In another thread, Chris Phoenix wrote:
> The stability of an arms race depends on the technology involved.
Since nanotechnology will make irrelevant many of the motivations that
drive national antagonisms, the more fundamental question is "Are nanotech
arms races ever likely to arise?" - not "Are they unstable?"
Furthermore, an objective list would have included those aspects of
nanotechnology that lent stability to any ensuing arms race as well as
those that caused instability. As a result, the list appears subjective,
making it an inaccurate assessment of probable futures, and therefore of
little value in determining policy. It needs to be redone with more
objectivity, IMHO.
> MNT races would be a lot less stable than nuclear arms races, for many
> reasons. In no particular order:
> 1) Cheaper to develop and test
That is an odd claim to make since history has already invalidated it: An
understanding of the physical laws needed to develop nuclear technology,
microtechnology, and nanotechnology were all in place at the end of the
1930s. Nuclear reactors and bombs now exist, as do microelectronic devices,
yet no MNT device yet exists. And Feynman spoke of MNT-like capabilities
and their great promise back in 1959 - and yet they still don't exist.
Therefore I simply can't reconcile your claim with reality.
Furthermore, even when the first MNT assembler or nanofactory arrives on
the scene, the design and development problems do not go away. The
technology will be in virgin territory and there will be teething problems
in the design of products and in each generation of device. Each of these
problems will takes months and possibly even years to work out.
And of course, it isn't clear why this makes a nanotech arms race
"unstable". The "stability" of said race eventually rests on the psychology
and motivations of the participants. If the intent of one side is to use
the arms once they believe they have superiority, then a subsequent arms
race is potentially unstable - but the technology involved is irrelevant.
> 2) Less horrifying; less political pressure against use
> 3) Less collateral and post-attack damage (more controllable)
(Note: these two points appear to be interdependent and therefore seem to
be only one point.)
Assassination happens to match these criteria. And it it available today.
Is there an arms race for assassins?
> 4) Much faster obsolescence (orders of magnitude)
This is closely related to point 1, which I've already commented on.
> 5) Much cheaper to build
So? Technological or cost _inequities_ in an arms race do not cause an arms
race to be unstable - the instability is either there from the start or it
is not, as I claim above. Also, this point, along with point 7, concern
proliferation which is a subject different from arms races.
> 6) Far more diverse weaponry
I fail to see how this leads to instability in an arms race. It also
falsely implies that there are no difficulties involved in designing,
building, testing, and deploying a diverse set of weapons. (It might be
more effective to stick with one class of weapons after all.)
> 7) Almost everything is dual-use
This is an important point on the futility of attempting non-proliferation,
but again, it does not seem to me to be a destabilizing factor on its own
or in conjunction with any of the other points.
> Nukes are easier to stockpile than to use;
U.S. nukes have a design lifespan of 20 to 25 years. They have to be
heavily guarded. Their delivery systems (missiles and bombers) require
periodic maintenance and replacement. From a cost perspective they are NOT
"easy" to stockpile. Your statement makes sense only when comparing the
moral and political aspects - in which case I agree.
> MNT-built weapons are easier to use than to stockpile.
Again, one has to read this as a statement on the political or moral costs,
since it doesn't make any sense from a financial cost basis. I presume that
this is a conclusion from points 2 and 3: it is easier to find a moral
justification for killing a few rather than millions. It also presumes that
killing a few will accomplish the intended goal. But targeted killings of
political or military leaders of enemy countries don't seem to work the way
the perpetrators intend. The futility of targeting a few people and places
will simply increase, not decrease, as nanotechnology makes its way into
human life.