Ac version 3 Observation 1: sq 4

Regulations Good/Bad

Regulations Good

1AC/2AC Effective Regulations Key**

Regulations lead to more growth and innovation in nanotech research and development

Matsuura 6 (Jeffrey H. Matsuura, Assistant Professor and Director of the Program in Law & Technology at the University of Dayton Law School in Dayton, Ohio, “Nanotechnology Regulation and Policy Worldwide,” July 2006, http://site.ebrary.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich/docDetail.action?docID=10160965, AC)
We have discussed the key emerging forms of regulation affecting nanotechnology research and applications. In this chapter, we will address the potential impact of regulation on nanotechnology research and associated commercial development. Regulation will have a profound impact on nanotechnology research and commercialization. Regulatory oversight is essential to protect the public interest, but regulation can also slow or block nanotechnology development. To meet successfully the challenge of applying regulatory oversight in a manner that effectively balances protection of the public interest with promotion of useful technological innovation, we must first understand the potential impact of regulation on research and commercial development in the field of nanotechnology. Regulations can affect the direction and scope of research through the prohibitions, incentives, and disincentives they establish. Regulations also have a profound impact on the incentives and disincentives for development of commercial applications, and those incentives and disincentives affect the pace and scope of commercial development of nanotechnology. Through their impact on commercial development, regulations have a substantial impact on the structure and functions of the developing nanotechnology marketplace. As a result of the extremely broad potential reach of nanotechnology and the worldwide interest in this field, nanotechnology regulations will have significant effects on international relationships. Those regulations will play a major role in the allocation of costs associated with any risks that nanotechnology may carry. Regulatory action will also play a key part in the development of public perceptions regarding nanotechnology, and those public perceptions will have a significant impact on political activities affecting the climate for nanotechnology. Regulatory strategies, particularly some of the more activist approaches such as the precautionary principle, dramatically affect the assessment of certainty associated with regulatory scope. Those strategies will have a major impact on development of nanotechnology and on all emerging technologies of the future. An important aspect of regulation that is sometimes overlooked is the obligation to balance protection against potential public harm, with the goal of facilitating beneficial use. We sometimes focus regulatory attention on prevention of harm. Although that is one of the key objectives, it is not the sole goal of regulation. Regulation is also intended to facilitate public access to useful products and services. Part of the mandate under which regulators operate is the duty to try to facilitate prompt, safe, and economical public access to helpful goods and services. Regulators must do more than protect the public from harm. They must also try to enhance the quality of life by fostering public availability of useful goods and services. Protection from harm and access to benefits are both fundamental goals of regulation. Thus, for example, pharmaceutical regulators clearly have an obligation to ensure the safety and efficacy of drugs made available to the public. Those regulators must also, however, work to make drugs that are effective available to the public as quickly and as broadly as possible. In the context of nanotechnology, regulation should both protect the public from potential negative consequences of nanotechnology use and promote publicly beneficial use of that technology.

No Regs Now

International regulations low now – lack of research, scattered laws

Soliman 12 - agricultural economist, attorney, and researcher focused on legal and economic issues in the Agriculture, Resource and Food sectors (Adam, “The Need for Stronger Nanotechnology Regulation”, Food Safety News, 10/16/2012, http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/10/why-we-should-have-more-regulations-on-nanotechnology/#.UfV_zI21F6I)//BD

¶ Internationally, there is a shortage of regulations on nanotechnology due to a lack of accumulated research on the science. As a result, untested nanoparticles seem to slip through the cracks of existing legislation into widely used consumer products. Since the long-term impact of nanomaterials on the natural environment and human health is unknown, it is difficult to comprehensively regulate this technology in a single piece of legislation that would capture its risks. Rather, nanotechnology should be regulated by a series of laws which govern the exposure of nanotechnology on specific areas: food, environment, medicine and agriculture.¶ Recommendations for Nanotechnology¶ Given the increasing use of nanomaterials, comprehensive legislation must soon be developed (9). Our current juncture offers good opportunities for relevant authorities to make greater efforts in guiding the development of nanoproduction. Existing laws are scattered across new/toxic substances, public health and food regulations, in which areas action is only demanded once a clear risk is proven. But such proof is not yet available for this technology.¶ Manufacturers should legally be required to research nanoproduction and its risks. In addition, a mandatory safety reporting scheme should be introduced to monitor the risks of nanomaterials present in imported and sold products. This reporting scheme should be required for distribution of nanoparticles in any amount to ensure that manufacturers are accountable for all of their products. These safety regulations would hopefully provide protection for consumers until sufficient research can prove that the benefits outweigh the risks of utilizing engineered nanoparticles. Governing bodies can also be responsible for collecting relevant data and establishing a centralized research authority that monitors nanoparticles’ long term effects. This would create awareness and offer the consumer a choice between products that include nanoparticles and the ones that don’t.¶ Conclusion¶ Nanotechnology is a new science that lacks clear definition and regulations for managing these particles. Untested nanomaterials are already widely engineered into food, medical and agricultural products. The lack of research and management in place for the vast application of nanoparticles make legislation challenging. Meanwhile, various interest groups lobby strongly for limited legislation on nanotechnology in efforts to allow this science to come to full fruition. The long-term effects of nanoparticle use may be positive, but they may also have a negative impact on health. Thus, jurisdictions should continue to broaden legislation monitoring the development of nanotechnology.

