Ultimate Weapons

From Wise Nano

superweapons and "the ultimate weapon"

 by Mgb 23:41, 25 Oct 2004 (CDT)

Given advanced nanotechnology, you can come up with lots of superweapon concepts. This is a useful exercise. It will be useful to have a library of superweapon concepts, any hard statements or numbers pertaining to them, and scenarios of their use, countermeasures, net assessments, etc.

The more significant questions are those that pertain to the options available to states and the choices they are likely to make. One can ask whether there is likely to be realized some capability that allows an aggressor (initiator of warfare) to win in a given situation. Regional conflicts are one kind of situation we might consider. Global or superpower peer competitor conflicts are another. We can ask whether under any realistic scenario the US is likely to attain an ability to impose virtual occupation or a regime of coercive arms control on a North Korea, say, or China or Russia or Europe. We can ask whether under any realistic scenario another power is likely to attain an ability to attack and defeat the United States.

The concept of the ultimate weapon is a bit more than this. It is a recurrent theme, idea, meme, mirus, whatever you like to call these things, but it has such a long history that it seems to be something that comes naturally to the human mind rather than just an idea that gets repeated. This is the notion that there is some thing, some ring of power, some Holy Grail, some magic sword, some secret, ultimate weapon that will make its bearer invincible in combat and enable him to take over the world. Sometimes it is too dangerous and must be destroyed, but in all cases it is something of terrible and transcending importance, which justifies all manner of incivilities and costs to get it or to keep the bad guys from getting it. Thus the entire war effort depends on Frodo tossing that Ring into the pit. On Blechley Park getting that code machine, on the Heroes of Telemark dynamiting Vemork. On the world's most brilliant scientists gathering in the desert to summon forth the gods of doom. On developing the first assembler in a freedom-loving nation. Etc.

I've described this as a classic fallacy, repeated again and again in history. The Ultimate Weapon looms as a threat and opportunity; its potency and imminence rule out any thought of relinquishment, of seeking cooperation, openness, arms control. No time for such nonsense! Only the most naive fool could possibly trust them with such power, with so much at stake. Within months the enemy (and if they aren't the enemy now, they will be) will have the widget, and then all will be lost! We must get the widget first, and we must use it, wisely, to ensure that no one can challenge us.

What happens, again and again, in modern history, is that technological advances occur more or less simultaneously in a number of world centers. The Ultimate Weapon turns out to be just another superweapon, just another increment in power which at first only continues existing capabilities. Thus out of scores of cities massacred and burned to the ground in World War II, only two of them were nuclear targets. The "Atom Bomb", called "the winning weapon" at the time, in fact only allowed the US to stalemate Stalin, but did not give it the ability to overrun and occupy Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Four years later, the Soviets had the Bomb. Again and again the lure and fear of the Ultimate Weapon entices and compels us to pursue it, and again and again the result is simply an arms race and a new, higher level of insecurity. This is because the initial gains in power due to developing the weapon are not great enough, and the technological lead of the initiator is not long enough, to translate the vision of unrivaled power into real victory.

Semantics and philosophy?

 by RFScheer 14:31, 27 Oct 2004 (CDT)

I am hoping we can avoid a preoccupation with the semantics and philosophy of superweapons. Let's see what they look like before getting all tied up in knots.

Reply: This is about history and human folly; it is a warning against a distortion in our thinking that I see taking place, once again, in regard to advanced nanotechnology. To call that "semantics and philosophy" is simply to shut out the point being made. It is a substantive point, and one to keep in mind as you try to think as realistically as possible about what all this means for the real world's future. It is a somewhat different aspect than technical consideration of "superweapon" measures vs. countermeasures, which I agree is also useful.