is filling out his status report.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Razorbucks I have not lost it, so please don't be silly with me. Did you forget this post to you? http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=16640041
Now, one might opine that I was being a bit hard on you. What was your response? http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=16640313
Razorbucks, you will notice that you did NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS MY POINT. You made an issue and point about being specific. You have to right to do so and I think you have a reasonable expectation, in a civil debate, to have points addressed that way. I was VERY specific and you gave a broad answer that never addressed the very specific point: 1. One needs a passport to reenter the jurisdictional parameters of The United States of America.
Now this was part one of an aspect of the right to travel; not privilege. For your assistance, I cited case law. Remember that I hold to the rule of law. This distinguishes the federal government formed by The Constitution and my personal beliefs from that of an anarchist (No matter how sincere that individual's beliefs and practices are, but that's for a different discussion.).
So the ball is in your court. If you want to have this debate, then please civilly answer my point with specificity and I will bring forth more lost liberties. You will have to admit that I am attempting to answer your challenge, so how about equity?
"Overgrown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to and hostile to liberty." (George Washington)
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/
I propose a project of picking out key quotes here and posting them. http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Razorbucks: progress is being made. Please consider this:
Two Visions of Western Capitalism
"Anglo-American capitalism is built on a system of values that attributes personal liberty and political democracy to economic prosperity and opportunities for personal wealth. These goals are best achieved through self-interested activities of consumers and producers in an environment fostering maximum personal economic choice, entrepreneurial activity, free trade, and unrestricted markets.
... Continental European capitalism, [on the other hand, grew out of social democracy, a nineteenth-century philosophy that emphasized] building a just system of economic distribution in society, not merely a wealthy society. This entailed a commitment to equalize wealth, control and ultimately diffuse capital's concentration, and empower the working class with their own political parties and labor unions. ... "
http://www.wwnorton.com/wtp3e/ch17_comp_pers.htm
And keep looking, I have a feeling that you'll find it.
One of the concerns to American sovereignty is that of The NAU and porous borders and illegal immigration. A simple question: how can a government claim to fight terrorist and promote safety of a nation and ENCOURAGE AND FACILITATE unsecured porous borders, at the same time?
arkieboy1: the only thing that hit me is this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6529813972926262623&q=%229%2F11%22+%22&hl=en
Razorbucks: I'm a laissez faire capitalist and yet you want to call me a "liberal." So your own words are telling that you do not know what the hell you are talking about.
I already answered it and you forgot and you still haven't addressed my points.
Razorbucks: you didn't answer the post.
Razorbucks: 100% false and I already addressed the other. How soon you forget.
Razorbucks: this is what you said:
"You don't like being labeled a liberal, so you insult people who see partisan lines; however, if opportunity arises you will play the sex, race, and class card, correct? SICK!
IMO, you have to be blind not to see politicians opportunistically toe partisan lines, either that, or passed out."
1. Would you think it fair, if a number of us labelled you as a communist, seeing you oppose our efforts to maintain personal liberties under The Constitution? We would have a cogent argument for doing so. Is that what you want? So why would you label someone with something that you would loathe to be labelled as, especially when your labelling is bogus?
2. We agree that opportunistic politicians play and toe party lines. Do you want it to continue that way? We are trying to change that.
3. We do not want polarization. We all lose when that happens. In 1917, Russia fell to 2% of the population, because of the divide and conquer polarizations. Most of us can disagree ion a civil manner and learn from each other in a public debate forum, such as these message boards allows. Surely you can appreciate this wonderful American freedom called free speech.
However, for some posters, anyone disagreeing with their ideology is cause for all sorts of diatribes. I am a warrior. If someone wants to play the tossing-of-lit-matches game, then I simply pull out my flame thrower. I hold virtually all the cards, BECAUSE I HAVE INVESTED IN STUDYING A WIDE VARIETY OF SOURCES FOR YEARS. So would you begrudge me for playing a card, when you dared me to do so?
4. Why don't you take a deep breathe and say, "Okay, let's wipe the slate clean and debate this, as you guys seem to love America and what it stands for and I love my freedoms."
Razorbucks: our Constitution took its "single" greatest hit during the Wilson administration. Colonel House had a virtual stranglehold on the nation. Wilson would later sadly lament his part in bringing ruin to our nation. Later it was FDR, the HST, but followed by DDE and even JFK, at times. Certainly LBJ continued the onslaught. Nixon topped him. The real horrors began with Jimmie Earl (Carter) and EACH ADMINISTRATION SINCE HAS ACCELERATED THE RACE TOWARD TYRANNY.
The thinktank-staffed State Department and The Wall Street staffed CIA created radical Islam. Al-Qaeda is just one branch. Now what about this don't you understand?
IxCimi: thanks, but speaking of Neo-Con Jackbooters, did you see this?
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2001/s20010602-depsecdef.html
IxCimi: as long as no discovers my secrets, then I won't have to harm anyone.
A joke for those that hadn't got it by now.
Razorbucks: what is it with you? A number of us lay salvos into Repugs and Demos with equal force. We don't bite into this liberal/conservative artificial divide. It comes down to personal liberty and a constitutional republic or the high risk of international socialism.
If you would just take a wee bit of time away from your public consumption propaganda "news" bytes and look at the reality of a government run amok, you might find that we represent a greater hope and reality of preserved America the great than some psychopathic traitor like Drug Rush Goebbels.
arkieboy1: what's the context? It could be several things.
As per recent discussions, here are a couple links. As with stocks, more so for your health do your homework first.
http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/ozone-therapy-cancer-faq.html
http://oxyfiles.org/Testimony/Index.html
If any of you who are not familiar with Howard Griswold, then here's a sample:
Title of Nobility (U.C.C. related)
Prelude... Section 1461 of the IRS code -- with-holding agents made liable.
Tax is imposed on aliens and foreign corporations, who had sources of income
within the U.S. (which is D.C.). Green federal reserve notes come from D.C.
so that makes me a foreign corporation or alien dealing with D.C.; doing
business within and having a source of income from within.
(The Following is a transcription of part of a speech by Mr. Howard Griswold,
in 1994 and transcribed by John Roger Ball)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Grant of a title of nobility, with all of the combined benefits and privileges attached, to the
empty title of citizenship, originally laid upon the slaves of the civil war times, under the tern "negro"
was created by congress in the fourteenth amendment. These benefits and privileges were later
challenged in the 1883 civil rights cases with no mention of the title of nobility, but a question as to
the benefits and privileges having been laid upon one group of people to the exclusion of the rest.
The decision of the Court at that time, that the privileges are not to be limited to one group only,
prompted Congress to extend the benefits and privileges to all of society, through it's wholly and
partly owned corporations. Government cannot deal with me diractly. The Constitution gave the
government no authority to deal with me directly; but it didn't say that they couldn't set up a
corporation, and have the corporation deal with you, representing itself to be an agency of the
government. So that's what they did, that's what the fed is, circulating this commercial paper for
them, and such.
Anyway, the above mentioned corporations are monopolies, which control all of the essential
functions of modern life, and today they do, and business under the laws of congress. Acceptance
by the people of the afformentioned privileges, and benefits, from congress monopoly
corporations, for their necessary functions of life and business, constitute a liability to congress,
and make the individual subject to the jurisdiction of the united states, as privileged citizens of the
united states, under the federal civil rights jurisdiction under the fourteenth amendment. This
jurisdiction, and all the laws under it are based on the unlawful title of nobility, and are thus not
real laws at all, but are treated as though they are law. This type of law is called colorable law.
Now, a little synopsis of who is, and who isn't. The people who are a resident of the seat of
government (District of Columbia) or any federal possession, enclave, or fort, are without question
within the constitutionally limited jurisdiction of the United States and congress in an at-law
construction. So if you live there, then you come under their laws, and you are liable for a tax.
The people who are non-resident aliens of the District of Columbia, or any federal possession,
enclave, or fort, etc., are not in any way subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Congress,
unless they are effectively connected with a trade or business within the District of Columbia, or
any federal possession, enclave, fort, etc., in an at-law construction. So a non-resident alien,
unless he makes a move to be connected with the District, is exempt. The people who are non-
resident aliens of Washington D.C., it's ossessions, enclaves, forts, etc., (202) and accept any of
the benefits or privileges, by doing business with any of the above mentioned government
corporations, are effectively connected with a trade or business within the District of Columbia
and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and congress, in a colorable law jurisdiction.
So you see I put at law real law for the first two, which don't apply to anybody, today. The
only way it applies, is the trap your in. You're all in this trap, of being a non-resident of the District;
but yet effectively connected for the taxable for a trade or business within the District, , by dealing
with their green commercial paper units. Even though we're outside, they came from there, so the
source was within the United States, the District of Columbia; so your trapped. Not to in any way
limit the list of examples; but one most important example would be: To accept and use the green
commercial paper documents of title from the federal reserve bank, Inc., which circulate as money,
from the U.S. Treasury in the District of Columbia. These banknotes, which circulate as money,
nut are not real, are thus colorable, and the law which controls the use of said notes, is also
colorable. This colorable law is applied to any people who make themselves liable and subject
to the jurisdiction of the United States, by accepting and using the commercial paper notes of the
federal reserve Inc., and also apply to anything that the people aquire through the trading of said
monopoly bank notes. That includes the property you buy with it. It all comes back to the District
of Columbia as property.
This colorable law is called the Federal common law, as expressed in the Erie Railroad v.
Thompkin case of 1938. A brief by a lawyer named Albert J. Schweppe - What has happened
to Federal Jurisprudence? This will tell you about the Erie decision and the results it caused. What
he tells you in here is, that the existing general common law came to an abrupt end at the Erie
decision. And in that case, because the Supreme Court of the United States said, that because
there is no substantive money in circulation, there is no general common law, and that from now
on, because everything that is done in this country is done with negotiable instruments, the
negotiable instrument laws will rule the court's decisions. In other words, the courts at that time
all became colorable, because negotiable instruments are colorable representations of real money,
so the courts became colorable. If they're using the colorable law to rule their decisions, then
they're colorable.
