Nanoweapons, Ethical Issues of

Research and development of nanotechnology has the strong potential to facilitate the creation and introduction of new forms of both offensive and defensive weapons. Innovation through nanotechnology has many proponents within the military and defense industry to increase the effectiveness and strength of traditional weapons. Two underlying questions relevant to general ethical issues surrounding nanotechnology in general extend to the ethics of nanoweapons: whether and how nanotechnology differs from other emerging technologies with respect to potential ethical implications, and is there something unique about nanotechnology from an ethical perspective?

There is also a critical need to disentangle likely scenarios and uses from those that are less likely. Not unique to military applications of nanotechnology, some of the more fantastical, technically weak scenarios of nanoscience have driven much of the limited discourse on ethics of nanoweapons, that is, apocalyptical visions of autonomous molecular nanoassemblers such as weap-onized “Grey Goo.”

What is factual science today is the growing use of properties that manifest on the nanoscale, called structural nanotechnology. The reality of nanotechnology is materials with value-added features based on nanoscale properties, for example, stronger armor, more efficient propellants and initiators for conventional explosives, and more effective decontaminants against chemical and biological agents. Near-term applications, such as more sensitive sensors and optics; lighter, more pow-erful electronics (sub-microelectronics); and more effective vaccines against multiple biological weapons agents are likely to find applications in military systems. Unique properties imbued into substances on the nanoscale are being integrated into traditional technology and weapons systems.

The study of the ethics of nanotechnology is fairly new and much remains unexplored. Three major schools of thought have arisen to address ambiguities and the ethical implications of nanotechnology. The first is to adapt and extend ethical models developed for use within biomedicine, genomics, and biotechnology, particularly those that were employed for the human genome project. While the principles of bioethics are [Page 566]instructive for considering nanotechnology, there are areas in which the model does not extrapolate well.

The second area is an extension and expansion from ethics of nonhuman parties, that is, robots or unmanned vehicles on the battlefield. Nanotechnology is widely anticipated to enable more sophisticated and smaller surveillance, maneuvering, and potentially semi- or completely autonomous lethal capabilities. The last approach has been to consider social justice in terms of who will benefit and how benefits of nanotechnology will be distributed. Fewer explorations have considered just war theory, the Laws of War (LOW), or traditional military ethics, in consideration of applications of nanotechnology for military use. A theme underlying many discussions of ethical aspects of nanoweapons is that nanotechnology will soon enable some parts of society to reach a point where the issue will not be what can be done but what should be done. The frequent assumption is that revolutionary advances are inevitable.

The lens from which one views the state of nanotechnology affects the view on ethical aspects. Many—but not all—of those engaging in ethical discussions of nanotechnology have a good understanding of the basic limits and boundaries of nanoenabled weapons. For example, one occasionally encounters assertions that humans have never been exposed to nanoscale particles, therefore the body has not evolved responses. However, nanoparticles, such as the soot by-products in prehistoric caves, have existed for millennia; it is the specific intentionality of applications that is new.

...