21st Century wars: soldiers, weapons, powered by nanotech
By Futuretalk
The world faces an estimated 70 percent chance of a nuclear, biological or chemical attack in the next decade, according to analysts surveyed in a recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee study.
During the Cold War, the possibility of a nuclear battle that could kill every American made it imperative to avoid conflict. But today, we are still not safe. A suicide bomber hiding a weapon of mass destruction in a suitcase could murder a million people; twice as many as died in both twentieth century World Wars combined.
Though some believe the eventual solution to ending today’s terrorist threats lie in improving the welfare of have-nots, former Defense Advanced Research Project Agency manager, Dr. Robert Popp, says we must also get better at intelligence. “We need more Arabic speakers, more experts who understand tribal relations, and more diplomats to capture audiences on Al Jazeera.”
However, military leaders do not believe we will eliminate the world’s have-nots anytime soon, so many want to improve their fighting machines now, and are turning to the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies (ISN), a creative group that has produced such far-out ideas as “portable lab-on-a-chip” and “wireless power.” Its partners include traditional weapons companies like Raytheon and DuPont, and new nano businesses like Zyvex and Nano C.
What kinds of innovative military developments are on ISN’s drawing board? First, let’s glimpse at planned improvements for our soldiers; then examine some of the futuristic weapons being considered.
Nano-powered Soldiers
• Mechanically active materials and devices. Artificial muscles and bone-strengthening materials create a nano-enabled “exoskeleton” that gives wearers increased speed, strength and endurance.
• Energy-absorbing materials. These nanomaterials can absorb nearly any shock to the body, and will keep our warriors out of harm’s way in most crash situations.
• Sensors and chemical/biological protection. Tomorrow’s super-soldiers will boast an array of artificial sensors enabling them to see or sense harmful toxins in the air, and amazingly, even be aware of what the enemy is eating, drinking, smoking, or wearing.
• Biomaterials and nanodevices for automated healthcare. New bio-nano innovations will enable a built-in first aid system that detects and responds to the needs of blood cells, serum, and antibodies, providing fighters with instant high quality medical care 24/7.
Futuristic Weapons
• Cyborg wasps – half insect, half robot. Israel scientists are creating a “bionic hornet” that can identify, pursue, photograph, and kill insurgents if they try to attack coalition forces.
• Armed robot vehicles and flying drones. These clever ‘bots can fire on enemies, drop grenades, hit planes, and spread germs. Should an enemy shell strike them, no human life is lost.
• Space-based weapons. President Bush’s Vision for 2020 believes that a space system which can fire destructive lasers at enemy facilities would help maintain American military dominance. This horrific idea has evoked criticism from most of the world. Do we really want space-based warfare?
This writer hopes that most military advances mentioned in this article will never need to be used. Positive futurists see a nanotech-empowered “magical future” unfolding over the next two decades that promise amazing medical benefits and financial abundance for everyone. Let’s make peace, not war.
This article will appear in various print media and blogs; comments welcome. See other published work by Futuretalk at http://www.positivefuturist.com and click on the “published work” tab.
QUOTE (Futuretalk+Jun 26 2007, 12:00 PM)
• Space-based weapons. President Bush’s Vision for 2020 believes that a space system which can fire destructive lasers at enemy facilities would help maintain American military dominance. This horrific idea has evoked criticism from most of the world. Do we really want space-based warfare?
I thought that international law prevented the development of weapons in space.
- Gehn
The civil world prohibits any nation from deploying weapons in space, but that does not stop the Bush Administration. Evidently our President believes he is above International Law.
QUOTE (Futuretalk+Jul 2 2007, 05:48 PM)
The civil world prohibits any nation from deploying weapons in space, but that does not stop the Bush Administration. Evidently our President believes he is above International Law.
I see what you mean. If Bush does start deploying weapons of mass destruction in space, the Americans will be in big trouble - he might use them against his own country to get rid of the terrorists living there!
Have you ever seen the movie "2001 - A Space Odyssey"? In it, it predicted that nuclear weapons would be in space by 2001. I guess we're lucky it turned out to be wrong.
- Gehn
I see what you mean. If Bush does start deploying weapons of mass destruction in space, the Americans will be in big trouble - he might use them against his own country to get rid of the terrorists living there!
