MILITARY APPLICATIONS OF NANOTECHNOLOGY : CHALLENGES FOR ARMS

CONTROL (by David HAY-EDIE, IPB Consultant)

Dr Jurgen Altmann,( Professor of Experimental Physics, University of Dortmund,

Germany)

The Geneva Forum, 28 November, 2007

Dr Altmann gave an overview of the potentially dangerous military applications of

current progress in nanotechnology research – and the consequent need to
develop new arms control arrangements. A technological revolution is on the
horizon, brought about by the prospect of engineering at the sub-microscopic level
of the atom. While not immediately imminent, the first full applications of the new
technology could become reality in one or two decades. However, already
“miniaturisation” is gathering pace. The new technology is based on very lightweight,
and formidably strong, materials such as carbon.

While most of the research into military applications of nanotechnology is taking

place in the US, most other major countries have some such research. It is in the
interests of the US, although so far ahead, to agree on international constraints since
even “assymetrical” threats to the US from developing countries would be
destabilizing.

Dr Altmann stressed that there are a variety of positive potential benefits from
nanotechnology outside the military sphere. The most obvious is medical, in
microsurgery and in fighting against diseases such as cancer. Some of the benefits
will be to improve human physical performance. Much of this will come from micro-
robots – microscopic machines which will be placed in the bloodstream. These
“micro-robots” are also one of the main potential military developments.

Dr Altmann described a wide variety of military applications. Amongst those he cited

were: microscopic “self destruct” robots that, inserted into enemy weapons or
information technology, could neutralize or destroy them; miniature missiles about 30
cm long, that could be carried in women’s handbags; tiny self-replicating
destructive machines; microscopic agents for insertion into “enemy” bodies and
brains that would turn those persons, eg soldiers, into robots controllable for military
purposes; miniature lasers capable of destroying satellites; and miniature military
satellites. The potential for terrorist, as well as conventional military, application is
obvious.

It will be a complex task to devise the right sort of arms control arrangements to meet
these threats. Certain existing treaties, which already have rudimentary provisions on
nanotechnology, could be developed further, through eg Final Statements in
Review Conferences. Such treaties include the Biological Weapons Convention
(BWC) and the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). The Conventional Forces in
Europe (CFE) Treaty could also be adapted.
Some of these threats, in Dr Altmann’s view, require outright bans (in a similar manner
to space weapons), or moratoria. One problem is that the boundaries are blurred
between the sciences involved – physics, biology and chemistry. The option of a
comprehensive treaty would run into such problems. Some of the rationale will be
“preventive arms control”, ie banning military applications before they leave the
research stage. Some Treaty models exist, eg the Inhumane Weapons Convention’s
ban on certain laser weapons, the Test ban Treaty, the Landmines Treaty and the
(defunct) ABM Treaty. Miniaturisation makes treaty verification more difficult, and
could mean that verification needs to be more intrusive – another potential problem.
It may be more difficult to achieve transparency.

Aside from the military threats of nanotechnology, Dr Altmann added that there are
fears that the creation of self-replicating robots could run amok. These machines
could turn against their masters, take over, and destroy the earth. Science Fiction
could come true. Moreover, there are many ethical reasons to oppose a variety of
potential developments of nanotechnology. Tampering with human genes and
organisms can easily be used for evil purposes.

There was a lively Question-And-Answer session after Dr Altmann’s talk. Amongst the
points raised were the following: the immediate priority is to raise public awareness
of the threats - Dr Altmann is one of the very few in this field; an early ban could be
achieved (on strong ethical grounds) on any application that could involve the
physical and mental manipulation of human beings, and deliberate killing of humans
by controlled machines; a UN Review Panel could be set up, to help raise awareness
and propose ways ahead; more scientists could be encouraged to engage
themselves in this and similar arms control/disarmament fields – there is a lack of
interplay between the relevant scientists and the political leaders, political
representatives, civil society institutions and bureaucrats involved.

A report by Dr Altmann on this topic can be downloaded at:

http://www.bundesstiftung-friedensforschung.de/pdf-docs/berichtaltmann.pdf.