SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 065 STCMT 05 E Original: English NAT O   Pa rl i a me n t a ry  As s e mb l y SUB-COMMITTEE ON PROLIFERATION OF MILITARY TECHNOLOGY THE SECURITY IMPLICATIONS OF NANOTECHNOLOGY DRAFT REPORT LOTHAR IBRÜGGER (G  ERMANY) RAPPORTEUR* International Secretariat 15 April 2005 * Until  this  document  has  been  approved  by  the  Science  and  Technology  Committee,  it represents only the views of the Rapporteur. Assembly documents are available on its website, http://www.nato-pa.int

065 STCMT 05 E i TABLE OF CONTENTS I. DEVELOPMENT OF NANOTECHNOLOGY .............................................................1 II. POTENTIAL NON-MILITARY ADVERSE EFFECTS OF NANOTECHNOLOGY ......2 III. MILITARY USES OF NANOTECHNOLOGY .............................................................4 IV. IMPLICATIONS ON MILITARY STRATEGIES AND THE BALANCE OF POWER...5 V. IMPLICATIONS    ON    INTERNATIONAL    NON-PROLIFERATION    AND    ARMS CONTROL REGIMES ...............................................................................................7 A. PRECAUTIONARY AND LIBERTARIAN APPROACHES............................................. 7 1. Precautionary approach....................................................................................... 7 2. Libertarian approach............................................................................................ 8 B. CHANGING ARMS-CONTROL REGIMES? ................................................................. 8 1. Adjusting the existing treaties .............................................................................. 8 2. New international initiatives ................................................................................. 9 C. NATIONAL LEGISLATION ......................................................................................... 10 D. SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTION.................................................................................... 11 VI. CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................12

065 STCMT 05 E 1 I. DEVELOPMENT OF NANOTECHNOLOGY 1. Nanotechnology  (NT)  can  be  described  as  the  manipulation  of  materials  or  devices  at  the nanometer scale (one billionth of a meter), often at the level of individual atoms and molecules. NT is  considered  to  be  the  next  fundamental  revolution  in  technology,  because  it  enables  the exploitation of distinct laws of physics, different from those of classical Newtonian physics. At the nanoscale,  the  laws  of  quantum  mechanics  are  applied.  The  importance  of  gravity  diminishes, while the importance of forces existing among elementary particles increases. 2. It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  the  arrangement  of  atoms  may  change  the  properties  of materials. For instance, a diamond and a piece of coal consist of identical coal atoms with different arrangement, in the same way as an analogical difference exists between a crowd of people and an  orderly  column  of  soldiers.  Re-arranging  atoms  may  result  in  materials  becoming  stronger, lighter, more energy-efficient, or a better at conducting electricity. The most illustrious example is carbon nanotubes, discovered in 1991 that possess unusual strength and electrical properties. 3. Another way to alter the properties of materials is to add small amounts of nanoparticles. At the  nanoscale,  particles  behave  differently  –  they  might  have  another  colour  or  different  electric characteristics than when in bulk amount. Thus, for example, by adding nanoparticles of clay to a polymer   used   to   wrap   power   lines,   one   might   increase   material’s   strength   and   reduce   it flammability. 4. Perhaps  the  most  interesting  avenue  of  NT  development  is  its  potential  to  revolutionalise manufacturing, introducing a new concept of assembly where products are constructed from the bottom-up—that  is,  from  atoms  and  molecule  s—to  create  objects  of  virtually  any  volume  and shape. While this revolution is still far in the future, scientists today have yet to find any laws of physics that would prove such developments impossible. 5. The development of NT was predicted as long ago as 1959 by Richard P.Feynman, widely seen  as  one  of  the  greatest  physicists  of  the  20^th  century.  In  his  famous  presentation  "There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom" to the American Physical Society, he stated that "the principles of physics, as far as I can see, do not speak against the possibility of manoeuvring things atom by atom."  More  than  twenty  years  later,  in  1986,  K.  Eric  Drexler  coined  the  term  "nanotechnology" and  advocated  its  feasibility  in  Engines  of  Creation:  The  Coming  Era  of  Nanotechnology,  which would later become a classic. 6. Today,  NT  is  a  reality.  Scientists  succeeded  in  producing  nanomaterials  in  a  number  of ways.  The  most  popular  technique  remains  “downsizing,”  or  creating  a  nanomaterial  from  top down  (for  example,  by  etching  a  silicon  microchip).  Conversely,  an  example  of  a  “bottom -up” approach  would  be  the  synthesis  of  carbon  nanotubes  using  techniques  like  Chemical  Vapour Deposition, which is familiar to all chipmakers. Nanoparticles can also be manipulated individually by special tools, such as the scanning tunnel microscope (STM) and the atomic force microscope (AFM), and their improved versions. Yet another method is to harness the power of DNA to create a self-assembling nanoscale transistor, the building block of electronics. 7. However, construction by moving individual atoms is not yet suitable for mass production, as the process remains cumbersome and time-consuming. Therefore, a number of NT researchers, led  by  Drexler,  have  backed  the  idea  of  molecular  nanotechnology  (MNT), which might be even considered as the only true NT. In a MNT, objects would be constructed by tiny nanorobots, which would  also  be  capable  of  assembling  themselves,  just  like  cells  in  the  organic  world.  The  MNT could dramatically change a pattern of manufacturing, enabling mankind to produce virtually any quantity  of  high-quality  products  in  an  inexpensive  and  ecological  manner.  However,  such  self- replicating nanoassemblers have yet to be invented.  Moreover, scientists like Nobel Prize winner Richard Smalley have questioned their feasibility. Currently, a different model of three-dimensional

