NationStates Jolt Archive

Freedom of Technological Information Act

THE UNITED NATIONS-

REALIZING that most technology can be used for peaceful purposes, and thus should not be kept a secret,

NOTING that developing the same technology over and over again in different nations is inefficient,

DESIRING to stimulate economic activity between nations by removing unnecessary barriers to trade,

RECALLING the spirit set forth in such resolutions as #2(Scientific Freedom), #5(DVD Region Removal), #33(No Embargoes on Medicine), #60(Public Domain), #82(Stem Cell Research Funding) and #97(Universal Library Coalition),

WHILE ALSO NOTING that some nations have great reluctance towards releasing certain military technologies,

CONCLUDES that there is no sufficient reason to keep non-military technological secrets.

THEREFORE:

1. Be it resolved that all nations in the UN share all their information dealing with technology that has no inherent weapons-capability uses the nation does not already have, with any nation requesting information on that technology.

2. Be it resolved that it is forbidden for nations to keep a non-military technology secret from other UN members, or not disclose all information on a technology.

3. Furthermore, the UN calls upon nations to actively share technology, in order to raise the standards of living, equalize power, and encourage international trade.

‘Technology’, for the purpose of this resolution, includes, but is not limited to, anything that can be used to create, destroy, or change any entity or entities, and that can be taught.


We believe this would fall under the categories of The Furtherment of Democracy and International Security.

However, this is our first time proposing legislation, so we are not entirely clear on the categories.

I think this is a hard proposal to categorize myself. :)

After reading it, Free Trade, might be apropriate, since you are advocating that information and knowledge not be held as trade secrets. But I could very easily be wrong here.

The resolution, Scientific Freedom, was a Free Trade proposal, and since you are referencing it, I just felt you were basically building in that direction.

Out of curiousity, how does the "Right to Self-Protection" fit here? Is that where you are looking at national defense programs? If so, I would agree that that sounds more like an International Security provision. But the problem is that the "Right to Self-Protection" is a human rights resolution, and geared towards individuals, not nations. I think you could remove the reference to that resolution and perhaps add another justification claiming that trade secrets represent a barrier to free trade, and then you'd have a proposal that a few more nations might like.

This is true, it does seem like Free Trade more than Freedom of Democracy. However, it would have International Security effect as well.

You are right about the Self-Protection Act, apparently we read that wrong.

This is true, it does seem like Free Trade more than Freedom of Democracy. However, it would have International Security effect as well.

Unfortunately (as I found out the hard way ... points to a UN warning), proposals must be primarily one category. If it looks like it is both Free Trade and International Security, my advice is to focus on one of the two goals and beef up that section. Add another justification that says something like,

DESIRING to stimulate economic activity between nations by removing artifical barriers to trade;

That just screams "free trade". After that, make a activating (numbered clause) that also points towards free trade:

2. CALLS UPON nations to share technology, especially that related to medical and information management related applications, in order to raise the standards of living and encourage international trade.

I'd also recommend removing your clause that calls for nations to be kicked out of the UN. I'm not sure, but that might be a minor UN proposal violation, as it seems like you are calling for a change in the game mechanics. (In reality it is OK ... since all nations agree to follow UN resolutions, nobody would need to be kicked out ... but that just emphasizes that you don't need that section.)


OOC: And though I say this, I also advocate that players / nations feel free to "pretend" that they don't follow every UN resolution to the letter of the law. :)

Okay, this is one where my technology level is 150% relevant, as it is directly affected by this.

Freedom of Technological Information Act

THE UNITED NATIONS-

REALIZING that all technology can be used for peaceful purposes, and thus should not be kept a secret.

Not true. Certain items, such as graviton cannons, railguns, antimatter cannons, and ion cannons are only usable for war, having been designed and developed expressly with that in mind.

RECOGNIZING that some nations have used superior technology to force others to do their bidding in the past, or even destroy them.

Quite true. Part of life.

FURTHERMORE RECOGNIZING that these technological advances, had they been in both countries’ hands, would likely have lead to a stalemate or mutually assured destruction, which would make this oppression less likely in the first place.

Not likely. Just because someone possesses technology doesn't mean they understand it. It took DLE decades to understand the graviton jump drives, despite possessing them the entire time. Even then, they require ships, orbital placements, and basically years of preparation to have the technology ready, and then then can be overcome by an inferior force with massive numbers.

When you get above nukes in technology, mutually-assured destruction is no longer as much of a factor or even really a serious threat. It goes back to approximately World War 1, where tactics are more important than the size of your gun. The only thing that makes oppression unlikely at the higher technology levels is simply having a military so damn massive no one wants to mess with you on their own and enough allies that no group wants to attack you either. And even then you have to hope and pray you don't run into a superior force.

NOTING that developing the same technology over and over again in different nations is inefficient.

Actually, it's not. As a nation develops the more advanced technology, they have time to come to understand it on their own, think of how they are going to use it, and work on ways to defend against it. If I just handed you a large number of antimatter missiles, you would have no clue how to stop someone else from using antimatter missiles against you. And missile defense systems are outright stupid to use, as antimatter missiles work differently than most other types and they'd only detonate anyway.

RECALLING the spirit set forth in such resolutions as #2(Scientific Freedom), #5(DVD Region Removal), #33(No Embargoes on Medicine), #60(Public Domain), #82(Stem Cell Research Funding), #94(Right to Self Protection) and #97(Universal Library Coalition).

CONCLUDES that there is no reason to keep technological secrets for technology that has not been banned.

Yes, there is. One is security. Another is to prevent young nations from getting ahold of technology they cannot understand and ending up being a danger to themselves and others in their ignorance of the devices they have. The third is to prevent nations from screwing up space and time beyond all repair or causing intergalactic wars they are not prepared to handle.

Not giving you the tech until you are ready to handle it is simply a way of making sure you are when you finally develop it on your own.

THEREFORE:

1. Be it resolved that all nations in the UN share all their information dealing with technology with any nation requesting information on that technology.

See above about why this is dangerous and potentially stupid.

2. Be it resolved that a nation keeping a technology secret from other UN members, not disclosing all information on a technology, or using banned technology, is grounds for expulsion of that nation from the UN.

Illegal. You cannot eject nations from the UN using a resolution. Only the mods and admins may eject nations.

‘Technology’, for the purpose of this resolution, includes, but is not limited to, anything that can be used to create, destroy, or change the world, or any life forms on the world, and that can be taught.