Solves Nano Bad

Regulatory processes and built in defense measures eliminate the negative effects of nanotech

Merta 10

(E. Merta, University of New Mexico School of Law, Health Sciences Library, “THE NANOTECHNOLOGY AGENDA:¶ MOLECULAR MACHINES AND SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION¶ IN THE 21st CENTURY”, 3/22/2010, http://www.checs.net/checs_00/presentations/nanotech.htm//VS)

Since its inception, the Foresight Institute has led an effort to confront the potentially apocalyptic dimensions of nanotechnology and develop viable responses. Drexler and others have developed strategies that they believe will permit the exploitation of nanotechnology�s potential while minimizing its dangers. To prevent an accidental disaster, for example, self-replicating nanomachines could be manufactured to function only in the presence of a specially engineered fuel or a signal broadcast by a human controller. Replicating nanodevices could also be built to have a limited lifespan, preventing the possibility that they would multiply endlessly if accidentally released into the environment.[47] While these measures prevent accidents, fleets of defensive nanomachines could patrol the Earth�s biosphere guarding against deliberate attack from hostile, self-replicating nanoweapons. This �active shield,� as Drexler calls it, would hunt down malignant nanomachines and destroy them in much the same way that the body�s immune system quells an infection. [48] AIs would be kept in carefully controlled environments or designed with behavioral controls to prevent them from taking aggressive action. [49]¶ Nanotechnologists have devoted a great deal of attention to physical dangers like nanotech accidents, super-weapons, and rogue AIs.

Key to Commercial.

Gov’t regulations spur innovation, create opportunities for research, and lead to effective development

