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

102 AIR & SPACE POWER JOURNAL FALL 2006techno-economic paradigm (TEP) gains increasingsupport from business, and (2) adeployment period, when the paradigm becomesthe new norm. During the installationperiod, investor enthusiasm for thenew TEP grows into a frenzy leading to anincreasing gap between the “haves,” whoare profiting from the new TEP, and the“have-nots,” who are still invested in theold TEP. 33 Ultimately the investment frenzyforms a stock bubble, which bursts andbrings on the turning point, usually a seriousrecession or even a depression. It isduring the turning point that society andthe judicial system are forced to reformand shift to meet the characteristics of thenewly established TEP. 34If this model of technological revolution iscorrect—and it appears to match the last fivetechnological revolutions well enough—thensometime during the development of MNTthere will be a period of social, political, andeconomic unrest as the world system is pulledin two directions, embracing the new TEP versusclinging to the old. Given the staggeringarray of changes that MNT can bring, this periodmay be particularly stressful. Moreover, ifMNT has already enabled some of its moredangerous potential applications—such asknowledge-based mass destruction—beforeproper political and social control structureshave been established, this period could becatastrophic.What Strategy Should theUnited States Pursue?There are three basic strategy courses thatthe United States can pursue to deal withMNT:• some form of deliberate internationalregulation and control,• a “hands-off” approach that lets naturalmarket forces dictate development andregulation, and• a total ban on MNT development.International RegulationTwo strategic approaches have relevance to internationalregulation of MNT:• a hegemonic regulation imposed on therest of the world by the United States, or• a cooperative regulation overseen andenforced by an international organization.In either case, regulation will succeed—if itdoes—only by removing the majority of reasonsnations will have to develop “uncontrolled”MNT.The basic premise in regulation should beto maximize public access to the benefits ofMNT while eliminating independent (i.e., unregulated)development by minimizing accessto, or interference with, the manufacturingtechnology itself. Ideally, freely providing thefruits of MNT to the world population will decreasethe urge to develop unregulated alternativeR&D programs and may simultaneouslyreduce the impetus for civil and/or resourcerelatedconflicts by virtually eradicating theeffects of poverty. 35The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology,a nonprofit think tank “concerned with themajor societal and environmental implicationsof advanced nanotechnology,” has proposeda solution based around a nanofactory,a self-contained, highly secure MM system—in effect a highly advanced NT version ofGershenfeld’s desktop fab-lab apparatus. 36 Inthis strategy, a closely guarded crash developmentprogram would be set up as soon as possibleto develop the MM expertise required tobuild a nanofactory. It is essential that thenanofactory be developed before any possiblecompeting MNT R&D program can come tofruition. Nanofactories would then be reproducedand distributed to nations and organizations(at some point possibly even to individuals)around the world, with emphasisplaced on the most poverty-stricken regions.This “standard” nanofactory would be theonly approved MNT manufacturing apparatusin the world and would even have internallimitations as to what could be constructed(no replicating assemblers, for example, ex-