Good definition, but it covers too many natural items, such as meteors and viruses.

Now, why did I argue against this? Because the UN is a very diverse place in the field of technology. At one time, it even included a nation capable of altering history, and even now it includes nations with enough advancement to destroy entire worlds if they so choose. This resolution, in effect, would allow such technology away from the hands that control them and put them into the hands of all UN members. You're talking about nations that have not even achieved space travel being able to get ahold of weapons designed to be used on fleets and planets by those of us who have and, worse, many of them not having as much compunction about using such weapons.

If you think I'm destructive from my posts on here, wait until any nation that joins the UN for five minutes and has enough money is able to build my Planet Busters. Then watch of one them get stupid and use the damn thing, all without ever going into space. I don't want "if all else fails and you absolutely must get past them" weapons to fall into the hands of everyone who joins the UN just because it sounds like a good idea.

Look, I'm not saying you are trying to take out Earth, but some of us do use weapons not ever meant for Earth. While it is a good idea, the reality of it is that it allows too much of a certain type of technology to flood the UN. And if you honestly think people won't use it to build weapons, take a look at what happened to Einstein's discovery.

You are correct about some of the phrasing/statements. We have now edited it.

On to the rest of your arguments: You are making three basics arguments here, that we can see:

1. That even if people get technology, they won't necessarily understand it.
If this were the case, you wouldn't be worried about people getting your Planet Busters. Understanding will not necessarily be immediate, but information would speed up their understanding.

2. People could blow up the world/screw up the universe.
Technologies that can do these things should be banned in any case. Even in expert hands mistakes can happen, and probability dictates that they will at some point. Banned technologies do not fall under the jurisdiction of the proposed resolutions.

Moreover, people stumbling around trying to figure out how to distort time and space could do a lot more harm than those who have the proper documentation.

And people who are trying to build Planet Busters will likely be looked on with displeasure by other nations, to say the least, and even with all the technology I imagine it takes some time to build suitable facilities and manufacture them.

3. It will give technology to those too irresponsible to use it.
Perhaps. But giving harmful technology to many is better than keeping it in the hands of the few. A few people can hold it against the world, if everyone has it, it is no longer a threat.
And since everyone will have access to equal technology, those who try to use it for self-aggrandizement or destructive purposes will be kept in check.

3. It will give technology to those too irresponsible to use it.
Perhaps. But giving harmful technology to many is better than keeping it in the hands of the few. A few people can hold it against the world, if everyone has it, it is no longer a threat.
And since everyone will have access to equal technology, those who try to use it for self-aggrandizement or destructive purposes will be kept in check.

That is why I was suggesting focusing on medical and information technologies. It is easier to misuse weapons of mass destruction, but a safer breast implant isn't the type of thing that makes other nations fear handing out that technology. :)

Since resolutions have "strengths", if you scale down your idea to a "mild" version, it is OK to limit its scope too. You'll still have some people ask, "Why aren't you doing it all?" The answer you just provided above (which I quoted) can itself be added to a resolution! :)

For example, you could put in your preamble something like:
RECOGNIZING that limiting technology to a few nations, can distrupt the balance of power;

... if you wanted to focus on military applications. I believe this is similar to what you've said.

This is true. However, limiting it in scope either way too much both does not make sense, and makes it a much weaker bill.

Would it be allowed to make two proposals: Freedom of Military Technology Act and Freedom of Civilian Technology Act, for example?

On to the rest of your arguments: You are making three basics arguments here, that we can see:

1. That even if people get technology, they won't necessarily understand it.
If this were the case, you wouldn't be worried about people getting your Planet Busters. Understanding will not necessarily be immediate, but information would speed up their understanding.

The problem is that understanding is not necessary for replication. They can always rig controls for it. What I'm worried about is someone who doesn't understanding it building it and then testing the device. Nor is that the only device I am worried about.

2. People could blow up the world/screw up the universe.
Technologies that can do these things should be banned in any case. Even in expert hands mistakes can happen, and probability dictates that they will at some point. Banned technologies do not fall under the jurisdiction of the proposed resolutions.

You can't really ban the technologies, as the UN won't go for it. The weapons have been developped as needs for them have arisen. The Planet Buster is used primarily for cases where you must get past the planet but cannot afford to try to take out the planet's defenders. You remove the planet from being useful, you remove the problem. It's a last-ditch weapon, much like nukes are on Earth.

Moreover, people stumbling around trying to figure out how to distort time and space could do a lot more harm than those who have the proper documentation.

Not really. It takes a massive technology level to do so and all of the methods that can come into modern tech hands without outside intervention are not that dangerous (Star Gates are pretty much it for that category). Anyone who is attempting that should be attempting it in space, where accidents are extremely limited anyway.

And people who are trying to build Planet Busters will likely be looked on with displeasure by other nations, to say the least, and even with all the technology I imagine it takes some time to build suitable facilities and manufacture them.

Not really. The cannon itself only took us 48 hours to invent, and that's because all we did was take a graviton cannon, overpower it, attach four graviton generators to it, and added in an extra shield protocol. The majority of the time will be spent making the power facilities for it, which could be justified as just for civilian purposes due to how much power they put out. Even with modern technology, the majority of the necessary parts are relatively quick to replicate. You could probably have a functional cannon in only four months if you work fast.

OOC: Please note the above is not me claiming it can actually be done in reality.

3. It will give technology to those too irresponsible to use it.
Perhaps. But giving harmful technology to many is better than keeping it in the hands of the few. A few people can hold it against the world, if everyone has it, it is no longer a threat.

The few of us who have such technology levels are prevented from using it on Earth due to nations that have equivolent technology and territory on Earth (myself included). Striking against Earth would require taking on dozens or even hundreds of space empires at the same time, and that's not counting the ones that deal with other planets in the system. It's pretty much suicide to attempt.

And since everyone will have access to equal technology, those who try to use it for self-aggrandizement or destructive purposes will be kept in check.

That's pretty much impossible. Space is a huge place. You can wipe out entire civilizations and have no one notice. It's also full of people far more powerful than I am, which only makes it even worse for attempting to limit violence.

Look, my advice is simple: Limit it to nonmilitary technology that is only shared among people of equivolent technology levels. That prevents people from getting ahold of weapons they shouldn't or being able to cause more harm than they do.

This is true. However, limiting it in scope either way too much both does not make sense, and makes it a much weaker bill.

