Jim

Yes, but nukes have already been invented and there is nothing really to be done about them. I'm more concerned with whether this kind of emerging risk is likewise inevitable. Playing defense against nanorobots seems far more implausible than an SDI shield.

I worry more about grey goo than nukes for the reason stated in the portion I've bolded below: Among the cognoscenti of nanotechnology, this threat has become known as the "gray goo problem." Though masses of uncontrolled replicators need not be gray or gooey, the term "gray goo" emphasizes that replicators able to obliterate life might be less inspiring than a single species of crabgrass. They might be superior in an evolutionary sense, but this need not make them valuable. The gray goo threat makes one thing perfectly clear: We cannot afford certain kinds of accidents with replicating assemblers. Gray goo would surely be a depressing ending to our human adventure on Earth, far worse than mere fire or ice, and one that could stem from a simple laboratory accident.6 Oops. It is most of all the power of destructive self-replication in genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics (GNR) that should give us pause. Self-replication is the modus operandi of genetic engineering, which uses the machinery of the cell to replicate its designs, and the prime danger underlying gray goo in nanotechnology. Stories of run-amok robots like the Borg, replicating or mutating to escape from the ethical constraints imposed on them by their creators, are well established in our science fiction books and movies. It is even possible that self-replication may be more fundamental than we thought, and hence harder - or even impossible - to control. A recent article by Stuart Kauffman inNature titled "Self-Replication: Even Peptides Do It" discusses the discovery that a 32-amino-acid peptide can "autocatalyse its own synthesis." We don't know how widespread this ability is, but Kauffman notes that it may hint at "a route to self-reproducing molecular systems on a basis far wider than Watson-Crick base-pairing."7 In truth, we have had in hand for years clear warnings of the dangers inherent in widespread knowledge of GNR 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. The nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) technologies used in 20th-century weapons of mass destruction were and are largely military, developed in government laboratories. In sharp contrast, the 21st-century GNR technologies have clear commercial uses and are being developed almost exclusively by corporate enterprises. In this age of triumphant commercialism, technology - with science as its handmaiden - 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. That is Carl Sagan, writing in 1994, in Pale Blue Dot, a book describing his vision of the human future in space. I am only now realizing how deep his insight was, and how sorely I miss, and will miss, his voice. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html?pg=7&topic=&topic_set=

Sysyphus, I understood and was agreeing with you.

Can you give me a link to this law?

If effective, will it help ensure the survival of our species if fewer countries have nukes? Absolutely. The "fair" question is secondary. Besides, As I've repeatedly argued, a world without any nukes but with still the ability to rearm would be highly dangerous.

MAD has never been satisfactory but I ask again why complete disarmament would be better. The technology to rearm would still exist although the time frame for rearmament to the point of global dominance would be uncertain. I can't think of any situation more dangerous.

Ditto. I can't think of much to add to IMM's post.

Not to start this back up again.... okay, more honestly, in the hopes of starting this back up again, I've yet to hear someone articulate how disarmament would be safer. Unless you can disinvent the technology, there would still be the pressure to push the button although that process might take a few months.

In times of crisis we rally around our leaders. This is, no doubt, an evolutionary trait that once gave a meaningful survival advantage. While the visceral need to protect the tribe or homeland can be misused, it is also a trait that we still need. I do not believe it is blind patriotism that makes me feel extremely fortunate I was born in this time in this country. Americans today have been dealt a pretty good hand by historical standards.

Maybe it is negative but it appears to agree with administration policy. My overall take on the poll is that Iraqi's are suprisingly upbeat about their own situation although they disagree about the future of the country. From the MSM reports the only thing happening in Iraq is terrorist attacks yet that is not the largest concern of most Iraqis. The coverage has been unbalanced and, worse, has created an incentive for the "insurgents" to feed the press with blood for more ink. Have you considered the possibility that Bush is sincere in advocating a stay the course policy? I believe he belatedly came back to Iraq after getting savaged in the press and leaving the field far too long to the critics.