So you see, we have no law at all, and we have no real courts. And if you read the definition of
Anarchy in the dictionary, we live in it. The application of common law is predicated on the
necessity of dealing with substance. The negotiable instrument laws, that they put into force
replaced the money law, and when they did that, they replaced all common law. Now they gave
you a way back to the common law, because they can't do these things. They had to give us a
way back: UCC 1-103 gives us a way back to the real law; because they can't do that, but they
did it. As long as they can get away with it, by most people not having knowledge of it, they'll do
stuff. And until you see the use they apply to it, in order to get out of the old law, and the
reasoning behind it. This colorable law is called the federal common law, as expressed in the
Erie v. Thompkins case of 1938; and has been codified as the Uniform Commercial Code; which
has been accepted by all the states, and is the ruling decision law of all state and federal courts.
There are four court cases that say that the states must use the federal rules of decision, which
is the Uniform Commercial Code, in the decision of their cases; which means they're operating
under federal law. They are representing the federal money, even in the state courts. No law
exists in any court today; it is all color-of-law. We cannot accept these benefits openly; we can
only accept them ambiguously.
The governments corporations have withheld the foregoing knowledge and pertinent information
from the people who blindly do business of necessity with the corporate monopoly, in order to
trick them into the acceptance, which is fraud in the factum, or in the essence, under section
3-305(2)(c) of the UCC. This fraud in the essence, which leads to an agreement to do business
with one or more of the government corporate monopolies, is what led the people into the liabilty
and made them subject to the jurisdiction of the united states, and the incapacity of the title of
nobility - called citizen of the united states. An incapacity is something that lowers your capacity.
You can only do what I let you do within the realm of that debt. You've got to do what the King
says. This is called 'feudal' law, 'feudal' property law. You bought your land with my commercial
paper, which I put out there for you to use as money, and I gave you a deed to use land that I
already owned. Then it's a lifetime deed. At the end of your life, it reverts back to me. It was
called feudal property law in England, and that's the way it works. And basically, that's the way
it works today!
Overstock.com filed a $3.5 billion lawsuit in California state court Friday accusing 10 of the largest U.S. securities firms of participating in a "massive, illegal stock market manipulation scheme" to distort its stock.
The Salt Lake City online retailer, whose Chief Executive Patrick Byrne has been crusading against stock market trading abuses not just in Overstock shares but as a broad, pervasive market problem, said the banks' actions caused "dramatic distortions" in how Overstock (nasdaq: OSTK - news - people ) shares were traded and lead to a dramatic decline in its price.
Overstock shares are down 77% in the past two years.
"These manipulative activities have caused tremendous damage to Overstock," Byrne said in a statement Friday. "I believe that this conduct is harming our company and our shareholders deeply."
Overstock's lawsuit says the amount of stock that was improperly shorted has exceeded the company's entire supply of outstanding shares. "It's about rigging the system," says Overstock's attorney, James Christian.
Overstock's suit names
Morgan Stanley,
Goldman Sachs,
Bear Stearns,
Bank of America,
Bank of New York,
Citigroup,
Credit Suisse,
Deutsche Bank,
Merrill Lynch, and
UBS
as defendants. None of the defendants had any immediate comment on the suit. (my point Hmmmm, Federal Reserve owners, eh?)
Byrne's self-described crusade against trading abuses over the last two years has brought a heap of criticism down on him, but regulators have acknowledged that there are loopholes that make the system ripe for abuse.
Going after the so-called prime brokers, the securities firms that provide stock lending and financing services to hedge funds, is another way to tackle the problem of naked short-selling, a manipulative trading tactic that can drive down share prices artificially and threaten the viability of small publicly traded companies.
Prime brokerage is one of the hottest businesses on Wall Street but little understood outside the world of finance. It essentially is the business of catering to hedge funds, acting as their trading counterparties, financing those trades, and loaning stock and other securities for funds to execute short-selling strategies.
According to Vodia Group, a New York firm that analyzes securities lending portfolios for traders at hedge funds and other asset managers, securities lending rakes in between $8 billion and $10 billion in annual revenues for Wall Street.
In regular short-selling, a trader borrows stock, sells it, and waits (or prays) for the price to drop before buying shares back to repay that loan and pocket the difference. There are rules for assuring that the shares have been properly borrowed, and everyone is supposed to abide them.
In naked short-selling, the trader sells the shares without properly borrowing the stock. When the stock isn't properly borrowed, the buyer at the other end of that short-sale doesn't get delivery of the shares within the mandated three-day window. The buyer also loses out on voting rights and tax-advantages until the short-seller closes out the position.
Now, fast working market makers are allowed to sell without borrowing to keep orderly markets. But naked short-selling as a strategy in and of itself is illegal. It is, however, highly tempting for both prime broker and hedge fund trader.
From the prime broker's perspective, fees can be made by lending out the same sought-after shares to multiple traders at the same time. So prime broker A has 100 shares of Company A and lends 100 shares to trader X, 100 shares to trader Y and 100 shares to trader Z. Obviously 200 of those loaned-out shares don't actually exist, and will result in a trade delivery failure.
From the trader's perspective, a naked short can be less costly, since they have to pay more to borrow hard-to-borrow shares that are usually the choice targets of short-sellers anyway.
Having all those excess shares in the market artificially reduces the price of a stock, Overstock contends in its lawsuit. Overstock has been a regular on a list of Nasdaq-listed stocks that have large and persistent failures-to-deliver since that list started being published in January 2005.
It's tough to say who is more at fault in naked short-selling, the hedge fund executing the short strategy without properly borrowing the shares, or the prime broker for either assisting or turning a blind eye to the practice.
In two suits filed last year in New York federal court, a small hedge fund and a small brokerage accused the same 10 banks named in Friday's Overstock suit of charging them for services they never received. In other words, the prime brokers supposedly took their fees for stock lending services, but never properly lent them shares for their legitimate shorting strategies, unbeknownst to them.
Last summer, 40 investors in the Kansas City real estate investment trust Novastar Financial (nyse: NFI - news - people ) filed suit in California court against the same prime brokers, saying they were responsible for artificially suppressing Novastar stock by skirting stock lending and clearing and settlement rules.
Byrne has spent the last two years pushing legislators, regulators, and anyone else who will listen to reform the system. The Securities and Exchange Commission is combing through comment letters on proposed amendments to short-selling rules that could close some loopholes, but efforts in state legislatures to clamp down on brokerages have largely failed.
Last year, sympathetic lawmakers in Overstock's home state of Utah shoveled a bill through the state legislature and got it signed into law after a special session in May. The new law would have forced brokerages to report trade delivery failures in shares of Utah companies to the state's securities director within 24-hours, or face paying a sort of fine to those issuers.
But the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, Wall Street's trade group in Washington, threatened a lawsuit in federal court and got the governor of Utah to capitulate on enforcing the law until June, supposedly to give the SEC time to reform the rules on a national level.
Several other bills in legislatures across the country have been stalled in the last few weeks by a similar threat of litigation by the industry group.
Just in case no one has seen these two:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4943675105275097719
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4924034461280278026
Oh Happy Days!!!!!!
Competitive Technologies' Shareholder-Elected New Board of Directors Takes Control
Last Update: 2:42 PM ET Feb 2, 2007
FAIRFIELD, Conn., Feb 2, 2007 (PrimeNewswire via COMTEX) -- Competitive Technologies, Inc. (CTT : Competitive Technologies, Inc announced today that shareholders have supported the installation of a new slate of directors proposed by the Committee to Restore Stockholder Value. The newly-elected Board of Directors has taken control at CTT, and has returned CTT to the successful leadership of John B. Nano as President and Chief Executive Officer.
At CTT's Annual Meeting held today at the American Stock Exchange, results of the recent proxy solicitation affirmed that a quorum was present at the reconvened meeting, and that a majority of shareholders voted for the Committee's slate of Directors which includes Mr. Nano, plus Ben Marcovitch, William L. Reali, Joel M. Evans, MD, Richard D. Hornidge, Jr., and Ralph S. Torello. Today's meeting was reconvened from the original date of January 16, 2007.
In a statement, Mr. Nano said, "We thank CTT's shareholders for their vote of support. The new team is dedicated to delivering on our commitment to drive revenue growth, improve profitability, and significantly increase shareholder value. This group brings with it a strong background of business experience, a successful track record in managing growth and complementary management expertise. We look forward to working for the CTT shareholders."
About Competitive Technologies, Inc.
Competitive Technologies, established in 1968, is a full service technology transfer and licensing provider focused on the technology needs of its customers and transforming those requirements into commercially viable solutions. CTT is a global leader in identifying, developing and commercializing innovative technologies in life, electronic, nano, and physical sciences developed by universities, companies and inventors. CTT maximizes the value of intellectual assets for the benefit of its customers, clients and shareholders. Visit CTT's website: www.competitivetech.net
Statements about our future expectations, including development and regulatory plans, and all other statements in this document, other than historical facts, are "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of applicable Federal Securities Laws, and are not guarantees of future performance. If and when used herein, the words "may," "will," "should," "anticipate," "believe," "appear," "intend," "plan," "expect," "estimate," "approximate," and similar expressions, as they relate to us or our business or management, are intended to identify such forward-looking statements. These statements involve risks and uncertainties related to our ability to obtain rights to market technologies, market acceptance of and competition for our licensed technologies, growth strategies and strategic plans, operating performance and financing of our operations, industry trends, and other risks and uncertainties inherent in our business, including those set forth in Item 1A under the caption "Risk Factors," in our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2006, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on October 30, 2006, and other factors that may be described in our other filings with the SEC, and are subject to change at any time. Our actual results could differ materially from these forward-looking statements. We undertake no obligation to update publicly any forward-looking statement.
This news release was distributed by PrimeNewswire, www.primenewswire.com
SOURCE: Competitive Technologies, Inc.
Vanunu: yeah but, if we do Neil Young here, we have to start with this; don't you think?
Disarmament Diplomacy
Issue No. 65, July - August 2002
Opinion & Analysis Nanotechnology and Mass Destruction: The Need for an Inner Space Treaty
By Sean Howard
"I think it is no exaggeration to say we are on the cusp of the further perfection of extreme evil, an evil whose possibility spreads well beyond that which weapons of mass destruction bequeathed to the nation-states, on to a surprising and terrible empowerment of extreme individuals. "
Bill Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, April 2000
Introduction
This article assesses concerns about the potential development of new weapons and risks of mass destruction made possible by nanotechnology - the rapidly evolving field of atomic and molecular engineering.1 It will argue that such concerns are valid and will need to be addressed by the international arms control and non-proliferation regime. The paper concludes with an appeal for such an engagement to begin sooner rather than later. Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are already banned from outer space under the terms of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. Before long, there may be need for an 'inner space' treaty to protect the planet from devastation caused - accidentally, or by terrorists, or in open conflict - by artificial atomic and molecular structures capable of destroying environments and life forms from within.