Would it be allowed to make two proposals: Freedom of Military Technology Act and Freedom of Civilian Technology Act, for example?

If the text of the proposals is different, you can make two. :)

A good example of "scoping" in resolutions is Grosseschnauzer's "Tsunami Warning Sytem". Groot Gouda advocated for a larger, more general resolution, but we (GS and myself) managed to convince him (and for the record, it wasn't hard to do, Gouda is very reasonable) that we should first write a specific tsunami prevention resolution and then cover our bases once that process had been fought and won with a larger scoping resolution.

My advice is pick one of those ideas and focus on it, but be 100% honest and tell people that you want to work on the other as well. You can add a generic line in your resolution expressing that you _may_ do just that. You can't promise it, but you can say something that hints that you will.

In part, I'm not sure how to stand on this...

Certain technologies do not have normatively harmful uses [many medical technologies for one...] others have the potential of causing massive devestation if used improperly [Fission/Fusion reactors, anti-matter, Zero-Point Envelopes, etc.]... Other can be intermediate [Magnetic Rail-Guns can be used to launch scientific packages as much as weapons ordinance]...

Though, in answer to many FT situations... most of our technologies are not duplicatable by the materians present to the earthbound states... MAM reactors could cause potential harm, but the Terrans are unable at this point to make enough anti-matter to field such a unit [their present production capacity is somewhere around 8 nano-grams per year, out of all their available colliders]... They have no way to create Zero-Point envelopes, or construct envelopes to fold space... So providing the "information" by which such work, in no way sets them at odds... Kraskinov based technologies requires exotic and rare heavy elements, that Terrans are unable to successfully produce such artifically, while also being stable... So provision of the technology in no way grants them the ability to reproduce it.

Now, while some technologies can be harmfull (in fact many can if not operated properly), this no way should give lisence to ban said technologies because of potentiality... A hammer can be used to drive a nail in the assitance of building a house as readily as cracking someones skull open.... The potentiality in no way should govern its allowance... The same would apply to Nuclear, MAM, and Zero-Point technologies... They can be used as weapons or for power-generation... There is no real differention, except in what the applicable use of expended energy is directed.

Now, many alliance have been create extra-UN in the governance of distrobution of advanced technology; The Temporal Accord, for example, between nation which possess technologies capable of altering the time-stream, and therefore control its usage amongst members, and possible actions against even non-members for abuse of temporal technologies... GEDRA governing the charting and distrobution of navigational charts and technologies to provide space-farers full and acurate maps of space within this Galactic Cluster... Also, the provision of these for the sharing of propulsion and power-generation technologies between member-races, UN and non-UN alike.

So the question arises... is a massive, galactic wide sharing of all technologies needed, or should such be limited? Should an advanced space-faring culture be required to supply technologically primitive UN members information on those technologies? Or should the holding state generate its own rules as towards the level of said technologies?

Would it be better for said technology distrobution to limited to type? Like medical technologies?

For some reason I lean towards limits on sharing... That the problems created by full and undisclosed technological sharing accross borders outweighs the benefits that can be supplied.

I too, am against a widespread sharing of all technologies. For basic lifestyle comforts, I support shareing technology. One thing I am somewhat worried about is a possible culture shock that may affect very rudimentary nations being flooded by advanced technology. In agricultural based economies, the implimentation of food replicators, or even just fully automated harvesters, could ruin the economies and put large numbers of people out of work. Major industries could become obsolete virtually overnight. If we did start a widespread sharing of technologies, we would have to be extreamly careful about what exactly we shared and with who or we may do more harm than good. Diffrent technologies could affect diffrent nations in diffrent ways. If we pass this, there would have to be someone who would determine who would get what. Over time, we would be able to bring everyone up to the most advanced levels of technology, but it would have to be gradual and carefuly planned. DLE is also right about the less advanced nations not fully understanding the technology they would be given. They would have no technicians knowledgeable on how to operate and mantain most of the technology. This could be a very dangerous situation indeed, even with non-military devices. One of the most widely used energy sources used by advanced nations is antimatter wich can ve very unstable. If not properly controlled, one nations power source could wipe out an entire planet on accident.

Mikitivity:
Our thanks for this advice. We will look into this.

Demon Lord Enigma:
Seeing that you have destroyed planets because you couldn't deal with the inconvenience of fighting their defender's normally, on the grounds that you needed to get around them quickly - This being in space, which both has faster travelling technology, and three infinite dimensions to work with, which should make avoiding anyone quite easy. - It is our opinion that you are not a great source of advice for the balance of power, or the furtherment of peace.

Furthermore, you say it would be suicide for you to use a Planet Buster against Earth. It seems to us that anyone using a planet buster on earth would have the same problem.

The only reason someone on Earth would want such offensive technology is if they need to defend themselves against a space-based opponent, or repel one from attacking them.

Tekania:
While we understand your reticince, it seems to use that the balancing of power and improvement of general life on the planet through technology would outweigh any incidental risks.

Yoopers:
This isn't quite what the resolution was intended to provide.

It would allow governments to gain all the relevant *information* to any technology they desired from other governments. Not the actual technology.

That government, of course, would probably study feasability/suspected effects on the culture/enviroment before they commit to anything, but is this not always the case? Moreover, they would need to have the material on hand, and understand the technology well enough to construct it.

Thus, it should be no more dangerous in their hands then anyone else's.

Demon Lord Enigma:
Seeing that you have destroyed planets because you couldn't deal with the inconvenience of fighting their defender's normally, on the grounds that you needed to get around them quickly - This being in space, which both has faster travelling technology, and three infinite dimensions to work with, which should make avoiding anyone quite easy. - It is our opinion that you are not a great source of advice for the balance of power, or the furtherment of peace.

I have yet to need to. The devices were originally developed as part of a war against a race that the only way we could see to make them stop was through extermination. We never had a chance to use the weapons.

However, note that in space it is not as easy as you think. Even with a coordinates system, the easiest method of navigation involves using suns. Quite a few of those have planets, even if they are mostly incapable of supporting life. However, that does not stop a nation from positioning defenses on planets at the edge of their territory, using the easiest route against the invaders. It gets even harder when you get inside DLE territory, as special properties there require you to use landmarks to navigate by.

Furthermore, you say it would be suicide for you to use a Planet Buster against Earth. It seems to us that anyone using a planet buster on earth would have the same problem.