Matsuura 6 (Jeffrey H. Matsuura, Assistant Professor and Director of the Program in Law & Technology at the University of Dayton Law School in Dayton, Ohio, “Nanotechnology Regulation and Policy Worldwide,” July 2006, http://site.ebrary.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lib/umich/docDetail.action?docID=10160965, AC)
Regulation can both directly and indirectly influence the direction and scope of research in the field of nanotechnology. Regulation asserts direct influence over the direction and scope of research when, for example, it prohibits or severely restricts research in certain fields. An example of this type of direct regulatory impact on research is presented by U.S. government limitations on stem cell research funding. Indirect impact on research can exist when regulatory oversight as to certain forms of research or certain research practices becomes substantial enough to make work in those fields notably cumbersome, thus providing disincentive for research on those topics. Another example of an indirect regulatory impact on nanotechnology research occurs when regulators require additional information regarding the effects of nanotechnology on the environment, humans, and society. That need for accurate, timely information on nanotechnology effects creates a demand for research in certain fields. That demand provides an example of indirect support for research. Another example of indirect influence on research involves research that aims to work around government restrictions. For instance, when the U.S. government placed restrictions on funding for stem cell research, many researchers took an interest in developing lines of research that could be scientifically productive, while also avoiding some of the ethical concerns that led the U.S. government to impose the research limitations. One method through which regulation affects research involves incentives or barriers to research associated with specific topics. If government prohibits or denies government research funding for particular fields of work, clearly those fields will not be explored as fully or as quickly as they could be with government support. In contrast, if government establishes research priorities, those topics will thrive, as they attract significant research attention. Government funding and encouragement play a critical role in the direction of nanotechnology research. Even without government funding or support for certain fields of research, private funding sources may step in to facilitate research; however, research advances will likely be delayed by government restrictions on research. Government policies, laws, and regulations create incentives and barriers for research at many different levels. Note that government incentives and disincentives can be expressed in forms other than funding and direct prohibitions. For example, if national, local, state, or regional governments provide tax law incentives for research, those tax benefits provide encouragement for research. If a local government imposes real estate zoning ordinances that prohibit or restrict certain forms of research, those real estate laws create a barrier to research. In the United States, the public in the state of California voted to enact a legal plan that allocated substantial public resources to support and facilitate stem cell research in the state, even though that initiative ran generally counter to national policy in the United States. Expect a similar range of legal and public policy actions by national, regional, and local governments aimed at facilitating, and limiting, work involving nanotechnology. Regulation can also create opportunities for nanotechnology research. To the extent that some regulatory requirements in fields such as environmental protection require specific technical capabilities that may be satisfied through use of nanotechnology, regulatory requirements could provide incentives for research into nanotechnology applications that facilitate compliance. The traditional regulatory framework in the fields of environmental protection, health and safety, and other categories now focuses on those instances, if any, in which the movement to nanoscale materials and processes requires new regulatory requirements. The assessment of the extent to which such nano-specific rules are necessary requires a broad foundation of research. Regulators around the world are now conducting and supporting research to determine what additional forms of regulation may be needed in order to protect the public interest from any special threats posed by nanoscale activities. This research presents a significant opportunity for nanotechnology researchers. For example, substantial attention is now directed toward potential toxic threats posed by nanotechnology applications. A wide range of parties, including governments, private industry, and public interest groups now urge substantially more research in the field of nanotoxicology. They contend that such research is necessary to provide an effective foundation for future regulation. Without the research, effective regulation will not be possible. This situation presents a significant opportunity for research, encouraging research into both potential applications for nanotechnology and potential consequences of nanotechnology use. Nanotechnology and its applications are in their early stages of development; accordingly, the impact of the technology remains unclear. Continuing research into nanotechnology impact will likely remain an important field of research for many years. To date, the global trend has been to encourage diverse nanotechnology research and commercialization. The United States and other nations implemented legislative and regulatory provisions actively encouraging and promoting basic nanotechnology research and exploration of potential commercial development. The current international environment is highly supportive of nanotechnology research, and it generally provides effective incentives for research in those fields. As nanotechnology research advances, we are likely to see additional emphasis by governments on supporting and encouraging research into specific fields, such as the environmental, health, and safety implications of widespread nanotechnology use in diverse applications. Regulators, nanotechnology proponents, and the public should all remain mindful that regulation and policies at all levels of government have a significant impact on research. They should also recognize that the impact on nanotechnology and other forms of research is caused by both direct and indirect regulatory action. Rules, laws, and policies, in fields as diverse and as seemingly distantly removed from research, such as taxation and real estate, significantly affect research. All those involved in nanotechnology development and regulation should pay particular attention to this wide range of influences on nanotechnology research.

Safety

Regulations key to safe development of nanotech

Chen 2 (Andrew, Board Member at InterPlay, Founder of Kavalry Inc., IT and web development professional, March 2002, “The Ethics of Nanotechnology,” http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/chen/nanotechnology.html)
It would be difficult to deny the potential benefits of nanotechnology and stop development of research related to it since it has already begun to penetrate many different fields of research. However, nanotechnology can be developed using guidelines to insure that the technology does not become too potentially harmful. As with any new technology, it is impossible to stop every well funded organization who may seek to develop the technology for harmful purposes. However, if the researchers in this field put together an ethical set of guidelines (e.g.Molecular Nanotechnology Guidelines) and follow them, then we should be able to develop nanotechnology safely while still reaping its promised benefits.

Environmental Protection

New regulations necessary for nanotech development – existing framework is too broad and inefficient

Theodore and Kunz 5 (Louis Theodore, EngScD, a professor of chemical engineering for fifty years, Robert G. Kunz, environmental engineering manager at a major industrial gas and chemical company before retiring after twenty-six years. He also worked in the petroleum industry, on plant design/construction, and for a manufacturer of air pollution control catalyst. He is currently an independent environmental consultant. Dr. Kunz earned a BChE degree in chemical engineering from Manhattan College, a PhD in chemical engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, an MS in environmental engineering from Newark College of Engineering, and an MBA from Temple University, April 22, 2005, “Nanotechnology: Environmental Implications and Solutions,” p. 37)

