NationStates Jolt Archive

The Military Use of Nanotechnology
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Community Property

Description: We, the People of these United Nations, in recognition of the need to secure the world from the danger of weapons whose use might pose an unacceptable risk to everyone, do hereby declare that certain applications of nanotechnology shall not employed in waging war.

I. No Member Nation may utilize nanotechnology as a weapon of war, except as provided below.

A. For medicinal purposes, without limitation.

B. To remove toxins and biological contaminants from the environment.

C. To repair structures and equipment.

D. For the construction of structures and facilities.

E. To neutralize any and all applications of nanotechnology not expressly authorized by this resolution.

F. None of the exceptions listed above shall apply in any case where said application results to direct harm to any sapient entity.

II. No Member Nation may research, develop, or conduct trade in any prohibited application of nanotechnology, except where a permitted dual use exists.

III. All Member Nations who research, develop, conduct trade in, maintain in inventory, deploy, or use nanotechnology as permitted by this resolution shall endeavor to take reasonable measures to prevent its prohibited use.

IV. These prohibitions shall not apply in any case where they would interfere with or duplicate the effects of prior legislation enacted by this body, for so long as such legislation should remain in force.

This we do in full recognition of the universal right of all Nations to provide for their own defense, with the government of each Member Nation declaring that it need not violate these prohibitions in order to exercise this right.

Character Count: 1675

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 124 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Not Yet SubmittedComments?

I'd include something in the preamble letting us know why exactly nanotechnology is such a teh badness in war.

St Jello Biafra;11972660']I'd include something in the preamble letting us know why exactly nanotechnology is such a teh badness in war.Yes, the preamble is a recognized problem; it'll change in the next draft.

What do people think about the exceptions, especially Article I-E?

Nanotech "weapons" are the wet dream of sci-fi authors, but hardly a pressing concern. The logistics involved makes them largely useless for any military application.

We'd suggest a good definition of nanotechnolgy be added. Without it, we're afraid debate on the proposal would just be loaded up with arguing about what the term means.

We can't see how the uses listed in A, B, and C could be considered using nanotechnology as a weapon. We have no problem with listing them as exceptions to the provisions of the proposal, but the current structure of Clause I is unfortunate.

Clause E... This may need rewording. Are there peaceful uses (or potential uses) of nanotechnology not listed in A through D? If so, Clause E would authorize use of nanotechnology to attack them. Perhaps "prohibited" would be better than "not expressly authorized".

On Clause IV.... Is there any standing legislation that could be contradicted by this proposal? This is an issue that should be resolved by careful examination of the existing resolutions. If there isn't, the clause should be deleted.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Nanotech "weapons" are the wet dream of sci-fi authors, but hardly a pressing concern. The logistics involved makes them largely useless for any military application.

We're being pulled to that small moon!
That's no moon kid, that is a Cluchistani Battlestation!!!

The title is likely too long. When I first read it, I wasn't sure if it was a global disarmament proposal or international security. I've only glanced it over, but the subject matter is interesting.

II. No Member Nation may research, develop, or conduct trade in any prohibited application of nanotechnology, except where a permitted dual use exists.

III. All Member Nations who research, develop, conduct trade in, maintain in inventory, deploy, or use nanotechnology as permitted by this resolution shall endeavor to take reasonable measures to prevent its prohibited use.

The first section is about the legal uses of nanotechnology. These two sections are about the research. If you like this format, I'd suggest calling this articles and using that crazy "section" symbol -- and giving each section a key word:

"Permitted Uses"

"Research and Development Guidelines"

The truth is you only have two operating sections ... but that is OK.

Nanotech "weapons" are the wet dream of sci-fi authors, but hardly a pressing concern. The logistics involved makes them largely useless for any military application.Maybe, maybe not (http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/03/military_uses_o.html); I wouldn't be surprised if somebody somewhere has a prototype disassembler. Not that they can control it yet if they do...

They're a logical successor to biological weaponry, and could be delivered is some of the same ways bioweapons can.

What's the joke in the research community: “Nanoweapons are ten years away, fifteen years if we're lucky?”

As for the other comments, keep 'em coming. This is a very rough first draft

Maybe, maybe not (http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/03/military_uses_o.html); I wouldn't be surprised if somebody somewhere has a prototype disassembler.Uh-huh. Just have to get the nanites to the target, keep them from overheating in a microsecond, keep them from eating everything between here and there, have a way to actually "disassemble" things (whatever that means), and then do something with the disassembled stuff.

They're a logical successor to biological weaponry, and could be delivered is some of the same ways bioweapons can.No they aren't, and no they can't.

What's the joke in the research community: “Nanoweapons are ten years away, fifteen years if we're lucky?”I wager it's more like "You actually got someone to fund you?"

Counterlink (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Myths/Nanotech.html). Scroll down to Anti-Ship Weaponry and Anti-Personnel Weaponry.

Not to say this is illegal or anything, but I think it's as worth legislating on as a Protection From Dholes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhole_(Cthulhu_Mythos)) act would be.

Whilst I don't know much about nanotech, I'm wondering why the need to pick out military use specifically. Why not more generally prohibit destructive use of the technology

Also, "as a weapon of war" is not defined.

And at the risk of sinking into another legalistic squabble, I would have a different view of what your clause IV would do: I simply think it would mean the resolution would not come into effect until UNSA was repealed. It would be better to do the whole "not necessary" polka.