065 STCMT 05 E 2 “convergent  assembly”  looks  more  plausible–  products  could  be  created  from  bottom-up  on different levels of assembly lines. That is, the smallest elements would be assembled into larger parts, these larger parts in turn can be assembled into still larger parts, and so forth, until the final product is complete. The elements would be assembled by robots of different sizes, depending on the level of assembly line. 8. A   number   of   countries   and   private   companies   are   investing   heavily   in   NT   research. According  to  the  assessment  of  Lux  Research,  a  US  nanotechnology  consultancy,  the  total spending  on  nanotechnology  R&D  worldwide  exceeded  $8.6  billion  in  2004.  Federal  funding  for nanotechnology  R&D  has  increased  sixfold  from  1997  to  2004.  The  US  government  will  spend almost  $1  billion  within  the  framework  of  its  National  Nanotechnology  Initiative  (NNI)  in  2005, making   NT   the   largest   American   scientific   programme   funded   from   the   federal   budget— surpassing  even  the  Human  Genome  Project  by  a  considerable  sum.  Japan  is  also  investing aggressively, as well as other biggest European and Asian economies. Developing countries such as India, China, South Africa and Brazil, have also joined the race. While government investment in NT has, so far, exceeded that of private companies, Lux predicts that this proportion is likely to change in the future. 9. At  this  point,  NT's  practical  application  is  mostly  limited  to  producing  computer  chips, chemicals  and  precision  manufacturing.  Enhanced  sunscreens,  improved  cosmetics,  stronger tennis   rackets,   self-cleaning   windows,   fuel   additives,   more   sensitive   optics,   more   powerful computers  –are  only  few  examples  of  growing  list  of  practical  NT  applications.  Many  scientists believe that the use of NT will increase dramatically within next decades, spreading into practically all areas of life. According to the prediction of the British Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, NT will noticeably improve a range of products within next few years. Aside from its revolutionary implications for manufacturing, NT has the potential to effect substantial changes in a  number  of  fields,  including  medicine,  IT,  energy  policies,  and  military.  While  NT  enthusiasts believe  it  will  eventually  be  able  to  eradicate  the  most  acute  problems  of  the humanity, such as famine,  pollution,  and  fatal  diseases,  others  warn  of  possible  misuse  or  side-effects  that  could result  in  immense  disasters.  Given  the  magnitude  of  NT's  potential,  the  possible  effects  of NT-driven innovation should be seriously addressed by society and politicians. II. POTENTIAL NON-MILITARY ADVERSE EFFECTS OF NANOTECHNOLOGY 10. A number of scholars, impressed by the revolutionary nature of NT, have already initiated a far-reaching  discussion  on  its  possible  negative  effects.  Besides  the  potential  “hard”  security implications—  which will be addressed in the next chapter of this report—the misuse of NT could also harm the environment, society and individual human beings. Effects on environment. "The Grey Goo" The potential impact of the environment raises exceptional concerns, as nanoparticles may constitute  whole  new  classes  of  pollutants.  As  long  as  nanoparticles  are  embedded  in common materials (as most of them are in contemporary nanoindustry), they are unlikely to pose  any  particular  environmental  threat.  However,  as  NT  advances  in  the  future,  larger quantities of pure nanomaterials could be produced. Risks involve the uncontrolled release of nanoparticles, whose potential effect on ecosystems, the environment and the food chain remains  largely  unexplored  and  untested.  The  most  drastic  scenario  of  possible  adverse effects  on  the  environment  -  the  grey-goo  scenario  -  was  introduced  by  Drexler,  and  it maintains  that  molecular  NT  would  one  day  become  a  reality,  and  most  of  manufacturing would be done by tiny nanorobots. These robots would also have to be self-replicating, and Drexler warned that their replication may get out of control. These autonomous nanorobots could  rapidly  convert the whole global natural environment into replicas of themselves, the

065 STCMT 05 E 3 “grey  goo”,  consisting  of  the  “nanomass”.  Such  a  scenario  is  also  termed  the  “global ecophagy”. Many scientists are extremely sceptical about the plausibility of such a scenario. As  yet,  science  does  not  know  how  to  build  a  self-replicating  robot.  It  is  not  clear,  for example,  how  those  robots  would  obtain  the  energy  to  survive.  However,  following  the precautionary principle, one should not disregard concerns regarding nanorobots as long as they have not been refuted for fundamental or technical reasons. Toxicity of nanoparticles More  realistic  concerns  are  related  to  the  potential  toxicity  of  nanoparticles.  Indeed,  in  the realm  of  the  nanoworld,  the  surface/volume  ratio  of  particles  is  considerably  higher  that  in bulk materials, thereby making them far more reactive and potentially hazardous. Being so tiny,  these  particles  could  be  able  to  penetrate  cells,  including  blood  and  brain  cells, adversely affect them, and disturb human immune system. Carbon nanotubes, for instance, are  similar  to  asbestos  fibres,  and  could  pose  similar  risks  to  lung  health.    In  its  famous report, Britain's Royal Society urged a thorough examination of the toxicity of nanomaterials and  recommended  that  they  be  regulated  as  new  chemicals  under  existing  UK  and  EU legislation.  However,  Britain's  Royal  Society  also  pointed  out  that nanoparticles have been used for years, in areas such as computer technology or fuel additives, without causing any harm.   