Completely new legislation and regulatory rulemaking will almost certainly be¶ necessary for environmental control of nanotechnology. However. in the meantime.¶ one may speculate on how the existing regulatory framework might be applied to¶ the nanotechnology area as this emerging field develops over the next several¶ years. One experienced Washington, D.C., attorney has done just that, as summarized below. The reader is encouraged to consult the cited references as¶ well as the text of the laws that are mentioned and the applicable regulations¶ derived from them.¶ As indicated above, commercial applications of nanotechnology are likely to be¶ regulated under TSCA, which authorizes EPA to review and establish limits on the¶ manufacture, processing, distribution, use, and/or disposal of new materials that¶ EPA determines to pose "an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the¶ environment." The term chemicals is defined broadly by TSCA. Unless qualifying¶ for an exemption under the law [R&D (a statutory exemption requiring no further¶ approval by EPA), low-volume production, low environmental releases along¶ with low volume, or plans for limited test marketing], a prospective manufacturer¶ is subject to the full-blown PMN procedure. This requires submittal of said¶ notice, along with toxicity and other data to EPA at least 90 days before commencing production of the chemical substance.

No Regs Collapse Enviro

And, environmentally destructive nanotech collapses ecosystems

Rakhlin 2k9

(J.D. candidate at Duke University School of Law, 2009; M.B.A. candidate at The Fuqua School of Business, 2009; B.S., Cornell University, 2004, “Duke Law & Technology Review 2008 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 2,” pg lexis//um-ef)

B. Nanotechnology Risks P8 The same novel properties making nanomaterials commercially appealing also pose potentially serious risks to human health and to the environment. n22 Nanoparticles can enter the human body through skin absorption, ingestion or inhalation. n23 Once they enter the body, because of their size, nanoparticles can be carried past the blood-brain barrier into brain cells and can pass through lung and liver tissue. n24 Studies indicate that unique attributes of insoluble nanoparticles--a small diameter and large surface area--significantly increase toxicity. n25 Some nanomaterials cause oxidative stress and localized immune lesions, and may lead to other tissue and cellular damage. n26 Nanoparticles are also linked to dangerous air, soil and water pollutants. n27 A Rice University study showed that certain individual insoluble nanoparticles become very water-soluble and bacteriocidal when they aggregate. n28 The study raised concerns that nanoparticle properties can endanger ecosystems by killing bacteria constituting the base of the food chain. n29 The existing methods of filtering and removing nanoparticles from water and air are very cost intensive and generally unreliable. n30 P9 The environmental and health risks that nonmaterial variants pose have attracted sparse scientific attention. A report by Lux Research indicates that over 10,000 nanotechnology research articles were published in 2005, of those, approximately fifty focused on nanotechnology environmental, health, and safety issues. n31 The dearth of academic and industry attention in studying nanotechnology risk is less surprising when one considers that federal funding for health and environmental risk research represents only four percent of the proposed federal investment. n32 Postponing research of nanotechnology risks until after health and environmental damage manifests is unwise. Indeed, if industry experience with asbestos, ammonia, methyl chloride, sulfur dioxide and chlorofluorocarbons is any indicator of the consequences of disregarding risks during the early stages of production and distribution, n33 then neglecting to adequately plan for these risks will lead to "lengthy regulatory battles, costly cleanup efforts, expensive litigation quagmires, and painful public-relations debacles." n34

Nanotoxins

Lack of regulations causes the spread of nanotoxins

Dhawan and Sharma 11 [Alok Dhawan, principal scientist, Vyom Sharma, senior research fellow at the Nanomaterial Toxicology Group, CSIR-Indian Institute of Toxicology Research, “Address risk of Nanotech Toxicity” http://www.scidev.net/global/technology/opinion/address-risk-of-nanotech-toxicity-1.html]