Have you ever seen the movie "2001 - A Space Odyssey"? In it, it predicted that nuclear weapons would be in space by 2001. I guess we're lucky it turned out to be wrong.
- Gehn
Al Jazeera is an interesting, informative and objective source of information. That's why some people in the US dislike it so much: Not because it's bad, but because it's good. It captures some audience from CNN and the others.
Make your mind:
http://english.aljazeera.net/English
Very useful second source, for instance to check that their view on Darfur is close to what we get elsewhere.
Intelligence through Arabic speakers: How much would it have brought in Bali?
"A million people; twice as many as died in both twentieth century World Wars combined" is inaccurate.
Lasers in space: Lasers already work on a plane (look for ALS). If there is none aboard satellites, then just because satellites keep on moving and because supplying power is more difficult.
International agreements have little effect. Combat gases wouldn't exist neither, according to Geneva's convention.
But what I completely disagree with is governments, armed forces and weapons industry going on making taxpayers purchase weapons to fight terrorism. This is fully inadequate. Small or very small groups are or will be able to build very effective weapons: What was difficult for a nation 60 years ago is now easy for individuals, just because technology has evolved. In a few years, individuals will be capable of igniting fusion bombs without using plutonium nor uranium. The cited programmes don't protect against such threats, and I don't know of any programme tending to attend them.
And I find unexpected that we still discuss any link between WMD, war and weapons programmes in 2007, just as if no doubt had arisen in the past years.
Make your mind:
http://english.aljazeera.net/English
Very useful second source, for instance to check that their view on Darfur is close to what we get elsewhere.
Intelligence through Arabic speakers: How much would it have brought in Bali?
"A million people; twice as many as died in both twentieth century World Wars combined" is inaccurate.
Lasers in space: Lasers already work on a plane (look for ALS). If there is none aboard satellites, then just because satellites keep on moving and because supplying power is more difficult.
International agreements have little effect. Combat gases wouldn't exist neither, according to Geneva's convention.
But what I completely disagree with is governments, armed forces and weapons industry going on making taxpayers purchase weapons to fight terrorism. This is fully inadequate. Small or very small groups are or will be able to build very effective weapons: What was difficult for a nation 60 years ago is now easy for individuals, just because technology has evolved. In a few years, individuals will be capable of igniting fusion bombs without using plutonium nor uranium. The cited programmes don't protect against such threats, and I don't know of any programme tending to attend them.
And I find unexpected that we still discuss any link between WMD, war and weapons programmes in 2007, just as if no doubt had arisen in the past years.
Reference to World War I and II deaths referred to Americans, which according to Wikipedia was 116,516 in WW I, 418,500 WW II; total 516,016, less than one million.
Although Americans may dislike Al Jazeera’s editorial slant, the Department of Defense recognizes the value of this news service that is so popular in the mid-east, and they realize it would benefit coalition causes if AJ would broadcast news more favorable to the west.
This writer finds it incomprehensible that our government would even consider placing weapons in space. This is not the way to create a “global village.”
And there is nothing on Earth today that can eradicate crime, wars, and terrorism. However, from mid-2030s to mid-century, the expected “information revolution” will provide technologies that will eliminate all of these human weaknesses. By increasing human intelligence billions of times greater than today’s slow-thinking brains, negative behavior will simply be too illogical.
There is great hope for humanity if we can make it to mid-century. Let’s hope that the bad guys don’t commit too many disasters before then.
Comments welcome.
Although Americans may dislike Al Jazeera’s editorial slant, the Department of Defense recognizes the value of this news service that is so popular in the mid-east, and they realize it would benefit coalition causes if AJ would broadcast news more favorable to the west.
This writer finds it incomprehensible that our government would even consider placing weapons in space. This is not the way to create a “global village.”
And there is nothing on Earth today that can eradicate crime, wars, and terrorism. However, from mid-2030s to mid-century, the expected “information revolution” will provide technologies that will eliminate all of these human weaknesses. By increasing human intelligence billions of times greater than today’s slow-thinking brains, negative behavior will simply be too illogical.