Not really. A planet buster and a graviton cannon have the same power signature until they fire, with the only difference being size. A planet buster on a planet would simply appear to be a large graviton cannon until it fired. Also, note that I said attacking the planet is difficult but didn't say getting stupid with a weapon designed to destroy planets is difficult. Part of the issue of understanding comes up.

The only reason someone on Earth would want such offensive technology is if they need to defend themselves against a space-based opponent, or repel one from attacking them.

Or to simply have bigger guns than the next guy. Or to take out a nation they don't like. Or to deal with populous problems. Or to simply be able to wipe out an enemy in one shot. Do I need to go on?

I have yet to need to. The devices were originally developed as part of a war against a race that the only way we could see to make them stop was through extermination. We never had a chance to use
the weapons.


We were not aware of this. We apologize for our unfounded accusations against you.


However, note that in space it is not as easy as you think. Even with a coordinates system, the easiest method of navigation involves using suns. Quite a few of those have planets, even if they are mostly incapable of supporting life. However, that does not stop a nation from positioning defenses on planets at the edge of their territory, using the easiest route against the invaders. It gets even harder when you get inside DLE territory, as special properties there require you to use landmarks to navigate by.


We admit we have not learned all of the intricacies of navigating space. That is part of what our proposal attempts to negate, not just for us, but for all nations.


Not really. A planet buster and a graviton cannon have the same power signature until they fire, with the only difference being size. A planet buster on a planet would simply appear to be a large graviton cannon until it fired. Also, note that I said attacking the planet is difficult but didn't say getting stupid with a weapon designed to destroy planets is difficult. Part of the issue of understanding comes up.


Yes, but being that they had requisitioned the technology from someone who had it, I would hardly think they would keep a secret about such a thing.


Or to simply have bigger guns than the next guy. Or to take out a nation they don't like. Or to deal with populous problems. Or to simply be able to wipe out an enemy in one shot. Do I need to go on?

In other words, for all the exact same reasons you, or any other nation, might have them. A weapon should be available to all, or to none. If it is too powerful for all nations' hands to hold, it is certainly to powerful to be left in a few of them.

EDIT: Formatted that rather poorly...

We were not aware of this. We apologize for our unfounded accusations against you.

Don't apologize yet. I may end up needing to soon.

We admit we have not learned all of the intricacies of navigating space. That is part of what our proposal attempts to negate, not just for us, but for all nations.

Many of the intricacies of space are better learned from actually exploring it. And even with as many nations in space as there are, we are still learning new things every day. Attempting to negate the exploration aspect is really negating much of the point.

Yes, but being that they had requisitioned the technology from someone who had it, I would hardly think they would keep a secret about such a thing.

I kept my stockpile of antimatter bombs secret for years because of a potential advantage they give. Sometimes your enemy not knowing is better than if they do know.

In other words, for all the exact same reasons you, or any other nation, might have them. A weapon should be available to all, or to none. If it is too powerful for all nations' hands to hold, it is certainly to powerful to be left in a few of them.

Yes, the exact same reasons. But ask yourself this: What good has the proliferation of nuclear weapons done? What good has the knowledge of how to make biological weapons done?

Having certain weapons limited is a good thing. For example, if someone fires graviton missiles into a city for no reason, who is going to be the first name on your suspect list? The answer is me, as I have them. And even if I'm not the guilty party, you can expect I'll work quickly to find and eliminate the guilty party to prevent further trouble. Besides, the limitation of certain weapons is to responsible nations who know how to use them. It's quite rare to find any examples of the weapons I have actually being used. You'll find that's true of a lot of nations, as being among the few to have the weapons also means being among the few to understand exactly what they can do and exactly why you want to limit them. Most of the wars that do pop up using FT are among FT nations and in those cases they all know exactly what they are doing.

Look at this way: The fewer nations who have the weapons, the easier it is to point out who did if they are ever used.

Many of the intricacies of space are better learned from actually exploring it. And even with as many nations in space as there are, we are still learning new things every day. Attempting to negate the exploration aspect is really negating much of the point.

We would rather have our spacefarers in the safest ship possible, fully aware of all risks and possibilities, then going in a shoddily built ship without a clue, merely for the thrill of exploration.

Yes, but being that they had requisitioned the technology from someone who had it, I would hardly think they would keep a secret about such a thing.
We worded this rather poorly. Should read, 'I would hardly think *the nation they requested it from* would keep a secret about such a thing.' Obviously, a nation could already secretly give the technology to allies, but they would have no reason to do so for non-allies.

What good has the proliferation of nuclear weapons done? What good has the knowledge of how to make biological weapons done?

What good did the weapons do in the first place? They made the world a more dangerous place, and gave tools to some people to oppress others.

When they were held in more hands, they made the world slightly more dangerous, but they took away the tools some people had to oppress others.


The fewer nations who have the weapons, the easier it is to point out who did if they are ever used.

True. But the fewer nations who have the weapons, the easier it is for them to band together and oppress the smaller nations.

The latter is a bigger issue then the former, in our opinion.

We would rather have our spacefarers in the safest ship possible, fully aware of all risks and possibilities, then going in a shoddily built ship without a clue, merely for the thrill of exploration.

The shoddy ships are an important step for a reason: They teach you everything that can go wrong and how to adapt to situations that are completely unexpected. Even the safest ship can have a catastrophic accident and leave you forced to attempt strategies you wouldn't normally even dare to think of.

We worded this rather poorly. Should read, 'I would hardly think *the nation they requested it from* would keep a secret about such a thing.' Obviously, a nation could already secretly give the technology to allies, but they would have no reason to do so for non-allies.

Not unless the nation being given the technology was simply going to be used to be rid of another nation and have a scapegoat. There's always an ulterior possibility and a darker strategy that can be looked to.

What good did the weapons do in the first place? They made the world a more dangerous place, and gave tools to some people to oppress others.

When they were held in more hands, they made the world slightly more dangerous, but they took away the tools some people had to oppress others.

One secret about history: People don't need tools to oppress others. They just need people to oppress.

But with the weapons more widespread, they are still used for oppression. Viral agents can be used to hold a nation as a hostage, chemical weapons are used for disposing of people you don't like, and nukes are a favorite toy for being rid of a nation that bugs you. The proliferation of the weapons only means more people have them and more people can use them, not that they can no longer be used to oppress.

True. But the fewer nations who have the weapons, the easier it is for them to band together and oppress the smaller nations.

The latter is a bigger issue then the former, in our opinion.