The Nanotechnology Revolution
Nanotechnology is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "the branch of technology that deals with dimensions and tolerances of less than 100 nanometres, esp. the manipulation of individual atoms and molecules." A nanometre is one billionth (one-thousand millionth) of a metre. Although the potential of atomic engineering on the scale of 1-100 nanometres was foreseen for decades, most famously in a 1959 lecture by the US physicist Richard Feynman,2 serious research was only made possible in the 1980s, primarily through the ability of a new microscope - the scanning tunnelling microscope (STM) - to 'click' and 'drag' on individual atoms.3 Numerous universities in North America, Europe and Asia quickly established teams to investigate the possibilities of the new research.
By January 2000, the US government had become sufficiently impressed with the early results to launch a National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)4, with initial funding of $497 million. While other governments are also investing in a range of nanotechnology research5, the US effort is by far the most substantial - and hyped. Launching the programme, President Bill Clinton enthused: "Imagine the possibilities: materials with ten times the strength of steel and only a small fraction of the weight; shrinking all the information housed at the Library of Congress into a device the size of a sugar cube; detecting cancerous tumors when they are only a few cells in size. Some of our research goals may take 20 or more years to achieve, but that is precisely why there is an important role for the federal government."6
A White House Fact Sheet - entitled 'National Nanotechnology Initiative: Leading to the Next Industrial Revolution' - virtually salivated over the prospect of an atomically re-designed world:
"The emerging fields of nanoscience and nanoengineering - the ability to manipulate and move matter - are leading to unprecedented understanding and control over the fundamental building blocks of all physical things. These developments are likely to change the way almost everything - from vaccines to computers to automobile tires to objects not yet imagined - is designed and made. ... Nanotechnology is the builder's new frontier and its potential impact is compelling: this Initiative establishes Grand Challenges to fund interdisciplinary research and education teams...that work for major, long-term objectives."7
The Bush administration' s first NNI budget request, for FY 2002, was for $518.9 million, increased by Congress to $604.4 million. The request for the coming fiscal year is $679 million. The range of US government partners involved reflects the technology's potential breadth of application.8 The second largest recipient is the Department of Defense, with $180 million of funding dedicated to elaborating a "conceptual template for achieving new levels of warfighting effectiveness" reflecting "the increasingly critical nature of technological advances".9 None of the funding is currently earmarked specifically for developing new weapons. Studies are, however, already underway (e.g. the research on new types of armour, considered below) and likely to be undertaken to assess the kind of nanotechnological systems which US forces may confront, or equip themselves with, in the future. Such weapons, at least in principle, could include WMD, either in terms of entirely new means of mass destruction, or nanotechnological enhancements to existing WMD.
The incentive for an adversary to pursue the military application of atomic engineering - either on a battlefield or on a massively destructive scale - may, ironically, be increased by the evident enthusiasm of the US military for the new possibilities. As with other advanced technologies, the defensive and offensive utility of nanotechnology is hard to distinguish; from an adversary's point of view, it may even be dangerous to try. Here, for instance, is a recent news story on 'nanoarmour' for US troops:
"The Massachusetts Institute of Technology plans to create military uniforms that can block out biological weapons and even heal their wearers as part of a five-year contract to develop nanotechnology applications for soldiers, the US Army announced... MIT won the $50 million contract to create an Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies, or ISN. The ISN will be staffed by around 150 people, including 35 MIT professors.. . The unique lightweight materials that can be composed using nanotechnology will possess revolutionary qualities that MIT says will help it make a molecular 'exoskeleton' for soldiers. The ISN plans to research ideas for a soft - and almost invisible - clothing that can solidify into a medical cast when a soldier is injured or a 'forearm karate glove' for combat, MIT said. Researchers also hope to develop a kind of molecular chain mail that can deflect bullets. In addition to protecting soldiers, these radically different materials will have uses in offensive tactics, at least psychologically. 'Imagine the psychological impact upon a foe when encountering squads of seemingly invincible warriors protected by armour and endowed with superhuman capabilities, such as the ability to leap over 20-foot walls,' ISN director Ned Thomas said in a release."10
Imagine, one might add, the psychological impact on people around the world, first of realising that such a dramatic extension of militarisation into the nanosphere is beginning, then of wondering where such a process might end. Why stop at armour, short of new weapons - and, if it does lead to new weapons, what on earth will they be?
Fact and Fiction
Nanotechnology has become firmly established as a subject of popular interest, largely through visions of a 'return to Eden', and even an escape from mortality, offered in countless science fiction novels, films and television series, and a number of best-selling science books, prominent among them Engines of Creation by K. Eric Drexler and The Age of Spiritual Machines by Ray Kurzweil. Such works are generally derided by professional nanotechnologists, keen to caution against inflated expectations and thus possible disillusionment on the part of governments, funders and industry. Even the vision of nanotechnology purveyed by such professionals, however, is replete with expressions of confidence in its long-term capacity to transform the modern world - for the better, of course.
In September 2001 - a month synonymous with the destructive misuse of modern technology - Scientific American published a special issue on progress and prospects in the new 'science of the small'. The issue, featuring articles from prominent nanotechnology advocates and practitioners, differing only in the intensity of their enthusiasm, outlines developments in four main areas of research: computer circuitry11, new construction 'supermaterials'12, medical diagnostic and therapeutic applications13, and 'nanorobotics'14.
All these areas overlap, just as nanotechnology itself merges with two other 'frontier' disciplines, genetic engineering and robotics. More grandly, nanotechnology is viewed as a potentially significant step toward the 'unification' - at least in terms of a central research and development agenda - of physics, chemistry and biology. As the introduction to the special issue of Scientific American, entitled 'Megabucks for Nanotech', noted: "Because the development of tools and techniques for characterising and building nanostructures may have far-reaching applicability across all sciences, nanotechnology could serve as a rallying point for physicists, chemists and biologists."
But does this allure mean scientists are more or less likely to be wary of the potential for harm their work may entail? What 'far-reaching applicability' could 'nanostructures' have for repressive governments, high-tech militaries, or terrorist organisations?
The dark side of nanoscale engineering has long been acknowledged outside the laboratory, both in works of science fiction and by prominent evangelists for the new faith, some of whom (see below) have suggested safeguards and protections. The extent or even existence of the threat, however, has been largely ignored or discounted in the official decisions and statements of governments, funders, industry and academe. This in turn adds to the difficulty of seeking to persuade the overstretched and under-resourced arms control diplomatic community to begin to consider its possible interest in the subject.
In the wake of September 11, however, a serious reappraisal of official attitudes toward nanotechnology is urgently required. The assumption, perhaps held most deeply in the US, is that nanotechnology can and should be enlisted in the campaign against terrorism, and that the risk of misuse is far outweighed by the likely gains. But to what extent is this more than an assumption?
Nanotechnology and Mass Destruction: an Overview of the Current Debate
Processes of self-replication, self-repair and self-assembly are an important goal of mainstream nanotechnological research. Either accidentally or by design, precisely such processes could act to rapidly and drastically alter environments, structures and living beings from within. In extremis, such alteration could develop into a 'doomsday scenario', the nanotechnological equivalent of a nuclear chain-reaction - an uncontrollable, exponential, self-replicating proliferation of 'nanodevices' chewing up the atmosphere, poisoning the oceans, etc. While accidental mass-destruction, even global destruction, is generally regarded as unlikely -equivalent to fears that a nuclear explosion could ignite the atmosphere, a prospect seriously investigated during the Manhattan Project - a deliberately malicious programming of nanosystems, with devastating results, seems hard to rule out. As Ray Kurzweil points out, if the potential for atomic self-replication is a pipedream, so is nanotechnology, but if the potential is real, so is the risk:
"Without self-replication, nanotechnology is neither practical nor economically feasible. And therein lies the rub. What happens if a little software problem (inadvertent or otherwise) fails to halt the self-replication? We may have more nanobots than we want. They could eat up everything in sight. ... I believe that it will be possible to engineer self-replicating nanobots in such a way that an inadvertent, undesired population explosion would be unlikely. ... But the bigger danger is the intentional hostile use of nanotechnology. Once the basic technology is available, it would not be difficult to adapt it as an instrument of war or terrorism. ... Nuclear weapons, for all their destructive potential, are at least relatively local in their effects. The self-replicating nature of nanotechnology makes it a far greater danger."15
Assuming replication will prove feasible, K. Eric Drexler also assumes the worst is possible: "Replicators can be more potent than nuclear weapons: to devastate Earth with bombs would require masses of exotic hardware and rare isotopes, but to destroy life with replicators would require only a single speck made of ordinary elements. Replicators give nuclear war some company as a potential cause of extinction, giving a broader context to extinction as a moral concern."16
There are, of course, multiple levels of concern below that of a final apocalypse. Use and abuse are, unavoidably, the twins born of controlled replication. Nanosystems proliferating in a precisely controlled and pre-programmed manner to destroy cancerous cells, or deliver medicines, or repair contaminated environments, can also be 'set' to destroy, poison and pollute.17 The chain reactions involved in thermonuclear explosions are precise and controlled, as much or more than the dosages in chemotherapy treatment. In the science of atomic engineering, the very technologies deployed to allay concerns of apocalyptic malfunction loom as the likely source of functional mass destruction.