The  toxicity  of  nanoparticles  could,  on  the  other  hand,  have  positive  effects,  most notably in medicine. For example, the ability to penetrate cell walls of human body could be used to deliver drugs to certain locations with unprecedented accuracy. Nanodevices could also   target   and   selectively   destroy   cancerous   cells.   Still,   more   information   about   the toxicology of nanomaterials is urgently needed. Human body manipulation This  controversial  issue  is  likely  to  have  significant  ethical  implications.  Tiny  nanoimplants might  be  designed  in  order  to  improve  human  body  performance.  Enhancing  human  brain performance  is  a  particularly  delicate  issue.  While  the  neuro-functional  nanodevices  may help healing paralysed people with spinal cord injuries, their emergence would inevitably stir passionate  discussions  about  “melding  of  man  and  machine”.  The  specific  regulations should be adopted by the society in order to keep these developments under public control. Nano-divide Many  nations  are  already  witnessing  an  IT  divide  that  correlates  with  inequality  in  the distribution   of   wealth.   This   gap   is   likely   to   be   exacerbated   by   the   nanotechnological revolution,  forming  a  so-called  “nano -divide.”  The  transition  from  a  pre-nano  to  post-nano world could be very traumatic and could worsen the problem of haves vs. have-nots. Such differences are likely to be striking. The National Science Foundation (NSF) supports these sentiments:  “Those  who  participate  in  the  nano  revolution  stand  to  become  very  wealthy. Those who do not may find it increasingly difficult to afford the technological wonders that it engenders.” Privacy The   miniaturisation   of   technology,   facilitated   by   nanotechnology,   is   likely   to   lead   to emergence   of   super-small   and   virtually   invisible   video   cameras,   microphones   and transmitters. Thus eavesdropping and observing people without their consent could become significantly easier, consequently seriously jeopardising their right to privacy. 11. Societal  and  environmental  implications  of  emerging  NT  have  already  attracted  attention from   various   pressure   groups   and   NGOs.   Some   groups   increasingly   call   for   a   complete

065 STCMT 05 E 4 moratorium  on  the  use  of  nanoparticles:  for  example,  the  Corporate  Watch—a  British  advocacy organization—  produced  a  report  on  the  “darkside  of  nanotech:  hazardous  substances,  military applications  and  a  huge  leap  in  corporate  power”.  Debates  can  significantly  influence  broader public opinion, as was in the case of genetically modified (GM) food. 12. However,  there  are  certain  reasons  to  believe  that  NT  could  be  accepted  easier  than  GM food.  Many  environmentalists  see  potential  environmental  benefits  of  NT  –  for  instance,  in improving  water  decontamination  techniques,  or  bringing  down  the  cost  of  solar  cells.  Social justice groups may find that NT could be a unique tool to fight poverty and disease. Also, many developing countries—including China, India, Brazil  —are heavily engaged in nanotechnology. III. MILITARY USES OF NANOTECHNOLOGY 13. While  most  of  the  debate  over  NT  focuses  on  its  prospects  for  informatics  and  medicine, potential  military  applications  of  NT  lack  proper  public  attention,  despite  the  fact  that  NT  is becoming  increasingly  important  for  military  strategists.  The  funding  of  military  NT  makes  up  a substantial share of total NT funding. 14. The  United  States  is  the  leader  in  military  R&D  of  NT.  Indeed,  the  US  military  has  been engaged  in  this  field  since  1980s,  focusing  on  ultra-submicron  electronics  and  scanning-probe microscopy.  In  1996,  NT  was  established  as  one  of  six  strategic  research  areas  for  defence. Accordingly,  between  25  and  30%  of  the  United  States  National  Nanotechnology  Initiative  (NNI) funding has gone to the US Department of Defence (DoD) since NNI’s establishment in 2000. In 2005, the DoD is due to receive $276 million for NT, while the Department of Homeland Security will receive an extra and $1 million for this purpose, accounting for approximately 28% of the total US NT budget. The US military R&D is focusing on the development of miniature sensors, high- speed processing, unmanned combat vehicles, improved virtual-reality training, and enhancement of human performance. 15. The  UK  Ministry  of  Defence  (MOD)  is  also  engaged  in  military  R&D  of  NT,  and  allocates approximately £1.5 million per annum to this purpose. Sweden has invested 11 million euros over 5  years  in  military  NT  R&D,  the  EU  had  budgeted  € 65  million  in  2004-2006  to  enhance  the European   industrial   potential   in   the   field   of   security   research.   Even   though   this   does   not specifically mention NT, some of the areas contain NT implications. 16. Most of military NT is still in R&D level. According to Dr. Jü rgen Altmann, one of the most prominent researchers of military NT, it will take between 5 an 20 years for the applications of this research to arrive. One can expect that NT-based soldier-worn systems will be introduced in the near   future.   In   2002,   the   Institute   for   Soldier   Nanotechnology   (ISN)   was   created   at   the Massachusetts  Institute  of  Technology  (MIT),  with  a  five  year  grant  of  $50  million  from  the  US Army grant. The goal of this research centre is to greatly enhance the protection and survival of the infantry soldier, using NT to create a bulletproof battle suit. US army planners are hoping to lighten the load that soldiers carry into battle. These systems could also monitor the state of health of the wearer, improve stamina and reaction, ease or even heal injuries, improve communication abilities, increase soldier’s protection against biological or chemical weapons. 17. Potentially,   NT   could   dramatically   improve   warfare   technology.   Lighter,   stronger,   heat resistant   nanomaterials   could   be   used   in   producing   all   kinds   of   weapons,   making   military transportation  faster,  strengthening  the  armour  and  saving  energy.  Earth  penetrators  could  be created using nanomaterials rather than nuclear material. Qualities of nanomaterials can be used for better camouflage.