The secret is simple: Encourage the nations to compete. There may be an unlimited number of worlds out there, but getting to them is another matter and one that creates rivalries and alliances unlike any other. As long as they have someone bigger than you to focus on and compete with, you have no worries.

cant the word technology be changed or its meaning in such a way that it means that countries arent sharing items like weapons/medical machines/etc, but understanding of science/biology/whatever.
So countries wont get their hands on things they dont understand how to operate. Thus, if they do understand the information given to them, than they can make it and if they dont they cant.

Atleast this will "solve" the problem of countries getting something like a nuclear power plant and managing to blow themself up, because they didnt understand the technology.
However it still leaves possible problems of a society technology level advancing faster than the ethics needed to govern them or the possibility of civilians growing scared of what the scientists created this time. For example I personally dont think it would be smart to give the technology of cloning to people who have yet to discover steamengines.
So I think it would be smart to add atleast some kind of addition that (understanding of) technology will be slowly released to countries in some way. I am not sure how this should be regulated and by whom, but I do think it would be wise.


Also remember that alot of weapon technologies do have a non weapon option aswell (nuclearpowerplant/nuclear bomb).

Personally I dont think a country should have technology unless they can figured it out for themselves. Seeing as there are countries in the UN who are atleast hundred years ahead in science compared to others, I dont think it would be wise to get them to exchange technologies.
However I do think that promoting relationships between those countries would stimulate scientists in the "under developed countries" to find solutions for problems faster than they would normally. As they can see its possible and possibly get some help to solve a few of the problems aswell.

The shoddy ships are an important step for a reason: They teach you everything that can go wrong and how to adapt to situations that are completely unexpected. Even the safest ship can have a catastrophic accident and leave you forced to attempt strategies you wouldn't normally even dare to think of.

We would prefer to start from a safer baseline with our pilots. At least then we won't be losing as many people, and not purely for the sake of learning from mistakes.

Everyone must learn from mistakes to some extent. To do so more than neccessary is foolishness.


Not unless the nation being given the technology was simply going to be used to be rid of another nation and have a scapegoat. There's always an ulterior possibility and a darker strategy that can be looked to.

Which could already be done without this bill.


One secret about history: People don't need tools to oppress others. They just need people to oppress.

If one locked even the most malicious, power-hungry person in a room where everyone has the same power, they wouldn't come out alive if they start something. But we're talking about nations here.


But with the weapons more widespread, they are still used for oppression. Viral agents can be used to hold a nation as a hostage, chemical weapons are used for disposing of people you don't like, and nukes are a favorite toy for being rid of a nation that bugs you. The proliferation of the weapons only means more people have them and more people can use them, not that they can no longer be used to oppress.

Yes. Big weapons are bad. Big weapons in the hands of the few are worse. At least if you both have nuclear devices, if they say 'We'll nuke you if you don't do this', you can say, 'So? We'll nuke you back.'


The secret is simple: Encourage the nations to compete. There may be an unlimited number of worlds out there, but getting to them is another matter and one that creates rivalries and alliances unlike any other. As long as they have someone bigger than you to focus on and compete with, you have no worries.
We prefer to work on removing all percieved neccessity for competition.

Therenas: It is about the information needed for technology, not the technology itself. However, since you are the second one to bring this up, perhaps it is poorly worded. We will look into this.

In any case, we would argue that ethics are never developed until a situation that requires them arises, and sometimes not even then.

Yes. Big weapons are bad. Big weapons in the hands of the few are worse. At least if you both have nuclear devices, if they say 'We'll nuke you if you don't do this', you can say, 'So? We'll nuke you back.'
Actually big weapons in the hand of someone who doesnt understand how devastating they are is worse. Which is something that will happen if you force countries to share technology.

A country who has got a nuclear device (through own research), will know how destructive it is. However a country who has just been given the technology might build a big bomb and use it on another country, while not fully realizing what it will do.
Now your argument is that the world is safer if everyone has got nuclear bombs, but if some country doesnt believe/realize how devastating they are. It might actually lead to a war, as a country possibly doesnt realize that besides the devastating blast there is also radiation that goes further than the blast and remains for many years.


edit to reply on last post of Bizzare Space Fortress: true, but if your scientists are busy discovering the technology. The ethical debate is usually taking place in the society (that knows about it) how it should be used.
Which in the case of sharing technology it wont happen, as there is no time between realizing that it might be possible and actually discovering how it can be done.

also what I meant was as example teaching how nuclear fussion works instead of teaching how to build a nuclear bomb. While both is sharing information, there is a difference between them and it isnt defined in the draft wether it is just sharing understanding or just sharing information how to make devices.

Threnas: Maybe if they got it from someone else.

But with all that's involved with building one, checking out the specs, ect, they should have a pretty good idea of what it can do.

Not to mention word of mouth/news reports/ect.

We would prefer to start from a safer baseline with our pilots. At least then we won't be losing as many people, and not purely for the sake of learning from mistakes.

Everyone must learn from mistakes to some extent. To do so more than neccessary is foolishness.

Okay, you manage to build a DLE ship using the plans. The ships are safe, resistant to damage from energy weapons (ion storms in our region make this a survival necessity), and you can jump dozens of lightyears at once. Then, you get the thing into space, power it up, and take it for a test spin around the local galaxy. Your first jump you land in the middle of a Class 6 ion storm, knocking out your FTL drives for awhile due to power relays from the antimatter reactors overloading. In addition, you're hit by enough energy at once from suddenly arriving there to overcome that lovely energy-dispursing crystal matrix and fry the computers, killing the AI instantly and leaving you with only manual controls. Since the jump drive is gone, so are your shields, as both are powered by the same system. Top it all off, your weapons are worthless as you are in the middle of the equivolent of a lightning storm in space without clouds generating the lightning. What do you do?

DLE personel would solve the above scenario in ten minutes and be out of the ion storm before they suffer any more damage.

Which could already be done without this bill.

Yes, but without this bill the nation has the right to refuse to share technology if they don't want to. With this bill, they have no choice and a lovely legal loophole to keep from being prosecuted.

If one locked even the most malicious, power-hungry person in a room where everyone has the same power, they wouldn't come out alive if they start something. But we're talking about nations here.

They're notthat different when you look at how they interact.

Yes. Big weapons are bad. Big weapons in the hands of the few are worse. At least if you both have nuclear devices, if they say 'We'll nuke you if you don't do this', you can say, 'So? We'll nuke you back.'