Notwithstanding their vividly expressed concerns, both Kurzweil and Drexler portray the risk of mass- or global-destruction as a containable, preventable problem - provided nanotechnology is pursued as vigorously as possible in order to understand the real risks. In April 2000, however, an article in Wired magazine by Bill Joy, a leading computer scientist and co-founder of Sun Microsystems, painted a far bleaker picture:
"Accustomed to living with almost routine scientific breakthroughs, we have yet to come to terms with the fact that the most compelling 21st-century technologies - robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology - pose a different threat than the technologies that have come before. ... What was different in the 20th Century? Certainly, the technologies underlying the weapons of mass destruction - nuclear, biological, and chemical - were powerful, and the weapons an enormous threat. But building nuclear weapons required, at least for a time, access to both rare...raw materials and highly protected information; biological and chemical weapons programs also tended to require large-scale activities. The 21st century technologies. ..are so powerful that they can spawn whole new classes of accidents and abuses. Most dangerously, for the first time, these accidents and abuses are widely within the reach of individuals or small groups. ... Thus we have the possibility not just of weapons of mass destruction but of knowledge-enabled mass destruction (KMD), this destructiveness hugely amplified by the power of self-replication. "18
Joy identifies and addresses two key issues: if the danger is so great, 1) why hasn't the warning been adequately sounded before now, and 2) what can be done to avoid the abyss? His answer to the first question19 is shocking and, given his own commercial success, confessional:
"In truth, we have had in hand for years clear warnings of the dangers inherent in widespread knowledge of GNR [genetics, nanotechnology and robotics] technologies - of the possibility of knowledge alone enabling mass destruction. But these warnings haven't been widely publicized; the public discussions have been clearly inadequate. There is no profit in publicizing the dangers. ... In this age of triumphant commercialism, technology.. .is delivering a series of almost magical inventions that are the most phenomenally lucrative ever seen. We are aggressively pursuing the promises of these new technologies within the now-unchallenged system of global capitalism and its manifold financial incentives and competitive pressures."
In seeking ways back from the brink, Joy's starting point is the folly of distinguishing between military and non-military - or, more broadly, 'good' and 'bad' - nanotechnology. There is, of course, a distinction between malicious and benign intent, but the difference does not affect the inherently dangerous and/or uncontrollable nature of atomic fabrication and engineering. In view of the vast promise, both financial and scientific, involved, the tendency is to seek a technological fix, a nanotechnological equivalent to a missile defence system, to ward off any demons the same technology may conjure up. In dismissing this option, Joy draws the only remaining conclusion available:
"In Engines of Creation, Eric Drexler proposed that we build an active nanotechnological shield - a form of immune system for the biosphere - to defend against dangerous replicators of all kinds that might escape from laboratories or otherwise be maliciously created. But the shield he proposed would itself be extremely dangerous - nothing could prevent it from developing autoimmune problems and attacking the biosphere itself. Similar difficulties apply to the construction of shields against robotics and genetic engineering. These technologies are too powerful to be shielded against in the time frame of interest; even if it were possible to implement defensive shields, the side effects of their development would be at least as dangerous as the technologies we are trying to protect against. These possibilities are all thus either undesirable or unachievable or both. The only realistic alternative I see is relinquishment: to limit development of the technologies that are too dangerous, by limiting our pursuit of certain kinds of knowledge."
As he doubtless expected, Joy's article was widely portrayed by nanotechnology enthusiasts and practitioners as Luddite exaggeration bordering on unmanly hysteria. Gary Stix, special projects editor at Scientific American, noted scornfully that "the danger comes when intelligent people" take "predictions" of nanotechnological catastrophe "at face value". A "morose Bill Joy", Stix wrote, had "worried...about the implications of nanorobots that could multiply uncontrollably. A spreading mass of self-replicating robots - what Drexler has labelled 'gray goo' - could pose enough of a threat to society, he mused, that we should consider stopping development of nanotechnology. But that suggestion diverts attention from the real nano goo: chemical and biological weapons."20 This parodies Joy's article, however, which considers a range of negative consequences potentially flowing from the basic fact of the nanotechnology revolution, namely that the "replicating and evolving processes that have been confined to the natural world are about to become realms of human endeavour".21 That we may not be eaten by 'gray goo' does not mean we should ignore other dire prospects. As for the 'real nano goo', Joy sees in nanotechnology the potential to dramatically enhance the mass-destructive capacity of chemical and, particularly, biological weapons, in a manner akin perhaps to the qualitative leap from atomic to thermonuclear weapons. It is precisely in the CBW area that nanotechnology is likely to pose its first major arms control challenge.
The analogy with the development of thermonuclear weapons is also instructive in the context of the possible abandonment of a field of scientific work - however uncharted and challenging the territory - on moral grounds, or out of fear of the total destruction which may follow. In 1949, the scientific General Advisory Committee (GAC) of the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) drew up a report on the possible development of hydrogen bombs by the United States military. The general report, adopted by eight physicists including the scientific director of the Manhattan Project, Robert Oppenheimer, stumbled on the verge of recommending that the attempt not be made: "It is clear that the use of this weapon would bring about the destruction of innumerable human lives... Its use...carries much further than the atomic bomb itself the policy of exterminating civilian populations. ... We all hope that by one means or another, the development of these weapons can be avoided." A supporting document, however, submitted by I.I. Rabi and Enrico Fermi, took the final step. The destructive capacity of the hydrogen bomb, they argued, "makes its very existence and the knowledge of its construction a danger to humanity as a whole. It is necessarily an evil thing considered in any light."22
So, for Joy, is nanotechnology. For most scientists, however, the case is rather that of physicists in the 1930s, aware but sceptical of the prospect of the large-scale release of energy from the atomic nucleus23, but almost without exception committed to exploring the exciting new world, and professional opportunities, opened up by quantum mechanics.24 Even after the discovery of fission in 1938, many prominent physicists, including Niels Bohr25, were extremely dubious that a practical, deliverable weapon could be built. The thing to do was to press on, work hard to make sure of the facts, and hope the bomb would prove impossible.
Part of the motivation for pressing on, of course, was fear of Hitler getting the bomb first. But, assuming the risks of nanotechnological mass destruction became more widely accepted, what would the comparable fear be today? Pre-eminently, terrorism. Terrorists, however, can only hope to acquire new means of mass destruction in the same way they pursue nuclear, chemical and biological WMD - by pilfering and diverting from a highly-developed knowledge-base and infrastructure. In Joy's view, precisely such a 'gift' is presently being assembled and wrapped, generously funded and uncritically supported, and in the almost complete absence of mainstream political or wider democratic scrutiny or participation. 'We' are sowing the wind we all may reap.
Options for an Inner Space Treaty
There are two basic options for designing a possible arms control approach to the mass-destructive potential of nanotechnology. Both, of course, will be stillborn in the absence of a recognition by government, business and science - the 'strategic triad' of contemporary decision-making - that serious dangers exist. Such initial pressure for action cannot realistically be expected to come from within the structurally reactive and reflective arms control diplomatic community.
Let us assume, however, that growing public concern and increasingly troubling scientific results combine to push the issue onto a future agenda. We are immediately confronted with a decisive choice, so familiar to followers of myriad disarmament and non-proliferation discussions: what is our goal, abolition or regulation? Is the fundamental danger what 'others' might do with 'our' technology, or is the real problem the technology itself? It is possible to construct an arms control regime based on the logic of either conclusion; but it is not possible to merge both approaches.
Given the huge investment now flowing into nanotechnology, allied to the vast practical and financial gains on offer and the correspondingly large numbers of scientists likely to be employed in the new field, the probability is that a regime of control and restraint will acquire a compelling logic, banishing the 'chimera' of abolition to the shadows. If so, a rough transposition of the Outer Space Treaty - allowing only for obvious changes of reference and context - could quickly yield the broad brush parameters of an Inner Space Treaty seeking to ensure the peaceful exploitation, rather than the non-exploitation, of the nanosphere. (See the Appendix - 'Version A: Treaty on Principles Governing the Nanotechnological Activities of States in Inner (Atomic and Molecular) Space' - for a tentative sketch of an accord along these basic lines.)
Such a treaty would mark a giant political leap forward from today's effectively unregulated mass of governmental, academic and commercial projects. The critical issue would then become one of effective practical implementation. How, for example, could the nature, scope, intention and possible application of inner-space research be ascertained and verified? How would violations be detected and transgressors corrected? Where would the line be drawn, and by whom, between defensive and offensive military nanotechnology? How could adequate monitoring and inspection of commercial nanotechnology be reconciled with the demands of competitiveness and confidentiality?
Such dilemmas and tensions are currently dogging the debate over the best means of strengthening the chemical and biological weapons regimes. Indeed, as mentioned above, the incursion into chemistry and biology of increasingly sophisticated techniques and processes of atomic and genetic engineering is already promising to destabilise many traditional arms control strategies and remedies. Until this new engineering revolution takes firmer shape, with its capacities and limits more clearly defined, how can we construct a regime of control and restraint around it, either in the CBW-area or under the remit of a new 'inner space' accord? But if we wait for the results of "a wonderful free-for-all of discovery"26 to become clear, then what are the chances of introducing timely and effective controls, rather than securely locking the empty stable?
As a radical alternative, what would an abolitionist treaty look like? (See the Appendix - 'Version B: Treaty on the Prohibition of Nanotechnological Exploration and Engineering of Inner (Atomic and Molecular) Space' - for a tentative sketch of such a ban.) Instead of reserving the nanosphere for peaceful human exploitation, it would seek its preservation as a natural 'wilderness' environment, treating any exploitation as a criminal violation of sanctuary.27 Again, though, if the elaboration of such a radical and ambitious regime waits on events, it will soon be overtaken by them, irremediably swamped by the sheer scale of ongoing nanotechnological colonisation, mining, drilling, construction, etc.
Indeed, is there yet time for either version of an 'inner space' regime to be drawn up and introduced? Although some damage has already been done, it still seems fair to describe the nanotechnology revolution as in its infancy. The fact, as Oppenheimer once stated, that scientists have "known sin"28, is no reason - as Rabi and Fermi bravely argued with regard to the H-bomb - for the 'sinning' to continue, or reach a new level.
Conclusion
The danger of new means of mass destruction emerging from the development of nanotechnology is, by definition, as yet neither present nor clear. By the time it is, it may be too late to either eliminate or control. While there is no realistic possibility of early arms control negotiations to tackle the threat, the international community should at least take cognisance of the issue - in all its aspects, to use the appropriate diplomatic term for far-reaching, open-ended and open-minded deliberation.
As part of its establishment by a United Nations Special Session on Disarmament in 1978, the Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva was provided with a wide-ranging list of items for possible pursuit. One of the items, dormant ever since, was: 'New Types of Weapons of Mass Destruction and New Systems of Such Weapons'. Action to prevent the emergence of new means of mass destruction has, thus, a place already set for it at the diplomatic table.
