Unto the Next Generation

While bouncing the ball between 4GW and 5GW theory has proven more than interesting for me — and may prove quite useful in “negotiatiing” the future — it’s important to remember that force warfare has a long history for a reason.  If you kill a man, or cut off his supply of food, or physically destroy an enemy’s infrastructure, while preventing the same being done to you, you automatically gain an extraordinary advantage.  Man may not live by bread alone, but without it or some substitute, he dies.  I have approached a theory of 5GW that recognizes these factors at a distance, since human actors quite often must think before they act — as often, have long trains of thought leading to actions — and influence over their patterns of thought can lead to acts of a beneficial nature; but, still, at the end of the day, those acts and particularly the physical world they create are the primary goal.  I do believe we are moving toward a world design that will severely limit the direct use of force warfare — but a world entirely without such warfare may be a long, long time away.

Often, I worry more about surprise asteroids, viruses, global warming, and other BIG THINGS which are far less manageable than even human motivations, certainly less manageable than bullets and missiles.

In our exploration of generations of warfare, it will be important to remember the true nature of force warfare.  Whatever else we might like to think of open source guerrilla movements or 4GW movements popping up all over the place — and their homemade bombs and black market machine guns and RPG’s — a single state or organization with the right force advantage may exert extraordinary influence on the physical world, thus influencing world affairs and even these guerrilla movements.  Similarly, anything short of an adept 5GW entity may find that states with extreme force advantages and force structures change the world in ways the 5GW entity cannot counter or significantly influence:  though they spin paradigms however they like, the state with the right advantages may force paradigms quite contrary to the designs of the 5GW entity.

These thoughts have been percolating in my mind but are brought to you now after reading “Nanotechnology in Global Security and Economics” on Genetic Engineering News (GEN), written by Patrick Lin, Ph.D. and Brian Wang.  The opinion piece is not comprehensive, and the few things mentioned may seem like science fiction — “Bionic suits for superhuman strength and capabilities; more effective battlefield medicine; more powerful and lighter energy sources; faster production of military assets, i.e., force multiplier; and enhanced weapons of mass destruction, e.g., bio-weapons that can target specific DNA.” — but it should intrigue anyone interested in security and warfare.

Globalist theorists might begin to wonder if all the theories about globalization now being bandied about are non sequiturs.  The authors of the piece offer an estimate of the near-term growth spurt of nanotechnology, $1-trillion within five to 10 years, and also a vision of a (perhaps) more distant non-globalized world:

Additionally, like other revolutions before it, we can expect nanotechnology to radically change many elements of society in the distant future, if not earlier. Particularly, if the predictions are right and nanotechnology, in its advanced form of molecular manufacturing, can enable us to create objects from the bottom up, i.e., one molecule at a time, then whats our incentive to trade if we can create nearly anything we want? Would that make entire industries obsolete overnight and lead to massive displacement of workers? Further, would that encourage an isolationist economic and political policy, and what problems might come from that?

I.e., if the simple molecules found in dirt can be made into anything we want, why trade with other dirt-producers, given our own supply?

I found the link to this opinion piece at Responsible Nanotechnology, an extremely interesting blog written by Mike Treder, co-founder and Executive Director of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology.  He has also written an intriguing analysis of the future repercussions of nanotechnology for Future Brief, titled, “War, Interdependence, and Nanotechnology” —

From the dawn of the nuclear age until the present day, we have relied on two mechanisms to protect us from World War III: the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), and the growing interdependence of nations.

However, in the very near future we may not be able to count on these controls. The tenuous balance of MAD and the worldwide network of commercial trade are both threatened by the rise of advanced nanotechnology.

Mike Treder’s thoughts touch on many things, including: the end of interdependence and trade as we know it; the rise of super-powered, competing special interest groups within nations, which means civil wars, coups, and great devastation; extreme unemployment rates, as hyper-production capabilities become even more automated.  But without the tensions created by competition over natural resources, and with the ability to reconstruct the world more efficiently, great peace and prosperity are possible, too.

4GW networks and 5GW networks may utilize nanotechnology in the truly next-generation warfare, in ways we can hardly envision; or, nanotechnology may one day eliminate the very networking which gives birth and force to 4GW and 5GW: imagine, self-sufficient and forceful entities not requiring all the benefits we associate with human networks.