But developing countries still lack awareness of the potential hazards of nano-based consumer products, and only a few guidance documents are available in the public domain. A company in India already claims to be the world's largest manufacturer of nanotech-based fabrics. Many other companies that synthesise nanoparticles — for use in cosmetics, for example, or water filtration devices — are emerging in countries such as China and India. Framing regulations and guidelines for the synthesis, use and disposal of nanomaterials is of great importance for the responsible development of nanotechnology in developing nations. International organisations and developed nations can assist them by sharing scientific data and technologies for assessing environmental and health safety. And to control occupational exposures, the regulatory framework should include mandatory documentation of the nanomaterials developed and personnel involved, and training workers to take precautions. Our institute, the Indian Institute of Toxicology Research, Lucknow, has recently published guidance on the safe handling of nanomaterials in research laboratories, a step in the right direction. [2] Implications, not just applications But the vast majority of government funding in developing nations is spent on research into the applications, rather than the implications, of nanotechnology. For example, out of more than 200 research projects funded during 2001–10 by the Department of Science and Technology in India under its flagship Nano Mission programme, only one was directly related to nanoparticle toxicity studies (and was awarded to our institute). As a result, scientists may fail to identify any impacts of nanotechnology that are specific to populations or the use of a product in poor countries — patterns of environmental distribution and exposure could be different in developing nations. Current research on nanotoxicity does not take into account how different local environments and populations can influence risk. People in developing countries may be more prone to adverse effects of nanoparticles because of underlying health conditions and malnutrition. Moreover, genetic susceptibility to toxic effects varies in diverse ethnic groups and geographical areas. The scientific community needs to identify these information gaps before developing regulations and standard methodologies for nanotoxicity assessment.

Regs k Solvency

Nanotech can cure disease but faces barriers – lack of regulations, lack of private incentives, little governmental focus

Moore 07 – Director of research at Pew Health group, previous deputy director of the Wilson Center for Scholars’ Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (Julia, “Nanotech promises big things for poor – but will promises be kept?”, Wilson Center, 2/27/07, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/poen-npb022607.php)//BD

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- "Nanotechnology has the potential to generate enormous health benefits for the more than five billion people living in the developing world," according to Dr. Peter A. Singer, senior scientist at the McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health and Professor of Medicine at University of Toronto. "Nanotechnology might provide less-industrialized countries with powerful new tools for diagnosing and treating disease, and might increase the availability of clean water."¶ "But it remains to be seen whether novel applications of nanotechnology will deliver on their promise. A fundamental problem is that people are not engaged and are not talking to each other. Business has little incentive—as shown by the lack of new drugs for malaria, dengue fever and other diseases that disproportionately affect people in developing countries—to invest in the appropriate nanotechnology research targeted at the developing world. Government foreign assistance agencies do not often focus, or focus adequately, on science and technology. With scant public awareness of nanotechnology in any country, there are few efforts by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and community groups to examine how nanotechnology could be directed toward, for example, improving public health in the developing world."¶ Dr. Singer’s group in Toronto published a study in 2005 identifying and ranking the ten nanotechnologies most likely to benefit the developing world in the near future. Nanotechnology applications related to energy storage, production, and conversion; agricultural productivity enhancement; water treatment and remediation; and diagnosis and treatment of diseases topped the list. Dr. Singer’s group has also shown that there is a surprising amount of nanotechnology R&D activity in several developing countries, and that these nations are directing their nanotechnology innovation systems to address their more pressing needs.¶ "Countries like Brazil, India, China and South Africa have significant nanotechnology research initiatives that could be directed toward the particular needs of the poor. But there is still a danger—if market forces are the only dynamic—that small minorities of people in wealthy nations will benefit from nanotechnology breakthroughs in the health sector, while large majorities, mainly in the developing world, will not," noted Dr. Andrew Maynard, chief science advisor for the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. "Responsible development of nanotechnology must include benefits for people in both rich and poor nations and at relatively low cost. This also requires that careful attention be paid to possible risks nanotechnology poses for human health and the environment." ¶ Dr. Piotr Grodzinski, director of the Nanotechnology Alliance for Cancer at the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (NIH) discussed the impact of nanotechnology on diagnostics and therapies for cancer. He said, "It is my belief that nanomaterials and nanomedical devices will play increasingly critical and beneficial roles in improving the way we diagnose, treat, and ultimately prevent cancer and other diseases. But we face challenges; the complexity of clinical implementation and the treatment cost may cause gradual, rather than immediate, distribution of these novel yet effective approaches."¶ "For example, in the future, it may be possible for citizens in Bangladesh to place contaminated water in inexpensive transparent bottles that will disinfect the water when placed in direct sunlight, or for doctors in Mexico to give patients inhalable vaccines that do not need refrigeration," Dr. Maynard noted. "Nanotechnologies could revolutionize health care in developing countries and make treatments more readily available for diseases that claim millions of lives around the world each year."

2AC Bioweapons Add-on

A) Unregulated nanotech allows disease engineering to evade countermeasures

Kosal 10

[Margaret E. Kosal. assistant professor in the Sam Nunn School of International Affairs at the Georgia Institute of Technology. “The security implications of Nanotechnology” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. July/August 2010.]