Given its current tensions and deep stalemate, the CD is an impractical suggestion as a forum for initiating preliminary discussions on the international security implications of nanotechnology. The real issue, however, is not where but whether such discussions take place. In the name of our common humanity, and for the sake of our common and beautiful home, they must.
Notes and References
1. Given the potential scale of devastation brought into view by nanotechnology, it is tempting to move beyond the designation weapons of mass destruction and coin a new phrase - weapons of global destruction (WGD) - to better describe and convey the threat. I have shied away from doing so, however, for four reasons: 1) it may be possible to develop nanotechnological, or nanotechnologically -enhanced, weapons capable of causing mass destruction on the scale of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, but not global destruction in the sense of irreparable, comprehensive annihilation of life on the planet; 2) it may conversely be the case that the irreparable, comprehensive annihilation of life on the planet could be inadvertently caused by nanotechnological devices, entirely outside of a military or terroristic context; 3) the threat posed to the planet by the three current categories of mass destruction - particularly nuclear weapons - is so severe that a new label connoting a qualitatively more severe threat is, certainly at this stage, premature and misleading; and 4) nanotechnology is likely to play a key role in rendering even more dangerous and repellent all three existing categories of mass destruction, particularly biological weapons, making distinctions between nuclear, chemical and biological weapons on the one hand, and nanotechnological weapons on the other, spurious and unhelpful. It may be, of course, that nanotechnology, if unchecked, will form part of a process of technological innovation leading to a spectrum of weapons better understood and described as WGD than WMD.
2. 'There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom', lecture by Richard Feynman to the American Physical Society, California Institute of Technology (Caltech), December 29, 1959. Feynman, who worked at Los Alamos during World War II, makes no reference in his lecture to the possible military applications of atomic engineering, stressing with customary optimism the potential benefits: "I am not afraid to consider the final question as to whether, ultimately - in the great future - we can arrange the atoms the way we want; the very atoms, all the way down! ... Up to now, we have been content to dig in the ground to find minerals. We heat them up and do things on a large scale with them, and we hope to get a pure substance with just so much impurity, and so on. But we must always accept some atomic arrangement that nature gives us. ... What could we do with layered structures with just the right layers? What would the properties of materials be if we could really arrange the atoms the way we want them? ... I can't see exactly what would happen, but I can hardly doubt that when we have some control of the arrangement of things on a small scale, we will get an enormously greater range of possible properties that substances can have, and of different things that we can do." Emphases in the original. For the full text of the lecture, see the California Institute of Technology, http://www.its. caltech.edu/ ~feynman.
3. The scanning tunnelling microscope was developed in 1981 by Gerd Binnig and Heinrich Rohrer at the IBM Research Laboratory in Zurich. Binning and Rohrer received the Nobel Prize for Physics for the invention in 1986. In 1990, Donald Eigler and Erhard Schweizer, using an STM at IBM's Almaden Research Laboratory in San Jose, California, arranged 35 xenon atoms to spell out three letters. The letters, naturally, were I, B, and M. In the years since, Eigler has been engaged in 'drawing' ever-more substantial atomic 'pictures'. An extraordinary 'STM image gallery' of 'works' by Eigler and his colleagues can be viewed at http://www.almaden. ibm.com/vis/ stm/catalogue. html.
4. See http://www.nano. gov for the official NNI website.
5. According to the US National Science Foundation (NSF), global government spending on nanotechnology in FY 2001, excluding the United States, was $835 million, up from $316 million in 1997, the first year the NSF provided an estimate. See Gary Stix, 'Little Big Science', Scientific American, special issue on nanotechnology, September 2001 (http://www.sciam. com).
6. Speech by President William J. Clinton at the California Institute of Technology on January 21, 2000. In his remarks, the President invoked the optimistic ghost of Richard Feynman: "Caltech is no stranger to the idea of nanotechnology - the ability to manipulate matter at the atomic and molecular level. Over 40 years ago, Caltech's own Richard Feynman asked, 'what would happen if we could arrange atoms one by one the way we want them?'"
7. 'National Nanotechnology Initiative: Leading to the Next Industrial Revolution', White House Fact Sheet, January 21, 2000. The Fact Sheet lists seven "potential breakthroughs" anticipated over the next quarter-century: "the expansion of mass storage electronics to multi-terabit capacity that will increase the memory storage per unit surface a thousand fold"; "making materials and products from the bottom-up, that is, by building them up from atoms and molecules"; "developing materials that are 10 times stronger than steel but a fraction of the weight"; "improving the computer speed and efficiency of miniscule transistors and memory chips by factors of millions"; "using gene and drug delivery to detect cancerous cells by nanoengineered. ..contrast agents or target organs in the human body"; "removing the finest contaminants from water and air to promote a cleaner environment and potable water", and; "doubling the energy efficiency of solar cells". In addition to this sweeping vision of technology on the march, the Fact Sheet promises that the "impact nanotechnology has on society from legal, ethical, social, economic, and workforce preparation perspectives will be studied". However laudable this sense of broader context, however, the language is strikingly auto-suggestive, in effect directing the studies to consider what the impact of a massive government investment in nanotechnology is likely to be, rather than whether such an investment should be made.
8. There are currently ten US government partners in the NNI. In descending order of funding received in FY 2002, they are: National Science Foundation ($199 million); Department of Defense ($180 million); Department of Energy ($91.1 million); National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA - $46 million); National Institutes of Health ($40.8 million); National Institute of Standards and Technology ($37.6 million); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA - $5 million); Department of Transportation ($2 million); US Department of Agriculture ($1.5 million); Department of Justice ($1.4 million). The major recipient - the NSF - is entrusted to conduct a wide range of basic research under the heading 'Nanoscale Science and Engineering' . The major categories of this research are: biological sciences; computer and information science and engineering; engineering; geosciences, and; mathematics and physical science.
9. FY 2002 budget request, http://www.nano. gov/2002budget. html.
10. 'MIT to make "nanotech" Army wear', Tiffany Kary, CNET News.com, March 14 (2:39 PM), 2002. For the MIT press release quoted in the report, see 'Army selects MIT for $50 million Institute to use nanomaterials to clothe, equip soldiers,' March 13, 2002, http://www.mit. edu/newsoffice/ nr/2002/isn. html. For a US Army summary, see 'Army teams with Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to establish Institute for Soldier Nanotechnology' , News Release R-02-011, March 13, 2002. MIT has also published twenty 'questions and answers' concerning the project. Question 18 - "What is your response to critics who say universities are being turned into think tanks for the military?" - is answered as follows: "As a vast training bed that captures lessons learned exceptionally well, runs whole bases dedicating to educating men and women, and produces soldiers who are inspired by our nation's values and ideals, there is much that the military can share and shares in common with our nation's universities. It is in everyone's best interest that the military and academic institutions collaborate. It is also in everyone's best interest that ideas from academia, the entertainment industry and the military be improved through the rigors of scientific research." See 'Institute for Soldier Nanotechnology (ISN): Questions and Answers', MIT News Release, March 13, 2002, http://www.mit. edu/newsoffice/ nr/2002/isnqa. html.
11. Charles M. Lieber, 'The Incredible Shrinking Circuit', Scientific American, September 2001. After much sober analysis, the article finishes with a flourish: "Although substantial work remains before nanoelectronics makes its way into computers, this goal now seems less hazy than it was even a year ago. As we gain confidence, we will learn not just to shrink digital microelectronics but to go where no digital circuit has gone before. Nanoscale devices that exhibit quantum phenomena, for example, could be exploited in quantum encryption and quantum computing. The richness of the nanoworld will change the macroworld."
12. George M. Whitesides and J. Christopher Love, 'The Art of Building Small', Scientific American, September 2001.
13. A. Paul Alivisatos, 'Less is More in Medicine', Scientific American, September 2001. Cautious and tentative throughout, the paper ends with an intoxicated survey of prospects: "What...marvels might the future hold? Although the means to achieve them are far from clear, sober nanotechnologists have stated some truly ambitious goals. One of the 'grand challenges' of the National Nanotechnology Initiative is to find ways to detect cancerous tumors that are a mere few cells in size. Researchers also hope eventually to develop ways to regenerate not just bone or cartilage or skin but also more complex organs, using artificial scaffoldings that can guide the activity of seeded cells and can even direct the growth of a variety of cell types. Replacing hearts of kidneys or livers in this way might not match the fictional technology of Fantastic Voyage, but the thought that such medical therapies might actually become available in the not so distant future is still fantastically exciting." At no point does Alivisatos address the potential misuse of these techniques and methods.
14. K. Eric Drexler, 'Machine-Phase Nanotechnology' , Scientific American, September 2001.
15. Ray Kurzweil, The Age of Spiritual Machines, Penguin Books, 1999, pp. 141-142. Emphasis in the original.
16. K. Eric Drexler, Engines of Creation, Anchor Books, 1986, p. 174.
17. The same potential for misuse, of course, applies across the spectrum of modern biotechnologies based on genetic engineering and modification. The risk of unintended consequences - a supercrop producing superweeds, for example - is itself considerable; the potential for intended consequences - qualitatively new biological weapons - is perhaps even greater. For details of the debate over the impact of biotechnology on efforts to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention, see Jenni Rissanen, 'BWC Report', Disarmament Diplomacy No. 62, pp. 18-32.
18. 'Why the Future Doesn't Need Us', Bill Joy, Wired, April 2000 (http://www.wired. com).