There is great hope for humanity if we can make it to mid-century. Let’s hope that the bad guys don’t commit too many disasters before then.
Comments welcome.
QUOTE (Gehn+Jul 3 2007, 06:18 AM)
Have you ever seen the movie "2001 - A Space Odyssey"? In it, it predicted that nuclear weapons would be in space by 2001. I guess we're lucky it turned out to be wrong.
We don't have much to worry about space based nuclear weapons being used against targets on Earth. Any use of nuke in space will be against other targets in space. If you want to bomb targets on Earth from space it makes more sense to just use the huge kinetic energy available to an orbiting weapon. A crowbar flying at orbital velocity will do nearly as much damage as a nuke. No fallout, no need for an extra delivery mechanism.DamnDarn hard to stop.
We don't have much to worry about space based nuclear weapons being used against targets on Earth. Any use of nuke in space will be against other targets in space. If you want to bomb targets on Earth from space it makes more sense to just use the huge kinetic energy available to an orbiting weapon. A crowbar flying at orbital velocity will do nearly as much damage as a nuke. No fallout, no need for an extra delivery mechanism.
QUOTE (Futuretalk+)
Reference to World War I and II deaths referred to Americans, which according to Wikipedia was 116,516 in WW I, 418,500 WW II; total 516,016, less than one million.
It helps to be late.
QUOTE (Enthalpy+Jul 3 2007, 02:20 AM)
Al Jazeera is an interesting, informative and objective source of information. That's why some people in the US dislike it so much: Not because it's bad, but because it's good. It captures some audience from CNN and the others.
I don't know whether to agree or disagree. Their web page definitely does have an editorial slant toward the east, but they also publish some interesting news too, such as information on Bush/Putin, sports, etc. etc. Like Futuretalk said, they could be very useful if their stance could be changed to be a little more toward the west.
We don't have much to worry about space based nuclear weapons being used against targets on Earth. Any use of nuke in space will be against other targets in space. If you want to bomb targets on Earth from space it makes more sense to just use the huge kinetic energy available to an orbiting weapon. A crowbar flying at orbital velocity will do nearly as much damage as a nuke. No fallout, no need for an extra delivery mechanism. DamnDarn hard to stop.
So, weapons in space would be more like launchers designed to shoot small objects with pinpoint accuracy from high altitude, rather than nuclear weapons. I read about something similar to this in a magazine - one of the articles mentioned a new idea for a U.S. Navy boat which fired long metal rods into orbit. The metal rods would then re-enter the atmosphere and hit their target, destroying it.
Do you have a link, or a project name?
Sorry, no. I just remember reading it in a Popular Science magazine a while ago.
I don't know whether to agree or disagree. Their web page definitely does have an editorial slant toward the east, but they also publish some interesting news too, such as information on Bush/Putin, sports, etc. etc. Like Futuretalk said, they could be very useful if their stance could be changed to be a little more toward the west.
QUOTE (N O M+Jul 3 2007, 04:17 AM)
We don't have much to worry about space based nuclear weapons being used against targets on Earth. Any use of nuke in space will be against other targets in space. If you want to bomb targets on Earth from space it makes more sense to just use the huge kinetic energy available to an orbiting weapon. A crowbar flying at orbital velocity will do nearly as much damage as a nuke. No fallout, no need for an extra delivery mechanism. DamnDarn hard to stop.
So, weapons in space would be more like launchers designed to shoot small objects with pinpoint accuracy from high altitude, rather than nuclear weapons. I read about something similar to this in a magazine - one of the articles mentioned a new idea for a U.S. Navy boat which fired long metal rods into orbit. The metal rods would then re-enter the atmosphere and hit their target, destroying it.
I didn't know it is public. Yes, fire a rod to high altitudes (to space, but not to orbit) and let it fall down on your enemy: An airplane carrier, a bunker...
Impossible to destroy, difficult to see and avoid, and very effective.
So big surface ships are just high-value easy targets now.
Only steering is a bit difficult. Fire many ones and rely on luck?
Do you have a link, or a project name?
Impossible to destroy, difficult to see and avoid, and very effective.
So big surface ships are just high-value easy targets now.
Only steering is a bit difficult. Fire many ones and rely on luck?