065 STCMT 05 E 5 18. Significant  breakthrough  in  electronics,  encouraged  by  NT,  could  result  in  the  creation  of smaller, but very powerful computers, very small sensors and other devices that could be used by the  military  in  a  number  of  ways.  Information  could  be  stored  and  analysed  more  efficiently, intelligence  and  surveillance  capabilities  could  increase  considerably  by  using  nanosensors, precision  of  projectiles  could  reach  extreme  accuracy,  communication  systems  could  become much  more  sophisticated,  as  well  as  virtual  reality  systems  for  training.  Tiny  sensors  or  even nanocomputers  could  be  embedded  in  various  military  items,  munitions,  projectiles  or  uniforms, thus making them “smart”. Some more futuristic visions even foresee development of autonomous fighting robots and military use of artificial intelligence, enabled by the development of NT. 19. It is debatable whether NT could bring significant changes to nuclear weapons, as the laws of physics would still require a critical mass of uranium or plutonium. NT, however, might be used to  improve  arming  or  triggering  systems  of  nuclear  weapons.  On  the  other  hand,  Dr.  André Gsponer, Director of Geneva-based Independent Scientific Research Institute, argues that NT can actually contribute to miniaturisation and safety of nuclear bombs, by offering heat- and radiation- resistant  materials.  Thus  NT  might  be  used  to  create  the  fourth-generation  nuclear  weapon, i.e. low-yield  “clean”  fusion -fuelled  nuclear  bomb,  which  would  contain  no,  or  very  little,  fissionable material,  and  therefore  would  cause  no  radioactive  fallout  after  detonation.  These  nukes  could potentially be used in earth-penetrating missiles. 20. The   potential   for   NT   innovations   in   chemical   and   biological   weapons   is   particularly disquieting, as NT can considerably enhance delivery mechanisms of agents or toxic substances. The ability of nanoparticles to penetrate the human body and its cells could make biological and chemical  warfare  much  more  feasible,  easier  to  manage  and  direct  against  specific  groups  or individuals. Dr. Sean Howard, one of the most eminent scholars of NT security implications, has even called the threat of chemical and biological warfare a “real nano goo”. 21. On  the  other  hand,  NT  offers  tools  to  effectively  and  profoundly  strengthen  homeland security policies, aimed at fighting the proliferation of biological and chemical weapons. Sensitive, selective  and  inexpensive  NT-based  sensors  could  detect  and  bind  components  of  chemical, biological   or   radiological   weapons   on   the   atomic   or   molecular   level,   thanks   to   the   large surface/volume ratio of nanoparticles. This is very important, as some agents can be lethal even in minuscule quantities. Chemical and biological defence systems with nanosensors could be placed in public places, such as schools or government buildings, public transportation systems, military assets,  and  border-crossing  sites.  Finally,  nanodevices  could  also  be  used  to  decontaminate places or individuals affected by chemical or biological weapons. IV. IMPLICATIONS ON MILITARY STRATEGIES AND THE BALANCE OF POWER 22. The  effects  of  NT  on  military  strategies,  as  well  as  possible  implications  for  existing international arms-control agreements, receive inappropriate attention from contemporary thinkers. Only few publicly available studies have been produced on this issue, with those from Dr. Altmann, Sean Howard, André Gsponer among the most oft -cited. 23. In  1995,  Admiral  David  Jeremiah,  former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated that  "military  applications  of  molecular  manufacturing  have  even  greater  potential  that  nuclear weapons  to  radically  change  the  balance  of  power."  Indeed,  states  that  possess  more  efficient, NT-based powerful data-processing systems and all-pervading sensor nets can obtain significant advantage in the age of information technologies and warfare. Arms races are to be expected. In years to come, Dr. Altmann predicts that the US will remain in the lead, though some states will follow   just   a   few   years   behind.   According   to   him,   “in   anticipation,   the   USA   will   work   on countermeasures  at  the  early  stage.  Others  might  react  by  increased  reliance  on  asymmetric warfare, including attacks against infrastructure or using weapons of mass destruction.”

065 STCMT 05 E 6 24. Changes in military strategy will thus be inevitable. Dr. Altmann warns that military decision- making could become increasingly autonomous with the development of NT, because “waiting for human  pondering  could  lead  to  clear  disadvantages.  Unintended  action-reaction  cycles  might evolve between opponents/ systems of warning and attack.” With respect to the effectiveness of NT-enabled  defence  vs.  offence,  Dr.  Altman  sees  no  indications  of  defence  supremacy,  and therefore "counter-attack and preventive attack will likely play an important role in armed conflict." 25. If  the  molecular  NT  scenario  of  self-replicating  nanomachines  becomes  feasible,  these dangers could be significantly exacerbated. Dr. Altmann describes such a scenario in frightening terms: “partly as a result of their smallness, but mainly owing to their potential for self-replication and  the  production  of  additional  weapons  on site, nanorobots would create extreme uncertainty. Pre-deployment  against  an  opponent  would  be  easier.  The  pressure  to  act  fast  and  to  use automated  decision-making  would  grow.  Unintended  action-reaction  cycles  could  work  on  all levels, from molecules to large-scale decision-making. Motives for preventive attacks would exist for  both  technologically  leading  and  technologically  lagging  powers.  Molecular  NT  would  also create unknown arms-race levels as a result of attempts to maintain or increase a technological advantage, or to catch up. The urgency would be greatly increased if one assumes capabilities for fast-growing autonomous military production. In theory, the very first user could achieve a runaway advantage, with ensuing world dominance”. 