My response: I wait for them to launch, launch my fighters, and shoot the nuke down with fighters. They may fire as many nukes as they like, but the missiles don't match up well against good old-fashioned jet fighters in large numbers with smart pilots.

The bigger a weapon is, the bigger its weakness. You don't need nuclear weapons to match nuclear weapons, just like you don't need graviton weapons to match my graviton weapons.

We prefer to work on removing all percieved neccessity for competition.

You remove the necessity for competition, they gang together. You have the competition, you have fewer worries as they cannot gang together.

My response: I wait for them to launch, launch my fighters, and shoot the nuke down with fighters. They may fire as many nukes as they like, but the missiles don't match up well against good old-fashioned jet fighters in large numbers with smart pilots.
how exactly do you stop a nuclear missile with a jet? Seeing as it will be going faster than most jets can go or atleast my jets can go. Also it will most likely be flying in a parabola(meaning first straight up than continually bending in the direction of the target and ending up going straight down at the target) and possibly spending most of its time higher in the air than where my jets can fly.

So while your good old fashioned jets might be able to take out a nuclear missile. They would still be higher tech than mine(and of alot of other UN countries) currently are.

Okay, you manage to build a DLE ship using the plans. The ships are safe, resistant to damage from energy weapons (ion storms in our region make this a survival necessity), and you can jump dozens of lightyears at once. Then, you get the thing into space, power it up, and take it for a test spin around the local galaxy. Your first jump you land in the middle of a Class 6 ion storm, knocking out your FTL drives for awhile due to power relays from the antimatter reactors overloading. In addition, you're hit by enough energy at once from suddenly arriving there to overcome that lovely energy-dispursing crystal matrix and fry the computers, killing the AI instantly and leaving you with only manual controls. Since the jump drive is gone, so are your shields, as both are powered by the same system. Top it all off, your weapons are worthless as you are in the middle of the equivolent of a lightning storm in space without clouds generating the lightning. What do you do?
Likely our pilots would be destroyed. There would probably be far less deaths involved then slowly developing our technology up to that point, however.


Yes, but without this bill the nation has the right to refuse to share technology if they don't want to. With this bill, they have no choice and a lovely legal loophole to keep from being prosecuted.
We believe this proposal will eventually make war too risky for any nation to attempt it. We further believe that this is a good thing.

My response: I wait for them to launch, launch my fighters, and shoot the nuke down with fighters. They may fire as many nukes as they like, but the missiles don't match up well against good old-fashioned jet fighters in large numbers with smart pilots.
Perhaps. But when your opponent is using nukes and you are using jet fighters, you can only fight a defensive war.

The bigger a weapon is, the bigger its weakness. You don't need nuclear weapons to match nuclear weapons, just like you don't need graviton weapons to match my graviton weapons.
Perhaps not. But if you fire enough nuclear weapons or graviton weapons, one will eventually get through.

You remove the necessity for competition, they gang together. You have the competition, you have fewer worries as they cannot gang together.
Even a large gang would not take someone on if they had the capability to inflict major damage back.

Quite simply, were this resolution to pass, we would be forced to leave the U.N. Else some random madman with a tiny nation on earth could request all the technologies behind the "Planet Buster" cannon we have developed as a wepon of last resort, point the thing into the planet, and pull the trigger. The earth would then rip itself apart. WE will never use the cannon unless our very survival depends on it, however, we cannot say that of all NSUN nations.
Now if you left this proposal only to technologies dealing in trade, medicine, that sort of thing, as well as general theory, we may be able to live with it, though we would still not support it. It would be quite a blow to the years of patient research we have put into our wormhole drives, now capable of cutting through space at sixty times light speed, if every single nation in the U.N. were able to requisition it on demand.

Hell, if you limited this to medical technology, it would get my vote, but our economy and our security are too great a concern, otherwise.

how exactly do you stop a nuclear missile with a jet? Seeing as it will be going faster than most jets can go or atleast my jets can go. Also it will most likely be flying in a parabola(meaning first straight up than continually bending in the direction of the target and ending up going straight down at the target) and possibly spending most of its time higher in the air than where my jets can fly.

So while your good old fashioned jets might be able to take out a nuclear missile. They would still be higher tech than mine(and of alot of other UN countries) currently are.

Actually, it's pretty simple. You're not trying to fly faster than the nuke. You're trying to intercept it in flight with weapons. It's just like shooting a moving target with a conventional gun.

Likely our pilots would be destroyed. There would probably be far less deaths involved then slowly developing our technology up to that point, however.

Not really. If you had developped your technology up to that level, you would have had decades of having to prepare for such a contingency and many others as well. In addition, you would be training your people for the few contingencies you didn't think of first that did result in a few deaths. In such a case, your pilots would be immediately working on the solution as soon as they lost the computer and you would save both the pilots and the ship.

We believe this proposal will eventually make war too risky for any nation to attempt it. We further believe that this is a good thing.

I heard the same thing about the prevalence of such technologies amond FT nations. Guess what? The wars still happen, only now they're bloodier and cost more lives.

Perhaps. But when your opponent is using nukes and you are using jet fighters, you can only fight a defensive war.

True, but you have the advantage: You only have to refuel your fighters and replace used ammunition. They have to build another nuke from scratch.

Perhaps not. But if you fire enough nuclear weapons or graviton weapons, one will eventually get through.

If you have that many, you're quite advanced in technology as it is and would have some experience. It's not the people who have the large number of weapons that concerns me, as they also know how to handle such weapons and how to store them.

Even a large gang would not take someone on if they had the capability to inflict major damage back.

Unless the large gang decided it was worth the risk and attacked anyway.

Cyrian Space and Demon Lord Enigma: We think it is both very egotistic and very short-sighted to say that planet busters are all right in some hands, but not in others.

Perhaps you can control what your countries do at the moment. But at any point, there could be a vote in parliment to throw you out of power, you could die, or there could even be a revolution, depending on your national setup. Or you could simply go insane, it's happened to national leaders before.

Dangerous technologies have a good chance of falling into the wrong hands anyways. Thus to us it only makes sense if the UN either bans them, or gives everyone the resources to try to deal with them.

Not really. If you had developped your technology up to that level, you would have had decades of having to prepare for such a contingency and many others as well. In addition, you would be training your people for the few contingencies you didn't think of first that did result in a few deaths. In such a case, your pilots would be immediately working on the solution as soon as they lost the computer and you would save both the pilots and the ship.
But in developing this technology on our own through trial and error, we would kill many more people, and use up many more resources in useless or inefficient efforts before we obtained it.