~Rono Pyandran
etc.

OOC: I'm sorry, but my keyboard is so fucked right now I can't even get the cursor back to add a question mark after first para.

Defining nanotechnology would probably be a good idea... if it closes loopholes rather than opening them.

I had some concern with some aspects, until I reached clause I-F. Which tidies things up quite neatly.

We support.


Dr. Sergei V. Telkijski,
Itinerant Ambassador,
PDSRA

Whilst I don't know much about nanotech, I'm wondering why the need to pick out military use specifically. Why not more generally prohibit destructive use of the technology?

OOC: I'm sorry, but my keyboard is so fucked right now I can't even get the cursor back to add a question mark after first para.

OOC: Question mark added for you in the quote. ;)

IC: Because, clearly, we must tie the hands of the military, for it is TEH EVIL!!!!1one

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Nanotech "weapons" are the wet dream of sci-fi authors, but hardly a pressing concern. The logistics involved makes them largely useless for any military application.

Seems to me that this sounds a lot like what was said about nuclear weapons and space-based weapons back a few decades ago. I might agree that the need may not be "pressing", but aren't there future-tech nations in the NSUN?

Anselm G. Blorck
Major General, Army of Ausserland
Deputy Minister (National Security Affairs)

Seems to me that this sounds a lot like what was said about nuclear weapons and space-based weapons back a few decades ago. I might agree that the need may not be "pressing", but aren't there future-tech nations in the NSUN?

Anselm G. Blorck
Major General, Army of Ausserland
Deputy Minister (National Security Affairs)

Yes. We're one of them. Of course, our Empire exists in an alternate dimension where some of the laws of physics are different, but that's beside the point. The technological aspect of this resolution is not relevant, it's necessity is.

I cannot see the "pressing need" for this resolution, other than a slightly misguided fear that we will all be consumed by a giant mob of grey nanites. Granted, it's a valid fear to have, but one that is entirely inappropriate to legislate about. There is a much more "pressing need" to outlaw chemical weapons, at least according to those who did not support the UAA.

To summarize, we don't believe that this is a necessary piece of legislation.

OOC: I'll be away from my computer and out of town for the next weeks, but by all means keep the comments coming. I'll read all the comments and integrate them into the next draft (or tell you why I'm not integrating them) sometime next week.

I think we can write a resolution that preserves the ability of nations to use nanotechnology in ways that do not pose the risk of uncontrolled collateral or lasting environmental effects without eliminating legitimate and non-harmful uses (eg., the use of nanotechnology to manufacture body armor make of “buckyfiber”, or its use as an ancillary to materials science, etc.)

(I'll address Hack's comments when I get back; I'll just say for now that I largely agree with the article he cited [my FT nation has actually faced an attempted deployment of “ship eaters” and used some of the tactics suggested to defeat the attack; and like the author of that article, I think that entire concept to be pretty stupid], but that the article does leave holes that a nation at war could obviously exploit; then, too, molecular engines don't have to be made of metals - they could be made of organic materials [basically, faux viruses] and could use host resources [living protein, soil nutrients, etc.] for fuel.)

Also not the clause permitting the use of NT to defend against NT. I feel that this insulates us from the argument that “those evil 'rouge' nations are going to use NT on us, we need NT to retaliate”. If U.N. nations can neutralize NT, they need not fear it. Needless to say, I'd like people's thoughts on this approach and comments on how to better provide this capability.

In my eyes, the big problem with NT, chemicals, bioweapons, mines, environmental warfare, etc., is lasting collateral damage. I'm not a big fan of the idea that taking a bullet is better than getting gassed, irradiated, or whatever; pain is pain, and death is death (well, there are limits; needlessly cruel weapons should be banned, IMNSHO). Rather, to me, the unifying themes here are control and persistence. Force should be (relatively) precise and - perhaps more importantly - something whose use ends when the war ends. There's no real point to continuing damage; once the war is won, it's won.

Anyway, keep the comments coming. My goal is not to deny nations weapons they need, but to reduce the risk of widespread damage to combatant and neutral alike.

Nanotech is not that effective as a weapon. What it can make is-- fullerenes, antimaterial weapons, all kinds of unique goods and materials.

@ComProp: I think it's a pretty good resolution for the subject matter; the only gripe I have is the title of it.

Try something like "Nanotech Military Usage Accord" or "Militarized Nanotechnology Agreement".

Seems to me that this sounds a lot like what was said about nuclear weapons and space-based weapons back a few decades ago.Swing and a miss.

It's not a matter of technology level, it's a matter of physics and thermodynamics. Without a drastic shift in reality, they will never be an effective or useful weapon. Or, really, useful for much of anything outside of medicine and computing. "Tiny" doesn't necessarily mean "better".

Again, this applies to so few nations, we might as well start on our Protection From Guiron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guiron) Act.

But, meh. Just strikes me as so much bad science. Regardless, I'm bowing out of this debate. With both accounts.

I think it's as worth legislating on as a Protection From Dholes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhole_(Cthulhu_Mythos)) act would be.

we might as well start on our Protection From Guiron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guiron) Act.
On it. Should be easy enough to combine that into a "Protection from Fictional Monsters" blocker or something.

Indeed. Why just Guiron? Why not Barugon, Gyaos, Viras, Jiger and Zigra, too? And then, of course, there's also Ghidorah, Ebirah, Kumonga, Kamacuras, Hedorah, Gigan, Megalon...