26. Some  analysts  believe  that  nanoweapons  could  replace  nuclear  weapons  as  new  tools  of strategic deterrence. According to Scott Race of RAND, the potential of NT lies in a greater range of options for the military responses to aggression: 27. ”At   nuclear   conflict   levels,   accurate   nanocomputer   guidance   and   low   nanomachine production costs would accelerate current trends in the proliferation of "smart munitions." Rather than requiring nuclear weapons to attack massive conventional forces or distant, hard targets, NT enhancements  to  cruise  missiles  and  ballistic  missiles  could  allow  them  to  destroy  their  targets with conventional explosives. Conventional explosives themselves might be replaced by molecular disassemblers that would be rapidly effective, but with less unintended destruction to surrounding buildings  and  populations.  President  Reagan's  goal  of  making  nuclear  weapons  ‘impotent  and obsolete’ could be reached not by space-based defences, but by terrestrial nanoweapons making nuclear weapons irrelevant.” 28. Mark Avrum Gubrud of the University of Maryland goes even further, claiming that traditional nuclear  weapons  make  full-size  war  “obsolete”  due  to  the  impossibilityof  attaining  and  sort  of “meaningful  victory”.  In  case  of  NT,  however,  deterrence  becomes  obsolete,  “as  it  will  not  be possible to maintain a stable armed peace between nanotechnologically armed rivals.” 29. As  was  mentioned  in  the  above  chapter,  NT  will  permit  chemical  and  biological  warfare to become more feasible and effective. Even though this kind of warfare is considered immoral and prohibited  by  international  conventions,  NT  will  provide  qualitatively  new  improvements  that  are likely   to   attract   the   attention   of   rogue   elements.   At   this   stage,   it   is   unclear   whether   the countermeasures enabled by NT would prove effective enough to diminish this threat. 30. On a tactical level, NT could notably reduce the need for troop presence, largely thanks to the potential development of nanoscale sensors. According to William Schneider, chairman of the Defense Science Board, "nanoscale sensors have the potential to dispel the fog of war. Richness in  sensors  allows  commanders  to  have  a  complete  picture  of  the  tactical  battlefield.”  S.pa7pce  of RAND  adds  to  this  by  stating  “nanocomputers  may  allow  more  capable  surveillance  of  potential aggressors. The flood of data from worldwide sensors could be culled more efficiently to look for truly  threatening  activities.  In  low-intensity  warfare,  intelligent  sensors  and  barrier  systems  could isolate or channel guerrilla movements depending on the local terrain. In conventional theatre war,

065 STCMT 05 E 7 nanotechnology may lead to small, cheap, highly lethal anti-tank weapons. Such weapons could allow relatively small numbers of infantry to defeat assaults by large armoured forces.” 31. Regardless of changes in technology, however, conventional forces such as air, naval, and ground  forces  will  not  vanish,  as  they  will  still  be  needed  to  perform  their  specific  functions  that they  are  uniquely  suited  to.  The  laws  of  physics,  for  instance,  limit  the  mobility  of  very  small objects. In order to destroy large targets, one will still need massive munitions and carriers. Thus, one could expect development of the mixture of macro- micro- and nanoweapons. V. IMPLICATIONS     ON     INTERNATIONAL     NON-PROLIFERATION     AND     ARMS CONTROL REGIMES A. PRECAUTIONARY AND LIBERTARIAN APPROACHES 32. NT  poses  both  great  opportunities  and  certain  risks.  How  should  nation  states  and  the international  community  deal  with  the  emergence  of  these  opportunities  and  risks?  What  steps should be taken to amend the existing non-proliferation and arms control regimes? In NT-related literature and be roughly grouped in two different approaches – one that calls for moratorium on NT R&D—or even a permanent ban  —an another that advocates further development of NT and all of  its  potential  benefits.  These  two  approaches have been labelled, respectively, “precautionary” (or “sanctuary”) and “libertarian” (or “pro -progress”). 1. Precautionary approach 33. The precautionary principle, in its strict sense, forbids action if there is any risk of a major disaster.  Even  if  benefits  could  be  significant,  the  very  possibility  of  major  disaster  is  seen  as  a sufficient  reason  to  postpone  any  action,  regardless  of  the  costs.  In  other  words,  this  principle follows the Hippocratic Oath: "First, do no harm." 34. The most prominent spokesman for the precautionary view is Bill Joy, despite the fact that he  himself  is  the  founder  of  Sun  Microsystems.  In  April  2000,  in  his  famous  article  in  Wired magazine with the title "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us", Bill Joy rigorously advocated the need to withhold development of 21^st century technologies, such as genetics, NT and robotics. His core argument   was   that   these   technologies,   unlike   cumbersome   weapons   of   the   past,   can   be potentially exercised by irresponsible small groups or even individuals. Joy warns, that, with NT, traditional  threats  of  weapons  of  mass  destruction  are  amplified  by  knowledge-based  mass destruction (KMD): "They will not require large facilities or rare raw materials. Knowledge alone will enable the use of them." The menace of KMD, according to Joy, is greater than that of traditional WMD, since it promises "surprising and terrible empowerment of extreme individuals." 35. Joy  suggests  that  we  "relinquish  pursuit  of  that  knowledge  and  development  of  those technologies so dangerous that we judge it better that they never be available”, noting that he, too,   believes in “the pursuit of knowledge and development of technologies; yet, we already have seen cases,  such  as  biological  weapons,  where  relinquishment  is  the  obvious  wise  choice."  He  has called  for  scientists  and  engineers  to  take  a  pledge,  similar  to  Hippocratic  Oath,  to  refrain  from developing technologies with potential of mass destruction. 36. Joy's concerns were reiterated by a Canadian environmental activist group Action Group on Erosion, Technology, and Concentration (ETC Group). In August 2002, the ETC Group called for a worldwide moratorium on R&D and engineered nanomaterials until there are specific protocols of work safety were introduced. They emphasized that data about the potential adverse implications is not sufficient, and called for specific regulatory policies.