I heard the same thing about the prevalence of such technologies amond FT nations. Guess what? The wars still happen, only now they're bloodier and cost more lives.
A war is still preferable to a one-sided massacare.

True, but you have the advantage: You only have to refuel your fighters and replace used ammunition. They have to build another nuke from scratch.
Firing at close enough range to destroy a nuke, you would lose many fighters. And we imagine that the same doesn't apply to graviton beams and so forth.

If you have that many, you're quite advanced in technology as it is and would have some experience. It's not the people who have the large number of weapons that concerns me, as they also know how to handle such weapons and how to store them.
Perhaps, but this would be a hollow comfort to the people they were attacking.


Unless the large gang decided it was worth the risk and attacked anyway.
But the large gang would take serious damage in this. It might take out a few nations that way, but it's strength would eventually crumble.

Cyrian Space and Demon Lord Enigma: We think it is both very egotistic and very short-sighted to say that planet busters are all right in some hands, but not in others.

Note that Cyrian Space and myself use different types of Planet Busters. His destroy the planet entirely. Mine just increase the planet's density until the atmosphere ignites.

To be honest, I don't particularly think they are right in anybody's hands. Hell, the only reason I even developped them was because of a war starting at the time and my knowledge of who the war was against. As it stands, I only have three in service, and I'm hesitant about building more.

Perhaps you can control what your countries do at the moment. But at any point, there could be a vote in parliment to throw you out of power, you could die, or there could even be a revolution, depending on your national setup. Or you could simply go insane, it's happened to national leaders before.

Part of why I prefer to keep the weapons as limited as they are. Less risk that some leader flips out and causes irrepairable harm.

Dangerous technologies have a good chance of falling into the wrong hands anyways. Thus to us it only makes sense if the UN either bans them, or gives everyone the resources to try to deal with them.

The only way to get ahold of those weapons is to remove them from DLE ships. If you try to do that, you have a fight on your hands and will likely lose the technology you are trying to obtain and all ships involved. With the exception a certain bunch of warheads, we don't just leave this stuff lying around.

We believe this proposal will eventually make war too risky for any nation to attempt it. We further believe that this is a good thing.
Yes, because that worked SO well with the prevalence of nuklear missiles on earth. How many nations have been reduced to glass and slag?



Perhaps you can control what your countries do at the moment. But at any point, there could be a vote in parliment to throw you out of power, you could die, or there could even be a revolution, depending on your national setup. Or you could simply go insane, it's happened to national leaders before.
I want you to think about giving nuklear weapons to the various armies that humans had in the midieval time period. Think about vikings with H-bombs.
Better, think of what would have happened if a certain well known madman had gotten a hold of a few of these. What do you think Hitler would have done with a nuke? Do you think that "We'll nuke you back" would deter him?

Our history, our experience, the thousands and thousands of years of seniority we have over you as a race gives us the right to possess the weapons we developed. It does not however give us the right to use them. We have been gradually introduced to these technologies. They have not been "Dumped in our laps"

And one last question: do you have any clue how many rogue nations could be manipulated by insane, suicidal leaders into destroying the world?

Think of it this way: Naziland is a small, fascist nation. Naziland is ruled by an autocratic dictator, who is completely insane, and believes that the earth must be destroyed to bring all people into the afterlife. This dictator manages to create a thriving industrial economy, and one day requisitions all the technology behind Cyrian Space's Planet Buster Cannon. Then, before anyone has a chance to stop him, he has his citizens produce it. He points the cannon between the planet and it's sun, and say goodbye to the planet earth.

Now let me mention again, we would be completely willing to give out our medical technology (though as we are not human, much of it would be useless to you) and we would even bear the technologies giving us an economic advantage being spread around (though we wouldn't vote for it.) But there is just far, far too much risk if many of the weapons we have developed fall into the hands of a people not prepared to deal with them.

But in developing this technology on our own through trial and error, we would kill many more people, and use up many more resources in useless or inefficient efforts before we obtained it.

Actually, you can do quite a bit with simulations and test animals.

A war is still preferable to a one-sided massacare.

It ends in the same way on both paths. One side always ends up massacred.

Firing at close enough range to destroy a nuke, you would lose many fighters. And we imagine that the same doesn't apply to graviton beams and so forth.

Depends on where you hit the nuke. Try not shooting the warhead.

As for other weapons: They have their problems with trying to take them out. But those are problems it is best to have to not worry about by not having the technology prevalent.

Perhaps, but this would be a hollow comfort to the people they were attacking.

My point was that it'll probably be the nations that understand the tech and are more leery of it that are more likely to have it in such numbers anyway.

But the large gang would take serious damage in this. It might take out a few nations that way, but it's strength would eventually crumble.

But not before the gang won.

If you seriously believe that your various Planet Busters are so dangerous, shouldn't you dismantle all of them? Shouldn't you destroy all of their documents, delete all that information from your records, so they can not easily be built again?

That you have been around thousands and thousands of years, and developed these terrible things, gives us little confidence in the power of time to make people more reasonable.

The vikings wouldn't have the technology to use nuclear weapons, and we doubt that they would if they were common. They had councils and that sort of thing, the raiding/berserking thing wasn't the entire culture.

And any nation that tried to build a Planet Buster and aim it at earth would have every other nation on earth in a mad panic to stop them.

Actually, you can do quite a bit with simulations and test animals.
As could we with your technology. In fact, with your technology, we could probably do better simulations.


It ends in the same way on both paths. One side always ends up massacred.

But if you know someone can hit back, you are less likely to hit in the first place.

Depends on where you hit the nuke. Try not shooting the warhead.
So the warhead can fall to the ground and explode there?

As for other weapons: They have their problems with trying to take them out. But those are problems it is best to have to not worry about by not having the technology prevalent.
The best defense is a good knowledge of what those weapons entail.

My point was that it'll probably be the nations that understand the tech and are more leery of it that are more likely to have it in such numbers anyway.
Or be extremely militaristic.


But not before the gang won.
Rather Pyrrhic victory, we think. Not to mention which, it would likely fall apart rather quickly once it started to take serious damage.

If you seriously believe that your various Planet Busters are so dangerous, shouldn't you dismantle all of them? Shouldn't you destroy all of their documents, delete all that information from your records, so they can not easily be built again?