19. I don't interpret Joy as placing the entire onus for sounding the alarm on scientists. Nevertheless, he does stress the obviously especial responsibility of practitioners in a new field to provide honest assessments of risk and dangers to their paymasters - whatever the risk and dangers to their careers. Once the field is well-established, scientists' qualms or concerns are much easier to ignore - why, after all, did they not say so before? This was certainly the well-documented experience of many physicists involved in the Manhattan Project, lobbying frantically after the bomb was built to prevent its unannounced use against a Japanese civilian target - a scenario which, to most of them, would have sounded nightmarish beyond crediting at the outset of the Project. In contrast, there is clear, though contested, evidence, that the majority of scientists working under the direction of the Nazi regime - most importantly, Werner Heisenberg - deliberately used their influence to persuade the authorities not to engage in serious weapons work. Whatever the exact motivation and sequence of events, the broader point is that a unique window of opportunity can sometimes open in the formative stages of a major new technological enterprise for scientists to lobby either for or against its pursuit, and so to help determine, perhaps critically, the scale and intensity of the endeavour. For discussion of the radically different situation and approaches of atomic physicists in America and Germany in World War II, see Robert Jungk, Brighter Than a Thousand Suns, Penguin Books, 1970 edition, especially pp. 175-191 & pp. 201-217; Thomas Powers, Heisenberg's War: The Secret History of the German Bomb, Da Capo Press, 2000, especially pp. 478-484; and Richard Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, Touchstone, 1988, especially pp. 749-788.
20. Gary Stix, 'Little Big Science', Scientific American, September 2001.
21. 'Why the Future Doesn't Need Us', Bill Joy, Wired, April 2000.
22. For the report, supporting documents and debates of the GAC, see Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, pp. 776-770. A sceptical response to Fermi and Rabi's description of the H-bomb as "necessarily an evil thing in any light" would be to say that the non-use of thermonuclear weapons since 1949 proves such a dramatic characterisation to have been overblown. The prospect of global destruction through a full-scale nuclear conflict has not yet been lifted, however, and is sufficiently appalling to make a 53-year time period startlingly insignificant. The only point at which one could conclude that the cloud had passed would be with the advent of a nuclear-weapon- free world - an objective to be sought in part because of the irreducible moral illegitimacy of thermonuclear weapons. Fermi and Rabi would perhaps regard considerations such as the purported success of deterrence, or the prevention of Cold War meltdown into full-scale conflict, as good examples of the kind of "light" in which the issue should not be considered.
23. Up to his death in 1937, Ernest Rutherford, the leading pioneer of modern atomic physics, believed in the impracticality even of generating useable energy directly from atoms. As quoted in a famous article in The Times on September 12, 1933, Rutherford noted that bombarding heavy elements with neutrons and other particles "was a very poor and inefficient way of producing energy, and anyone who looked for a source of power in the transformation of the atoms was talking moonshine". See Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, p. 27.
24. In his survey of the attitude of physicists in the 1930s to the possibility of atomic weapons, Robert Jungk names only one scientist who walked away from a bright professional future. Jungk quotes the English crystallographer Kathleen Lonsdale as arguing that scientific "responsibility cannot be shirked" for the "criminal or evil" application of research, "however ordinary the work itself may be". He then writes: "Only a few scientific investigators in the Western world have in fact acted on this principle. Their honesty obliged them to risk their professional future and face economic sacrifices with resolution. In some cases they actually renounced the career they had planned, as did one of Max Born's young English assistants, Helen Smith. As soon as she heard of the atom bomb and its application, she decided to give up physics for jurisprudence. " The case is doubly interesting given Born's decision, upon leaving Nazi Germany, to remain a physicist but refuse to take part in any active weapons work. In the opinion of the author of this paper, Smith ranks as one of the unsung heroes of the history of scientific conscientious objection. See Jungk, Brighter Than a Thousand Suns, p. 261.
25. Bohr believed an atomic bomb, at least of devastating effect, would be rendered impractical by the scale of the effort involved in producing sufficient quantities of the kind of uranium, the naturally rare isotope U-235, required. According to Edward Teller, Bohr told scientists at Princeton University in 1939 that "it can never be done unless you turn the United States into one huge factory". Visiting Los Alamos in 1943, Bohr admitted he had been both wrong and right: wrong in that he hadn't foreseen the production of highly-fissionable plutonium from burning commonplace uranium (U-238); right in the scale of industrial effort required to produce sufficient quantities of both plutonium (used to destroy Nagasaki) and U-235 (used to destroy Hiroshima). See Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, p. 294. It is salutary to consider what comparable assumptions may be built into the thinking of prominent scientists today who see no compelling cause for concern about the capacity of nanotechnology to produce new means of mass destruction. In one respect, the situation is perhaps more frightening, as a much lesser military-industrial effort than the Manhattan Project may be required to produce and deliver nanotechnological WMD. Might there not also be the possibility of an equivalent to plutonium: a sudden discovery which makes, for example, uncontrollable nanorobotic proliferation eminently more feasible?
26. 'The Art of Building Small', George M. Whitesides and J. Christopher Love, Scientific American, September 2001.
27. This formulation clearly suggests the violatory quality of all atomic experimentation and energy production involving penetration into the atomic interior, i.e. bombardment of the nucleus. The logical extension of an Inner Space Treaty premised on a defence of atomic sanctuary would indeed be the abolition of all nuclear weapons, nuclear energy and nuclear research activities - just as the exploitation of the atomic and molecular interior for engineering purposes is a logical extension of the exploitation of that environment in pursuit of military, scientific and industrial advantage.
28. Writing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March 3, 1948, Oppenheimer remarked: "In some sort of crude sense which no vulgarity, no humor, no overstatement can quite extinguish, the physicists have known sin."
Dr. Sean Howard is editor of Disarmament Diplomacy and Adjunct Professor of Political Science at the University College of Cape Breton (UCCB), Canada. The author thanks Lee-Anne Broadhead, Rebecca Johnson and Lorna Richardson for their support and advice in developing the paper.
Back to the Top of the Page
Appendix: Two Sketches for Draft Inner Space Treaty Texts
Caveat: Introductory Note
The Appendix is based on the contention that a treaty seeking to guarantee the exploitation of atomic and molecular space for engineering projects of exclusively peaceful purpose (Version A, below) can be provisionally sketched out on the basis of a rough transposition of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST) seeking to regulate and preserve outer space for purposes of peaceful exploration and commercial activity. In the case of a treaty seeking the blanket prohibition of nanotechnology (Version B, below) the OST is self-evidently inadequate, instructive only to illustrate the gulf between a regulatory and abolitionist measure.
There are, of course, important ways in which the OST would provide a partial or inadequate basis for even a 'peaceful uses' treaty. Crucially, the scale and spectrum of facilities involved in the case of nanotechnology would be vastly greater - more akin, indeed, to the range encountered in advanced biochemistry (with which, as we have seen, nanotechnology is already interlinked) . Correspondingly, valuable language and concepts could doubtless be transposed from the Chemical Weapons Convention - i.e. its seventh article, on National Implementation Measures - or the draft Protocol drawn up for the Biological Weapons Convention.
Instructive analogies with other accords - i.e. the 1977 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques - will surely occur to a readership far more versed than the author in the body and practice of relevant international law. The sketches which follow are designed only to stimulate debate, and even attract criticism, rather than be taken as a working basis for professional discussions.
Version A: A Peaceful Uses Treaty
Note: the title and text of the Outer Space Treaty is provided in italicised square brackets. For details of the status and implementation of the OST, see the United Nations Office for Outer Space affairs (UNOOSA) in Vienna, http://www.oosa. unvienna. org/treat/ ost/ost.html.
Treaty on Principles Governing the Nanotechnological Activities of States in Inner (Atomic and Molecular) Space
[Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies]
Preamble
The states parties to this Treaty,
Inspired by the great prospects opening up before humanity as a result of its entry into inner space - the atomic and molecular nanosphere - in pursuit of peaceful objectives of exploration and engineering,
[Inspired by the great prospects opening up before mankind as a result of man's entry into outer space,]
Recognising the common interest of all humanity in the progress of the nanotechnological exploration and engineering of inner space for peaceful purposes,
[Recognising the common interest of all mankind in the progress of the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes,]
Believing that the nanotechnological exploration and engineering of inner space should be carried on for the benefit of all peoples irrespective of the degree of their economic or scientific development,
[Believing that the exploration and use of outer space should be carried on for the benefit of all peoples irrespective of the degree of their economic or scientific development, ]
Desiring to contribute to broad international cooperation in the scientific as well as the legal aspects of the nanotechnological exploration and engineering of inner space for peaceful purposes,
[Desiring to contribute to broad international cooperation in the scientific as well as the legal aspects of the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes,]
Believing that such cooperation will contribute to the development of mutual understanding and to the strengthening of friendly relations between states and peoples,
[identical language]
Recalling resolution [NUMBER], entitled 'Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Nanotechnological Activities of States in the Exploration and Engineering of Inner Space', which was adopted unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly on [DATE],
[Recalling resolution 1962 (XVIII), entitled 'Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space', which was adopted unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly on 13 December 1963,]
Recalling resolution [NUMBER], calling upon states to refrain from developing, testing or deploying any atomically-engineer ed 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, which was adopted unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly on [DATE],
[Recalling resolution 1884 (XVIII), calling upon states to refrain from placing in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction or from installing such weapons on celestial bodies, which was adopted unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly on 17 October 1963,]
Taking account of United Nations General Assembly resolution 110 (II) of November 3, 1947, which condemned propaganda designed or likely to provoke or encourage any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, and considering that the aforementioned resolution is applicable to the nanotechnologically explored and engineered environment of inner space,
[Taking account of United Nations General Assembly resolution 110 (II) of November 3, 1947, which condemned propaganda designed or likely to provoke or encourage any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, and considering that the aforementioned resolution is applicable to outer space,]
Convinced that a Treaty on Principles Governing the Nanotechnological Activities of States in Inner (Atomic and Molecular) Space will further the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
[Convinced that a Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, will further the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,]
Have agreed on the following:
Article I: Purpose of Nanotechnology and Objective of Treaty
The nanotechnological exploration and engineering of inner (atomic and molecular) space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all humanity.
Inner space shall be free for exploration and engineering by all states without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of the nanosphere.
There shall be freedom of nanotechnological investigation in inner space and states shall facilitate and encourage international cooperation in such investigation.
[The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind.
Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all states without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies.
There shall be freedom of scientific investigation in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and states shall facilitate and encourage international cooperation in such investigation. ]
Article II: International Status of Inner Space
Inner space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.
[Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.]
Article III: Inner Space and International Law
States parties to the Treaty shall carry on nanotechnological activities in the exploration and engineering of inner space in accordance with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international cooperation and understanding.