065 STCMT 05 E 8 2. Libertarian approach 37. This view holds that certain risks are unavoidable in technological development, and that the decision of whether to proceed with this development should be based on assessment of potential costs,  benefits,  and  risks.  Advocates  of  NT  believe  that  a  ban  or  moratorium  on  R&D  could actually be counterproductive, in that it would prevent risks from being scientifically assessed and (potentially) alleviated. The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (CRN) warns that "inaction on the  part  of  responsible  people  could  simply  lead  to  the  development  and  use  of  molecular manufacturing by less responsible people. Lack of understanding of the technology will leave the world ill-equipped to deal with irresponsible use." 38. One  of  the  most  prominent  advocates  of  the  "libertarian"  view  is  Freeman  J.  Dyson,  now retired,  having  been  a  professor  of  physics  at  the  Institute  for  Advanced  Study  in  Princeton  for most of his life. Dyson has argued that Mr. Joy ignores "the long history of effective action by the international  biological  community  to  regulate  and  prohibit  dangerous  technologies."  Dyson  also opposed censorship of scientific inquiry, either by international or national authorities. 39. In  June  2004,  NT  experts  from  25  countries  met  in  Arlington,  Virginia  to  establish  the International  Dialogue  on  Responsible  Research  and  Development  of  Nanotechnology.  At  this meeting,  the  scientists  present  agreed  that  NT  could  be  developed  responsibly  and  that  no moratorium should be imposed. Even the ETC Group, although it has not withdrawn its call for a moratorium, seemed encouraged by responsible attitude from scientists as well as governments. B. CHANGING ARMS-CONTROL REGIMES? 40. Most experts agree that the emerging field of NT is likely to have implications with respect to existing  arms-control  regimes.  There  are  fears  that  the  NT-enabled  miniaturisation  of  weaponry and  relative  items  will  make  the  proliferation  easier,  as  well  as  that  existing  regulatory  regimes might  not  encompass  some  of  newly  developed  military-related  NT  products.  The  international community, therefore, will find itself under growing pressure to cope with this problem—either in "precautionary", or "libertarian" manner—by adjusting existing agreements introdu  cing new ones, or both. 1. Adjusting the existing treaties 41. First and foremost, as Dr. Altmann points out, the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention might  be  undermined  by  introduction  of  new  agents.  He  suggests  that  the  Convention  be supplemented  with  "a  clarifying  interpretation  that  (NT-enabled)  microscopic  systems  that  can enter  the  body  and  are  partly  or  fully  artificial  are  included".  Also,  your  Rapporteur  shares completely  Dr.  Altmann's  strong  insistence  on  a  pressing  need  to  conclude  a  protocol on verification and compliance measures for BTWC in order to ensure the effective implementation of the Convention. 42. The  Chemical  Weapons  Convention  should  be  mentioned  here  as  well,  as  the  difference between  biology  and  chemistry  is  blurred  in  the  realm  of  nanotechnology.  This  Convention, according  to  Dr.  Altmann,  should  be  amended  by  concluding  "a  clarifying  interpretation  that  for (NT-enabled) agents that are smaller than cells and damage life processes within cells any kind of damaging action counts as "chemical action" under Article 2. CWC is supported by rather intrusive verification mechanisms.” 43. Your  Rapporteur  believes  that  NT  will  provide  the  means  (i.e.  nano-enabled  verification tools, such as nanoscale sensors) to reinforce these conventions.

065 STCMT 05 E 9 44. Gsponer  indicates  that  NT-enabled  fourth-generation  nuclear  weapons  (low-yield,  "clean" and   usable   in   tactical   fight)   can   potentially   be   developed   without   actually   violating   the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). 45. With  respect  to  conventional  forces,  NT-enabled  miniaturisation  and  automation  could potentially  offer  possibilities  to  circumvent  the  Treaty  on  Conventional  Armed  Forces  in  Europe (CFE)  with  the  use  of  new  weapons  like  autonomous  microrobots,  unmanned  vehicles,  or electromagnetic guns below 75mm-calibre threshold for tanks, as Dr. Altmann specifies. He also warns that NT-enabled autonomous fighting systems might not reliably recognize non-combatants or combatants hors de combat, thereby violating international laws of warfare. 2. New international initiatives 46. Some  analysts,  such  Dr.  Altmann,  Howard  and  Gubrud,  believe  that,  in  order  to  properly prevent  the  hazardous  implications  of  NT,  the  international  community  should  introduce  new multilateral agreements. 47. Howard advocates the need to conclude an Inner (atomic and molecular) Space Treaty, in addition to the Outer Space Treaty of 1976. Howard has drafted two versions of such a treaty, one based  on  "libertarian"  and  another  on  "precautionary-sanctuary"  approach.  In  the  "libertarian" version, parties would agree that "Inner space shall be free for exploration and engineering by all states  without  discrimination  of  any  kind",  but  they  would  commit  to  "refrain  from  developing, testing  or  deploying  any  atomically-engineered  objects  carrying  nuclear,  chemical,  biological,  or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, or from installing such weapons in any apparatus or  device  in  any  environment  whatever.  Inner  space  shall  be  used  by  all  states  parties  to  the Treaty  exclusively  for  peaceful  purposes."  The  draft  treaty  also  contains  clauses  on  verification measures, such as observation of activity, notification and transparency of activities and inspection of facilities. 48. The  “sanctuary”  version  of  Howard’s  draft  treaty,  c alled  "Treaty  on  the  Prohibition  of Nanotechnological  Exploration  and  Engineering  of  Inner  (Atomic  and  Molecular)  Space",  states that  NT  opens  "  new  and  enhanced  means  of  mass  destruction"  and  "poses  a  grave  and irreducible  threat  to  all  of  humanity  and  the  biosphere".  Therefore,  parties  commit  to  "to  refrain under any circumstances from engaging in, supporting, or encouraging any activities under their control and jurisdiction involving or relating to the nanotechnological exploration and engineering of inner (atomic and molecular) space." The draft treaty would also establish an "Organisation for the Prohibition of Nanotechnology (OPN)" to enforce the prohibition. 49. Dr. Altmann is another firm advocate of preventive arms control. He praised earlier efforts of the  international  community  to  limit  specific  developments  in  military  technology  before  it  is  too late. For example, the nuclear test ban treaties of 1963 and 1996, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM)  of  1972,  the  Biological  and  Toxin  Weapons  Convention  (BTWC)  of  1972,  Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) of 1993, and the Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons of 1995. 50. Dr.  Altmann  suggests  that  new  international  regulations  dealing  with  emerging  military  NT include some essential restrictions: Unequivocal  ban  of  autonomous  “killer  robots”  and  unmanned  mobile  killing  systems  in general,  based  on  the  principle  that  weapons  should  not  be  aimed  or  released  without human decision. Complete ban of metal-free small arms and munitions, starting at the development stage, for they are difficult to detect, and thus more exposed to proliferation. Complete ban of missiles below a certain size limit (0.2-0.5 m)

