Fall 2006 - Air & Space Power Chronicle - Air Force Link

MOLECULAR NANOTECHNOLOGY AND NATIONAL SECURITY 99play or ignore MNT. Some of the most vocaldetractors—including the late Nobel Prize–winning chemist Richard Smalley—have claimedthat MNT-style assemblers are impossible andthat discussion of them hurts “real” NT developmentby scaring the public, diverting attentionand funding from more legitimate researchwith a proven track record. 15Is Nanotechnology aNational-Security Concern?If MNT is not technically practicable, thenis it—or even the more “mainstream” NT—anational-security concern? 16 Whether or notstrict Drexler-type MNT is viable, a convergenceof less technologically challengingmainstream nanotech and other technologiescould result in MNT-like capabilities, necessitatingserious consideration of the potentialimpacts on national security. Much of the debateover MNT focuses on which research effortswill pay off sooner (and therefore deservemore resources), rather than confronting theissue of final capabilities. Consider, however,that every day a form of MM occurs aroundthe world. Nature itself has been using MMfor billions of years to convert cheap resources(dirt and water) and cheap energy (sunlight)into useful building materials (timber). Regardlessof which development path is used toget there, an MM-like technology is demonstrablypossible.But should MNT or MM prove too difficultto achieve or not cost-effective for some reason,mainstream NT will still create a tremendousimpact on every field that affects nationalsecurity. Even a National Science Foundationreport expresses doubt about MNT’s feasibility:“It may be technically impossible to createself-reproducing mechanical nanoscale robots. . . [while conceding that] nanotechnologywill fundamentally transform science, technology,and society.” 17 Kwan S. Kwok, DefenseAdvanced Research Projects Agency programmanager, echoes the foundation’s sentiment:“It is widely accepted that the potential impactof nanotechnology may be larger than that ofany scientific field humankind has previouslyencountered.” 18Finally, consider the possible emerging trendof personal fabrication (PF), a concept createdby Dr. Neil Gershenfeld of the MassachusettsInstitute of Technology’s Center for Bitsand Atoms (CBA). Gershenfeld and his colleagueshave been establishing a network offab-labs: small facilities set up in areas withlittle or no access to regular sources of technology,such as rural India. Fab-labs areequipped with computers and tabletop micromachiningequipment that enables users todesign and create objects of their choosing.Products so far have included computer circuitboards, diesel-engine flywheel sensors, andeven works of art—all these from users withlimited experience with high-tech equipment.Currently the fab-lab equipment setupcosts approximately $26,000. Gershenfeldand the CBA continue to work on improvingthe fab-labs’ setup in terms of cost, capability,and efficiency: “We’re approachingbeing able to make one machine that canmake any machine.” Eventually Gershenfeldexpects NT to become a viable basis for fabricationtools. 19 In fact, the PF paradigm maypresent the most significant long-term applicationof MNT.MNT-based personal fabricators will embodythe ultimate fusion of the industrial andinformation-technology revolutions: the abilityto move data such as design plans cheaplyand instantaneously to virtually any locationand then convert that data into real-world,solid objects at roughly the cost of raw materialsand power. This concept logicallyleads to that of inexpensive distributedmanufacturing, tailored to the needs of theorganization or even the individual. Overall,there appear to be many paths and nooutright “show-stoppers” on the road to anMNT-like capability.Threats from MolecularNanotechnologyMNT is a potentially enormously powerfultechnology that will generate both direct and