Nano-enabled materials and technologies may also be used to evade today’s medical countermeasures. Vaccines, antivirals, and antibiotics are the current first defense against many biological weapons. Nanotechnology may be used for this application in two different ways. First, nanotechnology can be an enabling tool to develop a weapon that would not be affected by a known countermeasure. Nanotechnology may use inorganic materials to mask biological ones in ways that are beyond the detection capabilities of most systems. Second, nanotechnology could be used to disrupt the immune system through either suppression or overstimulation and prevent it from functioning. Compared to other possibilities, nanotechnology provides a mechanism to introduce, for instance, a bioregulator into cells, which could then cause a cascade of immune responses, among other things. Certain nanoparticles can also trigger an immune response. A weapon developed to disrupt the entire immune system would not require knowledge of what countermeasures are in place. The delivery of interfering RNA for the alteration, activation, or silencing of genes has been tried with limited success using conventional means. Nano-enabled delivery is seen as one possible methodology to overcome that hurdle.

Nano O/Ws N/W

Risk of nanotech confrontation more important than nuclear war

Gubrud 97 (Mark Avrum Gubrud, a research associate, Center for Superconductivity Research (University of Maryland, College Park), is ''a physicist, writer and social activist, November 1997, http://www.foresight.org/Conferences/MNT05/Papers/Gubrud/, “Nanotechnology and International Security”)

The vexing questions of outer space and sea law, and the division of resources that may become valuable in the future, must be addressed before these issues become a source of international conflict, that is, before the technology is developed which makes what has heretofore been viewed as a "commons" an attractive target for sovereign ownership.¶ In spite of the arguments made above that nuclear weapons might serve as a stabilizing factor in a nanotechnic confrontation, continuing and completing the job of nuclear disarmament is an urgent priority. It is inexcusable to leave our people and our civilization exposed to the danger of nuclear annihilation at a time when there are few sources of tension between the major nuclear powers and none that are considered remotely serious enough to occasion a crisis that could lead to war.

A nanowar would be worse than any nuclear conflict ever

Gubrud 97 (Mark Avrum Gubrud, a research associate, Center for Superconductivity Research (University of Maryland, College Park), is ''a physicist, writer and social activist, November 1997, http://www.foresight.org/Conferences/MNT05/Papers/Gubrud/, “Nanotechnology and International Security”)

The nanotechnic era will be fundamentally different from the era in which nuclear weapons were developed and came to dominate the possibilities for global violence.¶ The bombed-out cities of the Second World War, and the nuclear holocausts of our imagination, have persuaded rational minds that there can be no expectation of a meaningful victory in total war between states armed with hundreds of deliverable nuclear weapons. From that point of view, war is obsolete, at least direct and open war between great powers.¶ Nanotechnology will carry this evolution to the next step: deterrence will become obsolete, as it will not be possible to maintain a stable armed peace between nanotechnically-armed rivals. The implications of this statement stand in sharp contradiction to the traditions of a warrior culture and to the assumptions that currently guide policy in the United States and in its potential rivals.¶ Postscript¶ The history of war in the modern technological era is a history of surprise. Time and again, technology proves its power against our vulnerable bodies. A vast destructive potential is kept sealed until the time of battle, and when the seals are broken, we are surprised by how much vaster the devastation is than even the last terrible war. Order an attack over the trench lines... Surprise! The guns and artillery turn your brave soldiers into hamburger as fast as you can feed them into the grinder. Unleash a war of conquest... Surprise! Fifty million dead, your great cities in ruin, the survivors cold and starving. Start a nuclear exchange... Well, we were warned.¶ It was technology, not policy, that forced the doctrine of deterrence on us, just as it was technology that determined the outlines of the nuclear arms race, once the decision to pursue nuclear confrontation had been made. The logic of military technology produced a confrontation so complex and unmanageable, and with such short time lines for decision and action, that it threatened to explode in spite of "assured destruction." Again, people were intelligent enough to recognize realities, and to place restraints on the offensive arms race while shelving futile dreams of defense.¶ If technological realities now demand that we go further, and give up the warrior tradition, the illusion of independence and the vanity of sovereign self-defense, will we heed these demands, or will we try to preserve the institutions and attitudes of an earlier epoch, until we are surprised by a disaster beyond even our worst nuclear nightmares? If it is impossible to maintain an armed confrontation between nanotechnology-armed and hostile nations, then this is exactly our dilemma.