Do you have a link, or a project name?
QUOTE (Enthalpy+Jul 4 2007, 02:11 PM)
Only steering is a bit difficult.
I don't think steering would be too difficult. It would probably need small fins to keep the rod oriented. It wouldn't take much to include a small computer, gyros and GPS.
I think it would definitely need something to reorient itself while it is out of the atmosphere. Otherwise, when it curves back down and re-enters the atmosphere it will still be pointing in the upwards direction it earlier left in. A small difference here would mean a large loss of accuracy. Only a tiny amount of thrust would be required, this would probably mean that the accuracy would be pretty good.
I just hope that they don't decide to build any weapon like this out of depleted uranium. OK, you aren't trying to make friends by firing one of these at someone, but there is no need to include deadly chemicals as well.
I don't think steering would be too difficult. It would probably need small fins to keep the rod oriented. It wouldn't take much to include a small computer, gyros and GPS.
I think it would definitely need something to reorient itself while it is out of the atmosphere. Otherwise, when it curves back down and re-enters the atmosphere it will still be pointing in the upwards direction it earlier left in. A small difference here would mean a large loss of accuracy. Only a tiny amount of thrust would be required, this would probably mean that the accuracy would be pretty good.
I just hope that they don't decide to build any weapon like this out of depleted uranium. OK, you aren't trying to make friends by firing one of these at someone, but there is no need to include deadly chemicals as well.
Today, space-based laser weapons are technologically inadequate and cannot perform well. They experience atmosphere-penetrating problems and cannot accurately hit targets yet.
However, as technologies advance exponentially, like nanotech, infotech, strong AI, etc. by as early as the next decade – 2010-2012 or so – the first space laser system could be operational.
But again, this is not the way to create a “global village”. When will our government realize that increasing intelligence in humans is the way to reach peace; not expressing hostility?
Here’s a couple of links describing America’s space-laser plans:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/524/1
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/iss...ng_Missiles.htm
However, as technologies advance exponentially, like nanotech, infotech, strong AI, etc. by as early as the next decade – 2010-2012 or so – the first space laser system could be operational.
But again, this is not the way to create a “global village”. When will our government realize that increasing intelligence in humans is the way to reach peace; not expressing hostility?
Here’s a couple of links describing America’s space-laser plans:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/524/1
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/iss...ng_Missiles.htm
QUOTE (Enthalpy+Jul 4 2007, 02:11 AM)
Do you have a link, or a project name?
Sorry, no. I just remember reading it in a Popular Science magazine a while ago.
Nano has already weaponized and has been incorporated into a plethora of products.
Former Army Captain Marjorie Lorsbach says the government has developed the ability to excite (cause a reaction) and cavitate (implode) surfactant nanoparticles over extended distances which, when inhaled, destroy the arteries and capillaries of the heart through repeated exposure. The particles enter through the sinuses, the naso-pharynx and into the circulatory system or directly through the lungs into the coronary arteries and heart muscle, damaging and destroying the tissues. The inhalations of these nanovapors also result in fatal heat arrhythmias, Lorsbach said. The capillaries of the blood-brain barrier, which usually protects the brain, are also neutralized negating its natural protection.
These particles are now found in thousands of products ranging from building materials such as glass, plastics, and even wood surfaces to metals and other manmade substances and have been incorporated as part of the manufacturing process.
"These nano-devices have literally exploded in my face and are part of a heinous and covert program of extra judicial killings within the United States," Lorsbach, a retired teacher, said in an interview this week.
Lorsbach said she got a hint of the govern-ment's involvement in weaponized nanotechnology while stationed at the JFK Special Warfare Center at Ft. Bragg, N.C.
"I was discussing how the chemicals interacted with things in the daily environment like caffeine, alcohol and cigarette smoke, when my superior officer, a colonel, ordered me to remain silent and to not discuss classified information outside a secure area," said Lorsbach, who had a security clearance at the time.