[States parties to the Treaty shall carry on activities in the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, in accordance with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international cooperation and understanding. ]
Article IV: Inner Space as Non-Weaponised Environment
States parties to the Treaty undertake to refrain from developing, testing or deploying any atomically-engineer ed 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 establishment of atomically-engineer ed military installations and fortifications, and the development, deployment and testing of any type of nanotechnological weapon, shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for nanotechnological research or for any other peaceful purposes with respect to atomic-engineering shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of inner space for engineering purposes shall also not be prohibited.
[States parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.
The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all states parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.]
Article V: Early-Warning of Danger or Abuse
States parties to the Treaty shall immediately inform the other states parties to the Treaty or the Secretary-General of the United Nations of any nanotechnological objects or phenomena they discover in inner space which could constitute a danger to life or health in any environment.
[... States parties to the Treaty shall immediately inform the other states parties to the Treaty or the Secretary-General of the United Nations of any phenomena they discover in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, which could constitute a danger to the life or health of astronauts.]
Article VI: Responsibility for Appropriate and Prudent Activity
States parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national nanotechnological activities, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national nanotechnological activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty. The nanotechnological activities of non-governmental entities shall require authorisation and continuing supervision by the appropriate state party to the Treaty. When nanotechnological activities are carried on by an international organisation, responsibility for compliance with this Treaty shall be borne both by the international organisation and by the states parties to the Treaty participating in such organisation.
[States parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty. The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorisation and continuing supervision by the appropriate state party to the Treaty. When activities are carried on in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, by an international organisation, responsibility for compliance with this Treaty shall be borne both by the international organisation and by the states parties to the Treaty participating in such organisation. ]
Article VII: Liability for Inappropriate or Imprudent Activity
Each state party to the Treaty engaging in or responsible for nanotechnological activities is internationally liable for damage to another state party to the Treaty or to its natural or juridical persons caused by the atomically-engineer ed objects or components being thus developed, tested or deployed.
[Each state party to the Treaty that launches or procures the launching of an object into outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and each state party from whose territory or facility an object is launched, is internationally liable for damage to another state party to the Treaty or to its natural or juridical persons by such object or its component parts on the Earth, in air or in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies.]
Note: Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty, on ownership of objects launched into outer space, omitted as inapplicable. Article VIII below thus refers to Article IX of the OST, Article IX to Article X, etc.
Article VIII: Cooperation & Consultation
In the nanotechnological exploration and engineering of inner space, states parties to the Treaty shall be guided by the principle of cooperation and mutual assistance and shall conduct all their activities in inner space with due regard to the corresponding interests of all other states parties to the Treaty. States parties to the Treaty shall pursue nanotechnological studies of inner space and conduct exploration of the nanosphere so as to avoid harmful contamination or adverse changes in any environment resulting from the introduction of atomically-engineer ed matter and, where necessary, shall adopt appropriate measures for this purpose. If a state party to the Treaty has reason to believe that a nanotechnological activity or experiment planned by it or its nationals in inner space would cause potentially harmful interference with nanotechnological activities of other states parties in the peaceful exploration and engineering of inner space it shall undertake appropriate international consultations before proceeding with any such activity or experiment. A state party to the Treaty which has reason to believe that a nanotechnological activity or experiment planned by another state party in inner space would cause potentially harmful interference with activities in the peaceful exploration and engineering of inner space may request consultation concerning the activity or experiment.
[In the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, states parties to the Treaty shall be guided by the principle of cooperation and mutual assistance and shall conduct all their activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, with due regard to the corresponding interests of all other states parties to the Treaty. States parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter and, where necessary, shall adopt appropriate measures for this purpose. If a state party to the Treaty has reason to believe that an activity or experiment planned by it or its nationals in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, would cause potentially harmful interference with activities of other states parties in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, it shall undertake appropriate international consultations before proceeding with any such activity or experiment. A state party to the Treaty which has reason to believe that an activity or experiment planned by another state party in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, would cause potentially harmful interference with activities in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, may request consultation concerning the activity or experiment.]
Article IX: Observation of Activity
In order to promote international cooperation in the nanotechnological exploration and engineering of inner space in conformity with the purposes of this Treaty, the states parties to the Treaty shall consider on a basis of equality any requests by other states parties to the Treaty to be afforded an opportunity to observe nanotechnological activities and experiments undertaken and conducted by those states. The nature of such an opportunity for observation and the conditions under which it could be afforded shall be determined by agreement between the states concerned.
[In order to promote international cooperation in the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, in conformity with the purposes of this Treaty, the states parties to the Treaty shall consider on a basis of equality any requests by other states parties to the Treaty to be afforded an opportunity to observe the flight of space objects launched by those states. The nature of such an opportunity for observation and the conditions under which it could be afforded shall be determined by agreement between the states concerned.]
Article X: Notification and Transparency of Activities
In order to promote international cooperation in the peaceful nanotechnological exploration and engineering of inner space, states parties to the Treaty conducting nanotechnological activities and experiments in inner space agree to inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations as well as the public and the international scientific community, to the greatest extent feasible and practicable, of the nature, conduct, locations and results of such activities and experiments. On receiving the said information, the Secretary-General of the United Nations should be prepared to disseminate it immediately and effectively.
[In order to promote international cooperation in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space, states parties to the Treaty conducting activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, agree to inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations as well as the public and the international scientific community, to the greatest extent feasible and practicable, of the nature, conduct, locations and results of such activities. On receiving the said information, the Secretary-General of the United Nations should be prepared to disseminate it immediately and effectively. ]
Article XI: Inspection of Facilities
All nanotechnological facilities, installations, equipment and devices shall be open to inspection and review by representatives of other states parties to the Treaty on a basis of reciprocity. Such representatives shall give reasonable advance notice of a projected visit, in order that appropriate consultations may be held and that maximum precautions may be taken to assure safety and to avoid interference with normal operations in the facility to be visited.
[All stations, installations, equipment and space vehicles on the moon and other celestial bodies shall be open to representatives of other states parties to the Treaty on a basis of reciprocity. Such representatives shall give reasonable advance notice of a projected visit, in order that appropriate consultations may be held and that maximum precautions may be taken to assure safety and to avoid interference with normal operations in the facility to be visited.]
Article XII: Disputes and Clarification
The provisions of this Treaty shall apply to the activities of states parties to the Treaty in the nanotechnological exploration and engineering of inner space whether such activities are carried on by a single state party to the Treaty or jointly with other states, including cases where they are carried on within the framework of international intergovernmental organisations.
Any practical questions arising in connection with activities carried on by international intergovernmental organisations in the nanotechnological exploration and engineering of inner space shall be resolved by the states parties to the Treaty either with the appropriate international organisation or with one or more states members of that international organisation, which are parties to this Treaty.
[The provisions of this Treaty shall apply to the activities of states parties to the Treaty in the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by a single state party to the Treaty or jointly with other states, including cases where they are carried on within the framework of international intergovernmental organisations.
Any practical questions arising in connection with activities carried on by international intergovernmental organisations in the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be resolved by the states parties to the Treaty either with the appropriate international organisation or with one or more states members of that international organisation, which are parties to this Treaty.]
Note: remaining Articles (XIV-XVII) detailing technical procedures for signature, ratification, entry-into-force, amendments, official languages, etc, omitted.
Back to the Top of the Page
Version B: A Non-Exploitation Treaty
Treaty on the Prohibition of Nanotechnological Exploration and Engineering of Inner (Atomic and Molecular) Space
Preamble
The states parties to this Treaty,
Convinced of the prospect of new and enhanced means of mass destruction opening up before humanity as a result of the nanotechnological exploration and engineering of inner space (the atomic and molecular nanosphere),
Recognising the common interest of all humanity in prohibiting atomic engineering of the nanosphere and thus preserving inner space as a natural environment incapable of posing a threat to international peace, security and survival,
Believing that the nanotechnological exploration and engineering of inner space cannot be justified on any grounds or for any purposes whatsoever due to the inherent risks of catastrophic consequences, intentional or otherwise,
Convinced that national or international legal regulation of nanotechnological research and development cannot hope to prevent the colonisation of inner space or the accumulation of knowledge and expertise posing an unacceptable risk of accidental deformation or deliberate perversion of the nanosphere with massively damaging and destructive consequences,
Convinced that the nanotechnological exploration and engineering of inner space poses a grave and irreducible threat to all of humanity and the biosphere, and is thus necessarily an evil thing considered in any light, standing in all circumstances in flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations,
Believing that international cooperation in enforcing and monitoring the prohibition on the nanotechnological exploration and engineering of inner space will contribute to the development of mutual understanding and to the strengthening of friendly relations between states and peoples in the overarching cause of peace and the integrity of the natural environments of the Earth,
Recalling resolution [NUMBER], entitled 'Declaration of Political and Legal Principles Prohibiting the Nanotechnological Activities of States in the Exploration and Engineering of Inner Space', which was adopted unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly on [DATE],
Recalling resolution [NUMBER], calling upon states to refrain from engaging in any activities involving or likely to lead to the atomic engineering of any objects or devices in the nanosphere whatever, which was adopted unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly on [DATE],
Taking account of United Nations General Assembly resolution 110 (II) of November 3, 1947, which condemned propaganda designed or likely to provoke or encourage any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, and considering that the aforementioned resolution is applicable to inner space,
Convinced that a Treaty on the Prohibition of Nanotechnological Exploration and Engineering of Inner (Atomic and Molecular) Space will further the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
Have agreed on the following:
Article I: Purpose and Scope of the Prohibition on Nanotechnology
States parties to this Treaty undertake 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.
Inner space shall be free from nanotechnological exploration and engineering by any state or entity, thus ensuring its preservation as a natural environment, the health and integrity of which is fundamental to the existence and survival of all environments and forms of life on Earth.
Article II: Inner Space as International Protectorate
Constituting as it does the natural, integral and fundamental basis of all existent matter and life, inner space is not subject to appropriation or claim of national or commercial sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.
Article III: Implementing Organisation
In addition to the legal obligations of compliance and implementation incumbent on all states parties to this Treaty, overall international responsibility for supervising, facilitating, supporting and coordinating the enforcement of the prohibition against nanotechnology shall lie with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Nanotechnology (OPN), open to participation by all states parties and possessing the structure, remit and procedures set out in Implementation Annex to this Treaty.