065 STCMT 05 E 10 Complete ban of self-contained sensor systems below a certain size limit (3-5 cm) Comprehensive ban on space weapons of all kinds 51. New, NT-related clauses in international law should be supported by a stringent verification mechanism,  including  on-site  inspections,  notifications,  checks  on  national  legislation,  medical examinations, and usage of powerful computers and sensors. 52. Dr. Altmann suggested that the United States, as it has achieved by far the advancements in the field of NT, take the initiative in setting this new international regime. Because it is unlikely that the US will face a significant technological challenge in this area from any country in the world, it is in  a  unique  position  of  being  able  to  unilaterally  restrain  from  augmenting  its  NT-based  military capabilities without having its security interests threatened. 53. International regulations alone, however, will not be enough. In order to develop a cohesive universal mechanism to cope with the challenges of NT, appropriate actions should be taken on the levels of nation states and scientific communities. C. NATIONAL LEGISLATION 54. Even  though  NT  was  born  in  nuclear  weapons  laboratories,  its  ultimate  goal  is  to  bring benefits to humanity. NT products are expected to have a wide range of civilian applications that will   need   to   be   dealt   by   national   legislations.   Close   co-ordination   between   national   and international regulations is necessary, as a number of NT products can be of dual – military and civilian – use. Examples could be nanosensors or nanomaterials with extraordinary characteristics, as  well  as  cell-penetrating  nanocapsules  applicable  both  in  medicine  and  biological/chemical warfare. 55. In  2001,  your  Rapporteur  addressed  the  issue  of  NT  in  his  Special  Report  on  Emerging Technologies    and    Their    Impact    on    Arms    Control    and    Non-Proliferation,   which   advised governments  and  relevant  international  organisations  to  “pay  attention  to  the  developments  of nanotechnology and be involved, together with scientists, in the development process." During the last  few  years,  the  issue  of  NT  has  become  increasingly  topical,  appearing  on  the  agendas  of some national parliaments. 56. In   2003,   the   US   congress   passed   the   21st   Century   Nanotechnology   Research   and Development  Act,  which  President  Bush  signed  into  law  on  December  3,  2003.    The  bill  was sponsored  by  Senators  Ron  Wyden  (D-OR)  and  George  Allen  (R-VA)  in  the  Senate,  and Representative  Sherwood  Boehlert  (R-N.Y.)  in  the  House.  The  main  purpose  of  this  Act  was  to support   America's   efforts   to   remain   the   undisputed   world   leader   in   NT. This   legislation institutionalised  programs  and  activities  supported  by  the  National  Nanotechnology  Initiative.  It authorized $3.7 billion over the years 2005-2008 for the creation of the National Nanotechnology Coordination  Office  and  the  funding  of  federal  government  nanotechnology  programs.  It  also provided  for  a  research  program  to  identify  the  ethical,  legal,  environmental,  and  other  societal concerns related to NT. Interestingly, the House version of this bill called for a feasibility study of the molecular manufacturing, including determining "the key scientific and technical barriers" and, if possible, estimated timeframe.  However, the final edition of the Act referred to a more modest "molecular  self-assembly"  feasibility.  In  June  2004,  the  bipartisan  and  bicameral  Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus was established to promote NT and to "educate policy makers about this emerging  area".  Senators  George  Allen  (the  founding  Chair)  and  Ron  Wayden,  as  well  as Representatives Sherwood Boehlert and Bart Gordon, are the co-Chairs of the Caucus. 57. In  2004,  the  Science and Technology Committee of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom  prepared  a  comprehensive  report  on  NT,  titled  "Too  Little  too  Late?  Government Investment  in  Nanotechnology".  The  report  concluded  that  British  government  had  failed  "to

065 STCMT 05 E 11 maintain   the   UK's   prominent   position   in   the   field".   According   to   the   report,   "Government investment  in  nanotechnology  is  at  present  insufficient"  and  "poorly  focussed".  The  Committee urged the executive to produce a strategy to "make the UK the major player in nanotechnology". In its   response,   the   Government   accepted   part  of  Committee's  conclusions  and  reiterated  its commitment to support NT programmes. 58. The  German  parliament  has  also  engaged  in  debate  over  NT.  In  2004,  Bundestag's Committee produced an extensive study on NT for Education, Research, and Assessment of the Consequences of Technology. One chapter of this report was dedicated to possible military uses of  NT.  The  report  concluded  that,  although  grave  security  risks  seem  unlikely  in  the  short-term future, intensified international cooperation in various NT initiatives—including armament control   – would  be  wise.  Furthermore,  if  the  scientific  invalidity  of  visions  of  self-replicating  nanorobots cannot be proven, further preventative measures must be taken, such as a ban on the production of NT systems able to replicate themselves in the natural environment. A large group of German parliamentarians also prepared a motion calling on the executive to pay particular attention to the development of NT. Among other suggestions, the parliamentarians emphasized the importance of   initiating   “a   discussion   on   issues   of   arms   control   in   the   field   of   the   military   uses   of nanotechnology and investigating the benefits of strengthened international cooperation between various  nanotechnology  initiatives  with  reference  to  policies  surrounding  arms  control.”    Finally, they  noted  that  “the  question  of  whether  a  possible  misuse  of  nanotechnology  could  be averted through preventative arms control should be of particular relevance." 59. While  the  European  Union  is  not  falling  far  behind  of  the  US  in  terms  of  NT  funding, according to Ottilia Saxl, Chief Executive of the UK Institute of Nanotechnology, the effectiveness of  European  efforts  is  undermined  by  different  cultures  across  Europe  (some  European  nations are more reserved than others) and duplication. However, EU is taking steps in this area. In 2004, the  Communication  from  the  Commission  "Towards  European  Strategy  for  Nanotechnology" emphasized a need for the Union to increase and to better-coordinate NT funding, and to assess potential  societal  and  environmental  consequences.  