All we did was overpower a graviton cannon and introduce a new shield protocol to create the cannons. Dismantling them and destroying all of the data doesn't prevent them from ever being built again. Besides, once you have a weapon, discarding it isn't wise. If you have it and are familiar with it, you can watch for others creating it as well.

That you have been around thousands and thousands of years, and developed these terrible things, gives us little confidence in the power of time to make people more reasonable.

That we haven't turned them on you in sheer annoyance should give you that confidence back. A less cautious nation wouldn't have argued this long, but simply destroyed your nation and moved on. But those less patient nations that have this tech don't deal with more primitive nations because you don't have anything to threaten them with, which will change if this proposal becomes UN law.

The vikings wouldn't have the technology to use nuclear weapons, and we doubt that they would if they were common. They had councils and that sort of thing, the raiding/berserking thing wasn't the entire culture.

The sword was common in their day and they still used it.

And any nation that tried to build a Planet Buster and aim it at earth would have every other nation on earth in a mad panic to stop them.

Only if the nations recognized it for what it is. If they use the DLE variety, it'll just look like a modified graviton cannon.

Mad race to save the planet from total destruction; sounds like fun.
Currently, there is only one planet buster cannon. It, and most of the technology behind where it is, is hidden. I don't know where it is, only the high chancellor, and a select comittee of chancellors apointed by the people, do, although I would guess it would only be accessable by some series of secret wormholes. There is a possibility we may need the threat of this weapon to ensure our survival.
Understand that to us you seem like a small child demanding to have daddy's hand grenades. Now one day, when you develop these technologies, you will be ready to handle them. We might even help you along with that. But to just give you our weapons would be a very bad idea.

As could we with your technology. In fact, with your technology, we could probably do better simulations.

Not really. It's pretty routine and easily simulated with modern tech.

But if you know someone can hit back, you are less likely to hit in the first place.

No, I'm more likely to make the first hit count.

So the warhead can fall to the ground and explode there?

Better there than in the air. The ground acts as a bit of a buffer against the explosion and directs it. Besides, you're assuming impact-detonation nukes. Not all are of that kind.

The best defense is a good knowledge of what those weapons entail.

The best defense is not to have to deal with the other side's offense.

Or be extremely militaristic.

I am extremely militaristic. You don't see me going around and blowing up planets for the fun...

You don't see me going around and blowing up inhabited planets for the fun of it.

Rather Pyrrhic victory, we think. Not to mention which, it would likely fall apart rather quickly once it started to take serious damage.

Maybe. Maybe not. I wouldn't be so sure.

Hey! You wrote a proposal. Cool! But the Once-and-Future Delegate of Chaotica must echo a few of DemonLordEnigma's comments, as a fellow FT nation. The problem with sharing military technology is that there are plenty of people I know of who shouldn't ever be anywhere near a Hammer of Raijin (or if they are, it's because it's activated and beginning its destructive program). The Hammer, in its simplest form, is a molecular dissociator that breaks chemical bonds, absorbs the energy released, and uses that energy to break more chemical bonds. The tricky parts are building and calibrating one. Krioval has seven of them right now, and we make a new one about every few months or so.

Could the proposal be limited to technology in the non-military sector?

I have to agree with both parties (DLE and BSF) on this one... This was one of the reason I assisted in the founding of GEDRA (Galactic Exploratory, Defense and Research Alliance)... To share exploration and research amongst space-farers... Alot of FTL technologies rely on acurate charting of space... thus making "Exploration" difficult... By sharing navigational and exploritory duties amongst several classes of space-farers, we effectively increase and pool duties for providing charts and navigational aids to all members. We also operate a PPT (Protected Planets Treaty) which includes Terra/Earth... so that technologically inferior nations have a defensive option, in that the Alliance will pool resources to push back invaders from the planets under the Treaty [Godular, Shadow Tech, New Exodus and I share in these duties]... Thus, I can see the need for sharing... We, however, do not extend as far as sharing actual propulsion technologies... Much of it for engineering reasons... Kraskinov based FTL requires tons of exotic materials, and massive power to operate, that many other members do not have access to or what not... In some cases, many are leary of other forms of FTL outside of their own scope of use [for example, we dislike the use of warp and hyperspace, because of limits it has regarding navigation, while many are leary of our Kraskinov because of its potentiality of abuse of the Temporal Accord... In addition to the size and power-requirements]... For example, under this provision, we could be required to supply information regarding the Kraskinov to a non-member of the Temporal Accord; who then could be free to abuse the technology for altering the time-stream... Such has occured before, but on accident, when one of our experimental vessels "Gated" several thousand years into the past because of an overload.... Though luckily it did so into extra-galactic space... And thus there was no violation of the time-stream...

As for weapons technoligies... Larger and bigger weapons are rarely developed for "planet busting" capabilities... A single Tekanian Kali class Sector Control vessel has enough firepower to level Earth... Not because we developed such to do so... but because it needs the defense towards other races which would...

I would say, however, that since this provision is for information only, and not equipment; that this is all relatively safe...

While we still think that distributing military technology as well as non-military technology is a good idea, we will revise the proposal to only conclude non-military technology at this point.

However, we may try to get a similar military-technology centered proposal through later if we can find the support.

EDIT: New draft version. Does this look satisfactory?

My personal thought is, if it's restricted to non-military science and technology, it's a lot better. A RL parallel would be the scientific community. Most scientists (in the US, anyway), receive some level of federal funding for their research, but agree to make all findings public and readily available. Krioval deals with this by dividing up the Directorships. "Science and Industry" will typically oversee research that will end up public, while "Domestic Security" or "Military Forces" will be charged with classified research. Then there's the really sensitive stuff, which is placed directly under the Commander's auspice, and basically consists of individual researchers being completely unaware of who is working on which aspects of a given project.

If it's non-classified, we typically allow the idea to be exported, simply because our economy benefits from others' curiosity. Sometimes a non-classified scientific principle is freely available while some of its applications are restricted. A prime example of this is that Dimensional Theory has been repeatedly published in Kriovalian scientific journals while the Transdimensional Drive is restricted to a small subset of corporations and the government of Krioval. Trade secrets are another thorny issue, in that regard as well.

Overall, I think this idea has promise, especially given the Universal Library, which can readily disseminate information to most UN member nations. Mandating a publication standard and a timetable for the release of non-classified (or non-military) technology seems to me to be a good thing.