I would have to give the same answer - WMDs in the hands of a terrorist group is more worrisome than WMDs in the hands of a nation state. That doesn't mean I don't also worry about proliferation.

There are negatives in this poll to be sure. I question why this poll isn't front and center in the national debate.

The Oxford Research Group was critical of Bush's war plans and was commissioned by ABC, BBC and Der Spiegle: Here are some selected findings: 70.6% said "very good" or "quite good" when asked: "Overall, how would you say things are going in your life these days – very good, quite good, quite bad, or very bad?" 51.5% said "much better" or "somewhat better" when asked: "Compared to the time before the war in Spring 2003, are things overall in your life much better now, somewhat better, about the same, somewhat worse or much worse?" 64.2% said "much better" or "somewhat better" when asked: "What is your expectation for how things overall in your life will be in a year from now? Will they be much better, somewhat better, about the same, somewhat worse or much worse?" 68.6% said "much better" or "somewhat better" when asked: "What is your expectation for how things will be for Iraq as a country overall a year from now?" 5.7% said "American forces leaving Iraq" when asked: "Thinking ahead to the next 12 months, what would be the best thing which could happen to Iraq?" 2.2% listed "Terrorist Attacks" when asked: "What is the single biggest problem you are facing in your life these days?" Now, guess who published this report when it was issued?

I am torn between two Yoda lines: "Now, matters are worse." and... "Always in motion is the future."

My point is that the MSM dismissively labeled the earlier briefings as being only to the "gang of eight." A more pejorative biased label the DNC could not have conjured. It will be ironic if the ultimate solution to this "problem" is to have a committee of seven do oversight. This is another issue on which democrats need an exit strategy after playing politics with national security. As especially the members of the "gang" know, this is a much needed program which they will let fly after extracting their pound of political flesh.

Let's not forget what we learned in this episode about the MSM who blithely let racism have the day when it harmed Bush. I suppose so - although I wouldn't purport to know what should be done at the ports. You hear the statistic that only 5% of containers are inspected yet no one really says what is feasible or what really should be done. I suspect it is another of those areas where simplicity reigns supreme. Joe Lieberman is the only democrat of national prominence who immediately leaps to my mind as having the courage to advocate what is in the best interests of the country despite the political fallout.

You've just got to laugh if this story is true. Instead of a "gang of eight" being briefed, we would have a seven member "terrorist surveillance subcommittee." This controversy was always about legislators throwing their weight around in the only remaining sphere in which they are capable of bipartisan unity - preserving their own power. Now, let's see how many leaks occur....

I couldn't agree more. The pandering on this issue has been atrocious. I'm not sure which is worse - the republicans who probably actually believe this was a huge security issue or the democrats who purport to be against profiling Arabs in airports but would profile an entire country from administering operations but not security at the ports. I guess it's possible at least some of the republicans were sincere in their position. In the meantime, we gave the extremists in Arabic countries another card to play. I also give Bush credit for standing up for what he believes is right instead of immediately caving to the pressure. Even if you disagree with him, you have to admit that he is a president who rules for the good of the country. He didn't have to bet his entire legacy on Iraq any more than he had to stand up to the scare mongers on this issue. There was little political advantage to either move but he firmly, hopefully correctly, believed both moves were in the best interests of the country.

Arguably, the fact that Bush does not veto under the current set up supports the idea that he needs line-item veto so he can veto pork without sacrificing the entire bill. It may be that the administration wants to gauge support for the line-item veto in this way before pushing for a constitutional amendment. Alternatively, they may be wanting to box in some democrats who might oppose the power.

You could say the same of other technologies in WWII. Eisenhower said' date=' "'Andrew Higgins..is the man who won the war for us." He's referring to the lowly Higgens' boats that carried the troops ashore on DDay. Kind of makes you wonder what we would have done without those boats.... Of course there is also the decryption of the enigma machine. This kind of dovetails with the information theme.