NT  is  one  of  seven  priorities  of  EU's  "6th Framework   Programme   for   Research   and   Technological   Development",   the   Union’s   main instrument for funding research in Europe. This Framework covers the period 2002-2006.  Out of a total budget of 17.5 billion Euro, 1.3 billion is allocated to NT. In March 2005, the EU also launched "Nanolog",  a  Commission-funded  project  designed  to  coordinate  research  on  the  social,  ethical and   legal   implications   of   NT   and   produce  guidance  for  stakeholders  and  developers.  The European Parliament has yet to include NT in its agenda. So far, EP's interest was limited to some MEPs  expressing  their  concerns  about  political  implications  of  NT,  and  some  seminars  on  NT- related issues being held at EP's premises. D. SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTION 60. One of the key pre-conditions in designing a comprehensive worldwide mechanism to meet the challenges of NT will be a meaningful contribution from the scientific community. Before any major decisions on NT regulation are made on the political level, reliable and thorough scientific assessments  of  NT  feasibility,  risks,  and  opportunities  are  urgently  needed.  Indeed,  while  a number of studies have been produced in recent years, scientists have yet to reach a consensus in many areas, such as prospects of self-replication for nanorobots, toxicity of nanoparticles and the  timeframe  of  future  NT  development.  There  is  also  a  need  for  the  broader  involvement  of scholars  in  discussion  on  possible  military  uses  of  NT  and  potential  consequences  on  military strategy and international arms-control regimes. 61. In   light   of   NT’s   enormous  potential,  society  should  remain  well-informed  about  latest developments  in  this  field.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  transparency  in  NT  research  is  crucial,  as is cooperation   and   regular   exchange   of   information   between   scientists   worldwide.   Developing

065 STCMT 05 E 12 countries   could   also   benefit   from   such   transparency,   thereby   reducing   the   possibility   of “nanodivide”. 62. Dr. Altmann suggests that "the technologically leading nations should exercise unilateral and coordinated restraint with respect to military NT activities, in particular de-emphasising or avoiding those that could lead to defensive uses."  Conversely, libertarian thinkers such as Dyson maintain that  the  world's  scientific  community  is  mature  enough  to  responsibly  and  wisely  guide  the development  of  NT.  Recalls  the  case  of  biological  weapons,  Dyson  expressed  confidence  that scientists will refuse to contribute to production of apocalyptic weapons. The American biologists and  Matthew  Meselson  in  particular,  managed  to  convince  the  Nixon  administration  that  the biological  weapons  had  posed  enormous  danger  to  the  US  security.  As  a  result, in 1969, Nixon unilaterally  declared  that  the  United  States  was  dismantling  its  biological  weapons  programme. Other countries followed the example, and consequently the BTWC was born in 1972. VI. CONCLUSIONS 63. The military uses of nanotechnology cannot be considered independently of NT’s other uses. Possible misuses both in military and civilian realms are related to the more general problem of the pace of human adaptation to new technologies. According to some assessments, NT revolution is comparable to industrial revolution of late Middle Ages, which posed an appreciable challenge for societies  of  that  time.  The  NT  revolution  will  be  different,  however,  in  that  it  will  proceed  much faster. According to Mihail Rico, nanotech advisor to the White House, "because of NT, we'll see more changes in the next 30 years than we saw in all of the last century." 64. Nanotechnology promises both great opportunities and risks. New technologies offer unique prospects of curing the world's age -old intrinsic defects and pushing globalisation to its extreme. At  the  same  time,  we  must  be  aware  of  NT’s  potential  to  engender  dangers  never  before encountered. What is most disquieting is the uncertainty of possible implications to the vulnerable domain of national security and defence. Very few publications and studies have been issued on this particular issue, and some of the assumptions and conclusions of those that have might still be speculative. 65. Nevertheless,  your  Rapporteur  wishes  to  emphasize  the  importance  of  discussing  and debating this issue now, when the international community and nation states are still in a position to   shape   a   preventive   mechanism   capable   of   dealing   properly   with   possible   malevolent applications  of  NT  in  the  field  of  national  and  international  security.  The  Rapporteur  strongly believes   that   the   parliamentarians   could   and   should   contribute   more   extensively   to   such discussions. 66. Additional lengthy and scrupulous studies of military NT are urgently needed. The prospects of  molecular  NT  should  be  assessed  with  particular  attention,  as  this  is  the  most  controversial aspect of NT and would present extremely grave consequences if its feasibility is confirmed. The scientific  research  on  NT  should  receive  adequate  funding.  Ann  Dawling,  chair  of  the  Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering's working group on NT, recently stated that, while the British Government seem to understand the importance of NT, it failed to actually increase funding for the research that is necessary before issuing appropriate regulations. 67. The governmental institutions should closely follow the latest information on NT development and  be  prepared  to  act  promptly,  should  any  adverse  consequences  be  discovered.  Ideally, governmental actions should be preventive rather than reactive. 68. Discussions   should   be   encouraged   on   possible   amendments   of   existing   arms-control agreements,  primarily  with  respect  to  BTWC  and  CWC.  Verification  mechanisms  should  be

065 STCMT 05 E 13 reinforced and developed both for NT and by NT; that is, using the technological advances made in  this  field.  If  the  progress  of  NT  is  as  rapid  as  the  enthusiasts  expect,  the  international community might consider concluding a separate multilateral agreement designed specifically for this field. 69. In  concluding,  your  Rapporteur  wishes  to  urge  his  honourable  colleagues  to  initiate  or resume discussions on NT in the appropriate committees of their parliaments and exert their right of  parliamentary  oversight  over  the  executive  branch  in  order  to  ensure  that  the  governmental institutions grant all due attention to this issue. 70. When  it  comes  to  making  political  decisions,  policy  makers  should  be  impartial  and  weigh the   arguments   of   both   supporters   and  opponents  of  NT.  While  some  enthusiasts  tend  to overemphasize  the  magnitude  of  NT,  seeking  additional  funding,  sceptics  might be too cautious and  thus  obstruct  the  development  of  NT,  regardless  of  its  benefits  to  the  society.  The  issue, therefore, is to be considered in balanced and cool-headed manner.