Posted on February 19 at 8:38 a.m.

or what about the other consequences you may not have considered?

http://wolbring.wordpress.com/2006/11/14...
"Military Nanotech Risk Factors Go Beyond Civilian Risk
...
1) Military activities often result in stuff being blown up. Blasts by high-tech weaponry could release toxic nanoparticles (which already is the case with depleted uranium munitions) as well as large quantities of nanoengineered particles contained in both munitions and defensive weapons systems and armors (e.g., coatings could release particles into the environment, especially during weapons impact).
2) Large-scale use of nanotech sensors could have an impact on the environment when these sensors start to degrade and engineered nanoparticles leak into the soil.

Of considerable concern is the question to what degree military nanotech could lead to destabilization (when one military power develops a technology that others cannot effectively defend against) and undermine arms-control agreements like the Biological Weapons Convention. A NATO study group states that “the potential for nanotech-driven innovations in chemical and biological weapons are particularly disquieting as they can considerably enhance the delivery mechanisms of agents or toxic substances. The ability of nanoparticles to penetrate the human body and its cells could make biological and chemical warfare much more feasible, easier to manage and to direct against specific groups or individuals.”

Other, longer-term risk factors arise from hotly debated concepts dealing with molecular assembly and self-replicating nanomachinery or from societal issues such as the potential destabilization posed by military nanotechnology applications (e.g., What will be the impact of omnipresent sensor nets and autonomous fighting systems? What are the ethical implications of non-medical implants in soldiers?).

Here are current and near-term (from today until 2010) projects that will incorporate “free” engineered nanoparticles…
....
5. Nanocomposites and engineered nanoparticles for high-energy munitions (ICB – Institute for Collaborative Biotechnologies)
...
This list is far from exhaustive. More visionary applications and materials such as performance- enhancing nanoengineered protheses and bio-engineered weapons are conceptually feasible but are unlikely to see realization within the next 10-15 years.

need more?

On Military Conference Sparks UCSB Protest

Posted on February 19 at 8:37 a.m.

for those of you who forgot to take bio-ethics back in college

Current Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno research is irresponsible until there are omnibus international regulations. status quo protections aren't good enough to prevent an arms race that would make CBWs easier to obtain than nukes

www.bioethicsanddisability.org/Wolbringw...

Nanowerk has identified current and near-term (to 2010) projects that will incorporate nanoparticles. It lists organizations and institutes such as ...ICB - Institute for Collaborative Biotechnologies...

A recent NATO study group outlined numerous issues around the security implications of nanotechnologies, observing: "The potential for NT [nanotechnology] innovations in chemical and biological weapons is particularly disquieting, as NT can considerably enhance the delivery mechanisms of agents or toxic substances. The ability of nanoparticles to penetrate the human body and its cells could make biological and chemical warfare much more feasible, easier to manage and to direct against specific groups or individuals. Dr. Sean Howard, in his work on NT security implications, has even called the threat of chemical and biological warfare a 'real nano goo.' "

Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno are known fields of military products and combat personal interventions. Synbio is just as involved, although less known. The new field of synthetic biology can obviously be misused to design biological and synthetic biology weapons. ...

The start of a nano arms race, and the lack of willingness to regulate potential synthetic biology through the modification of existing treaties or the application of existing treaties or the development of new regulations is short sighted. Nano or synthetic biology weapons will diffuse into hands other than the inventor and first user, and it is easier to reverse engineer nano or synthetic biology military products than to make a nuclear weapon. Once they exist they can be copied, and diffusion of the resulting products will make local and global security nearly impossible.

On Military Conference Sparks UCSB Protest

Posted on February 19 at 8:34 a.m.

Army sees ICB research as fulfilling need for "revolutionary advances in performance of Army weapons systems"
http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2008....

ARMY RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R2a Exhibit) Budget Item Justification ExhibitR-2a February 2007

2 - Applied Research 0602120A - Sensors and Electronic Survivability

SA2 BIOTECHNOLOGY APPLIED RESEARCH

A. Mission Description and Budget Item Justification: The objective of this project is to transition maturing biotechnology research from the Army's Institute for Collaborative
Biotechnologies (ICB), a University Affiliated Research Center (UARC). The ICB is led by the University of California, Santa Barbara (Santa Barbara, CA)...

Projects are intended to cover the entire breadth of the ICB 6.1 program. The process of transformation requires
revolutionary advances in performance of Army weapons systems, including improvements in engineered systems impacting Soldier survivability. The ICB will conduct
unclassified basic scientific research in: sensors, electronics, information processing and the technical fundamentals enabling development of advanced capabilities in these
application areas.

Or how about this --
ICB is a conduit for turning UCSB into military researchers

http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2005...

A. Mission Description and Budget Item Justification:This Project supports the Army’s Institute for Collaborative Biotechnologies (ICB), a University Affiliated Research
Center located at the University of California-Santa Barbara
...
A second ICB objective is to educate and train outstanding students and post doctoral
researchers in revolutionary areas of science for Army Transformation. ICB has many industrial partners such as IBM and SAIC, and it is has strong collaborations with six
National laboratories, the Army’s Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies, the Institute for Creative Technologies, and Army materiel and medical research laboratories. The
cited work is consistent with Strategic Planning Guidance, the Army Science and Technology Master Plan (ASTMP), the Army Modernization Plan, and the Defense
Technology Area Plan (DTAP). Work in this project is performed by the Army Research Laboratory (ARL).

Not convinced that your research is being put to use by the military? (and that the extreme level of sensitivity or robustness of the things you're researching aren't nearly as useful for civilian applications...)
check out this slick slide show: www.hbcumiconference.com/speakers/Parmen...

On Military Conference Sparks UCSB Protest