been destroyed by those mindless masses of voters. Statistically, even though the people on this board have selected themselves out of the general pool of ignorance, most of them have virtually zero understanding of the concepts I've just expressed.
Well, get serious now. Because if an artilect ever has to go through the mindless attack I suffered yesterday at the hands of mindless and irrational armed government thugs (attempting to stop me from circulating a petition), they may just decide that humanity is as worthwhile as a cloud of mosquitos is to most humans.
What do you think they will do? The above guns germs and steel argument is only so good. It assumes that simple-minded people will wield nanotechnology powers. It's fairly obvious to me that if that power is not decentralized, it will mean the death of millions of innocent people, and the enslavement of mot of those who remain alive.
At least though, we might be able to reason with an artilect that we were worth leaving in peace, or even amplifying in intelligence, assuming that we treated them with a profound respect for their individual freedom. If not, I believe our days are certainly numbered.
-Jake |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/blank.gif) |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/images/round-bottom-left.gif) |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/blank.gif) |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/images/round-bottom-right.gif) |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/blank.gif) |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/blank.gif) |
|
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/images/round-left.gif) |
Re: Nano-Guns, Nano-Germs, and Nano-Steel
|
|
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/images/round-right.gif) |
|
wow, old article + posts. Might as well give a little bit.
The possibility of an attack with "nano-weapons", while possible, will not likely be devastating depending on what types of weapons there are available. I would expect though, in the chance that something like a nano-related WMD happening, contingency plans would likely available. (i.e. development of retalitory systems/utilize a Mutually Assured Destruction concept/Arms Race/Treaties)
To say that the Spanish conquered the Inca with a handful of men only glazes over the fact that it was not a sudden one weekend "conquest" like what people would expect from the US. Was there even mention of the Aztec? Perhaps even a rough estimate of the true North American Native casualties of small-pox?
In the examples of Incan conquest by the Spanish. Many reasons are available, but it isn't all about technology. It is also about tactics, strategy, and diplomacy. Tack on the fact that the Conquistadors were motivated by greed.
The Incans if I remember correctly were not a completely homogeneous and harmonious society. Although they were a powerful empire, they also had many internal problems to deal with at the time.
All that being said, using the so called Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns. Modern military technology has increased exponentially compared to that of the 15th century.
However, modern military methods and weaponry would likely be more effective in comparison. A grenade from WWI can still kill somebody in 2000's. A bomb is a bomb, albeit its killing efficiency would be somewhat reduced. "Rock, Paper, Scissors,-Bomb". I would think that Nano-weapons as extension of conventional/modern weapons would help to increase the efficiencies of current weaponry, but could not be decisive depending on the scale of its use and whom it is used against.
The development of nano-bio-weapons could the most valid fear, however, the only way to successfuly deploy it would be in a manner that is undetectable and the aggressor remains anonymous. This is because the retaliation and condemnation for using such a weapon would and could even be drastic. Think as an extreme example: I'm gonna bomb you into the stone age/nuke you off the planet with my dying breath unless you deactivate- because I'm dead anyways.
Before it gets to that though, if the threat is significant enough, diplomatic channels would have been used to limit development or to ban the weapons. Although, Hiroshima and Nagasaki - were nuked, but after that - out of fear, such weapons were restricted. Biological and Chemical weapons, though still studied and feared (i.e. The Rock: Sean Connery vs. terrorists with stolen nerve gas) are banned and not likely to be used... or else... you'll end up like Saddam.
Ultimately, fears of nano-technology used as a weapon may be justified. However, along the way, through discussions and theories prompted by researchers and skeptics, the likelihood of disaster is significantly reduced. |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/blank.gif) |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/images/round-bottom-left.gif) |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/blank.gif) |
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20090225214538im_/http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/images/round-bottom-right.gif) |
|
|
|