Former Army Captain Marjorie Lorsbach says the government has developed the ability to excite (cause a reaction) and cavitate (implode) surfactant nanoparticles over extended distances which, when inhaled, destroy the arteries and capillaries of the heart through repeated exposure. The particles enter through the sinuses, the naso-pharynx and into the circulatory system or directly through the lungs into the coronary arteries and heart muscle, damaging and destroying the tissues. The inhalations of these nanovapors also result in fatal heat arrhythmias, Lorsbach said. The capillaries of the blood-brain barrier, which usually protects the brain, are also neutralized negating its natural protection.
These particles are now found in thousands of products ranging from building materials such as glass, plastics, and even wood surfaces to metals and other manmade substances and have been incorporated as part of the manufacturing process.
"These nano-devices have literally exploded in my face and are part of a heinous and covert program of extra judicial killings within the United States," Lorsbach, a retired teacher, said in an interview this week.
Lorsbach said she got a hint of the govern-ment's involvement in weaponized nanotechnology while stationed at the JFK Special Warfare Center at Ft. Bragg, N.C.
"I was discussing how the chemicals interacted with things in the daily environment like caffeine, alcohol and cigarette smoke, when my superior officer, a colonel, ordered me to remain silent and to not discuss classified information outside a secure area," said Lorsbach, who had a security clearance at the time.
I would not place much faith in what Lorsbach says. She could just be ranting because she thinks the government is punishing her for the recent transsexual operation she underwent...
Link http://mrminority.blogspot.com/2007/07/yee...51-is-real.html
Link http://mrminority.blogspot.com/2007/07/yee...51-is-real.html
What/who is the source of 'international law' and what is its credibility? Also,
where is it published and how are disputes resolved?
Would someone please quote the oath of office for a U.S. president?
where is it published and how are disputes resolved?
Would someone please quote the oath of office for a U.S. president?
Everything you always wanted to know about international law can be found here
http://www.un.org/law/
http://www.un.org/law/
OK, since no one else did, I'll quote the presidents oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Since our constitution pre-dates the 'current' U.N. it cannot have mentioned
that largely corrupt and ineffective body.
Can someone quote precisely (without tons of U.N. gogeldy goop) how it is
that our president's oath is negated by international law?
You could spend a life time at the following and come up with nothing:
"Everything you always wanted to know about international law can be found here
http://www.un.org/law/"
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Since our constitution pre-dates the 'current' U.N. it cannot have mentioned
that largely corrupt and ineffective body.
Can someone quote precisely (without tons of U.N. gogeldy goop) how it is
that our president's oath is negated by international law?
You could spend a life time at the following and come up with nothing:
"Everything you always wanted to know about international law can be found here
http://www.un.org/law/"
Other countries are getting concerned that America’s space policy is getting a little too militaristic.
The Clinton plans top goals were: “Enhance knowledge of Earth, the solar system and the universe through human and robotic exploration” and “strengthen and maintain the national security of the United States.
The Bush goals include: “Strengthen the nation’s space leadership and ensure that space capabilities are available in time to further U.S. national security, homeland security, and foreign policy objectives” and “enable unhindered U.S. operations in and through space to defend our interests there.”
Translation, writes author Tim Grieve: Fewer lunar landings and research missions, more laser weapons and ramming satellites. And if this whole Military Commissions Act deal doesn’t stand up at the Supreme Court, maybe the president can start turning over detainees to the Klingons. Not that it would make a difference. With habeas corpus gone now, space isn’t the only place where no one can hear you scream.
Link http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/200...pace/index.html
The Clinton plans top goals were: “Enhance knowledge of Earth, the solar system and the universe through human and robotic exploration” and “strengthen and maintain the national security of the United States.
The Bush goals include: “Strengthen the nation’s space leadership and ensure that space capabilities are available in time to further U.S. national security, homeland security, and foreign policy objectives” and “enable unhindered U.S. operations in and through space to defend our interests there.”
Translation, writes author Tim Grieve: Fewer lunar landings and research missions, more laser weapons and ramming satellites. And if this whole Military Commissions Act deal doesn’t stand up at the Supreme Court, maybe the president can start turning over detainees to the Klingons. Not that it would make a difference. With habeas corpus gone now, space isn’t the only place where no one can hear you scream.
Link http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/200...pace/index.html
You might ebjoy this link :)
http://www.livescience.com/technology/0611...nic_hornet.html
http://www.livescience.com/technology/0611...nic_hornet.html
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.