Article IV: Verification
In addition to the supplementary assurance provided by national technical means of certifying compliance with this Treaty, verification of the prohibition against nanotechnology shall be primarily guaranteed and confirmed by a global system of verification systems operated by the OPN. The scientific, technical, procedural and organisational details of the scope and extent of the verification regime are set out in the Verification Annex to this Treaty.
Article V: Early-Warning of Nanotechnological Activity
Irrespective of the international implementation and verification mechanisms established in the Annexes to this Treaty, states parties shall immediately inform the OPN of any discovered or suspected nanotechnological research or activity, preparations to conduct such research or activity, or the presence in any form or environment of discovered or suspected objects or phenomena atomically-engineer ed or produced in deliberate or accidental contravention of the prohibition contained in this Treaty.
Article VI: State Party Responsibility for Compliance
States parties to the Treaty shall bear international legal responsibility for fully complying with all terms and conditions contained therein with regard to the prohibition of any national nanotechnological activity, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities. The proficiency and competence of the discharge of state party responsibilities under this Treaty shall be subject to the review, verification and certification of the OPN.
Article VII: State Party Liability for Non-Compliance
Each state party to the Treaty responsible for implementing the prohibition on nanotechnological activities contained therein is internationally liable for damage to another state party to the Treaty or to its natural or juridical persons caused by atomically-engineer ed objects or components developed, tested or deployed under its control and jurisdiction, either by governmental agencies or non-governmental entities. The OPN will immediately convene to consider appropriate action against any state failing to effectively implement the prohibition contained in this Treaty, taking into account the wilfulness or otherwise of such failure, with the option of referring the matter expeditiously to the United Nations Security Council.
Article VIII: Cooperation & Consultation
In undertaking their responsibilities to enforce and maintain the prohibition contained therein, states parties to this Treaty shall be guided by the principle of cooperation and mutual assistance and shall conduct all their activities in pursuit of implementation and defence of the integrity of inner space with due regard to the corresponding interests of all other states parties to the Treaty. Maximum transparency and cooperation are essential corollaries and necessary extensions of the effective eradication of the threat to peace and survival posed by nanotechnology. Such transparency and cooperation can also assist in strengthening trust and friendship between states.
Article IX: Challenge Inspections
All states parties to this Treaty are subject to challenge inspections of facilities formally used to undertake and conduct nanotechnological research and development, and/or of sites not already subject to national or international monitoring. State parties have the right to lodge with the OPN, for prompt consideration, complaints against unnecessary, unwarranted or malicious inspection requests.
Note: technical procedures for signature, ratification, entry-into-force, amendments, official languages, etc, not here specified.
Back to the Top of the Page
© 2002 The Acronym Institute.
jawmoke: ROFL My sentiments exactly.
"Worrycrats, as I call them, are a special breed of totalitarian bureaucrats who spawn rapidly as society is socialized. These people concern themselves with our health, education, welfare, auto safety, drug intake, diet, and what have you. Worrycrats today outnumber any other professionals in history, so rapidly have they proliferated." - Leonard E. Read
Something that I had not noticed, until just now, was with the exception of our recent visitor and myself, all of the posters, are in bold. We have a divergence of view points, but we appreciate liberty and are willing to study and help others and are able to express ourselves. I am very glad to be part of such a fine board.
Razorbucks: you didn't answer the question and furthermore you called me an extremist, but get snippy about being called one yourself. Please look up hypocrisy. The patriots of The Revolutionary War was a retort to your diatribe. What part of this don't you get? That was the context of your line; a line that had nothing to do with the context of The Federal Reserve which was created in 1913 and nowhere near the inception of this thread.
Go ahead and smack the tar baby another time.
Razorbucks: okay, now you are just being stupid. That is a statement of fact. Even the simplest point you loathe to answer. It is you that does not understand and comprehend context. I know and understand the definition quite well. I applied it and proved it. Game, set, and match. I know it and you don't.
Right now you are just wasting this board's time and space. Any more vapid and essentially dishonest posts, like the one that I am responding to, will get you banned from this board and you will have only yourself to blame.
Now would you like to discuss points, one at a time, and be willing to express yourself with clear facts and evidence and we will debate you the same way OR do you want to leave?
barryinla: most folks are victims of groupthink, in one or more areas of their thinking and viewpoints. The late Earl Nightingale inferred that this phenomenon happens by default, because people are usually reactive than proactive.
This is how black Americans, for decades, have largely voted, in bloc, for any yellow dog candidate that the Democrats put up. It also explains how that folks thump their chest and profess to love America and all it stands for never read and understand The Constitution and then speak against the very cornerstone of their professed liberties and glory. It also explains how souls that claim to hate socialism will keep voting for and supporting socialist folks, especially if The ABTT Networks call them "conservatives" and they are duly registered Republicans.
Razorbucks: I didn't hear an admission of how wrong you were/are, instead, I got a lame:
"You left the context of the argument."
Ah, the context was your bogus charge of me being an extremist, so it was you who left. Do you get lost easily?
Then you quote the free-for-all wikipedia as your source for this gem:
"The mainstream scientific community does not support the controlled demolition hypothesis and U.S. officials, mainstream journalists, and mainstream researchers have concluded that responsibility for the attacks rests solely with Al Qaeda."
What part of one percent non-metalic debris and the first ever collapse of steel frame buildings and they both fell at the near speed of gravity don't you understand? This so-called mainstream scientific community once believed that the Earth was flat and sick people need to have blood removed.
The facts are that there is zero in the scientific community that has brought forth incontrovertible evidence that the twin towers came down as a result of a plane each hitting them. You probably also believe in evolution.
Razorbucks: are you asking us to take up a collection for you? You are inept or refusing to answer my cogent points. However, this wins the moldy cake award:
"The rusty squirrel muskets, only stood up to the
greatest army that the world had known because (1) Opportunists emboldened the enemy, (2) the PC crowd doesn't want interrogation for terrorists, rather they want terrorist rights, and (3) the mightiest army in the world has their arms and feet tied due to rules of engagement, and this idea that rebuilding can somehow coincide with opportunistic people who act no better than devisive nomadic/tribal leaders that harbor their own insurgent militia. Our boys can't even shoot a suicide bomber until he makes a move for his belt. Insane!"
Ah, Razorbucks, I don't know quite how to break this to you, but you are the first person, in all these years, NOT TO REALIZE that I was referring to the brave patriots at Concord and Lexington (They are actual geographic locations in the state of Massachusetts, which is part of The United States of America.) in 1776. Were you born within the jurisdictional parameters of The United States of America? How could you NOT know this?
It is you that does not understand the impact of heat. You do not know Underwriters Laboratory certifications for the twin towers when they were built. I enumerated a summation of knowledge and your response?
"Please provide some sort of non-leftwing propagandist web research to corroborate your NORAD/Dick Cheney story."
Razorbucks, maybe if you had bothered to read up on the board header, you could have known that this board is fiercely anti-socialism.
We are also anti-sheeple. So here you come here supporting the socialist regime of Dubaya/The Great White Hunter and act so whacked out that you think we follow leftwing propaganda? ROFL
It is you that have swallowed it.
False on Osama being the black sheep and having severed ties with the family. That's why he attended a family wedding and of course his U.S. medical care in Dubai. Please show us a credible non-sheeple source for such conspiratorial lunacy.
False on the weakening of the steel frame buildings.
Let's see, your batting average is: .000 (0 for 23).
Razorbucks: yes, they called the farmers, with their rusty squirrel muskets, that stood up to the greatest army that the world had known, at the time, and fought for freedom: extremists.
What suicide bombers? Are you talking about the list of the alleged nineteen? Remember that at least six of them were known to be alive after their alleged suicide mission and one even walked into an embassy to clear his name.
You see, NORAD was conducting war games and NORAD was in stand down and the missile battery around The Pentagon was shut down. The shut off transponders of the highjacked planes didn't bring the mandatory NORAD response. The pleas of The FAA to get F-16s to scramble the planes went on deaf NORAD ears. In fact, NORAD control was vacated for a while. Dick Cheney blatantly lied as to the fact that he was at the command post one hour earlier than he claimed. Scores of witnesses, including cabinet officials, contradicted Cheney's lies. What did Phillip Zelikow do? He omitted every single one of those witnesses from The 9/11 Omissions Commissions Report. What was The FBI's response? Why to seize evidence that no planes hit The Pentagon. What happened to those massive Rolls Royce engines? Not a trace anywhere at The Pentagon. What was The White House's response to "suicide bombers?" Why it was to read My Pet Goat and obstruct any law officials from talking to the families of these alleged suicide bombers and to whisk the Bin Laden family out of the country.
Yes sir, it's good that you believe in rule of law and due process. It surely won't matter that the government has reclassified you as an enemy combatant terrorist, just for talking to me. Isn't liberty wonderful?
Razorbacks: terrorists like Dick Cheney still have constitutional rights. They must be indicted, tried, and sentenced. Do you have a problem with that? Of course, Cheney will have to be impeached first.
Razorbucks: then why do you support a government that disobeys due process and the rule of law?
Razorbucks: you just proved my assessment of you.
A question for you: do you believe in rule of law?
Yes _________ No _____________
Razorbucks: actually I can compile such a list. However, it still wouldn't convince you.
First on the list is the right of travel: part one.
1. One needs a passport to reenter the jurisdictional parameters of The United States of America.
"The Right to Travel
As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights."
We await your reply to this.
Razorbucks: huh? That was the NWO/socialist propaganda machine. Did you notice that yesterday, Iraq's new central bank was finalized? Yeppers, Wall Street had this all planned and you must have missed it. And your post didn't address my charge of breach of fiduciary. Iraq is simply one symptom of socialist world domination via U.S. imperialism.
Susie924: yeppers, that's why impeach them both along with others. Then indict, try, and sentence. We the people must take back our nation. Enough is enough.
Susie924: if he were a judge, he could be removed for incompetence and one could argue that he lacked the real capacity, but that would have to come from a civil coup with Cheney assenting. Grounds for impeachment are high crimes and misdemeanors. His breach of fiduciary responsibilities is one such an impeachable offense.
Vexari: then there is The Statue of Liberty (Libertines?)
http://books.google.com/books?id=gomCZIEa-kwC&pg=RA4-PA222&lpg=RA4-PA222&dq=%22goddess+o...