Assorted Transhumanism and Technology Tuesday, Jan 30 2007
technology and transhumanism 1:52 pm
There is a new site online for transhumanist-oriented videos. It’s Thoughtware.tv.
Thorium gets coverage on a leading investment website.
Peter Turney, who works for the Interactive Information Group at the Institute for Information Technology in Ottawa, blogs about my remarks on Friendly AI, and lists several interesting papers that discuss Friendly AI in academia, including one he wrote in 1991, entitled “Controlling super-intelligent machines”. If any of these papers are half as insightful as the work of the Singularity Institute, the insights therein could contribute significant value to the push towards benevolent superintelligence. I’ll be printing out and reading the papers Turney referenced.
Our good friends Clarke, Kurzweil, and Dr. J have been quoted in an article by San Jose’s very own Mercury News. They’ve all published transhumanist-oriented books in the last two years. I’ll be reading Breakpoint soon and letting you know what I think.
CRN’s development scenario project, conducted the weekend before last, was a great success. Jamais Cascio, who conducted the project, has a post on it. It mainly involved chatting on the phone for 7 hours over two days, using Google docs and a chatroom/whiteboard to moderate and take minutes. We talked about over a hundred variables of potential relevance to the development of molecular manufacturing. If you visit the first link in this paragraph, you can also vote on the IEET poll which asks, “What do you think about the utopian impulse?” A good question. My own opinion is both that utopian energies drive human aspirations for betterment, and that these impulses turn out to be premonitions of a successful future where scarcity, disease and violence are fully eliminated.
Peter Pesti is working on a detailed roadmap of the future. He combines predictions from Ian Pearson, Ray Kurzweil, and Aubrey de Grey, among many others. The point is not to argue that all these predictions will come true exactly on schedule, but to have a unified roadmap that records all the predictions and lets us cross-reference and compare them.
Our missile defense shield is now working! This is excellent news. People speak very negatively about the billions of dollars being spent on the military (and indeed, it’s probably too much), but sometimes these projects pay off. A missile defense system is a tremendous technological achievement that will be used to protect lives rather than take them.
Joe Stewart, author of several books on cybersecurity, joins the Lifeboat Foundation and founds our cybercrime/malcode board, an important new addition to the growing effort to fight catastrophic risks. I encourage you to subscribe to our news and blog feeds to keep up to date with this organization’s important work.
January 30th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Okay, that was a first successful test, meaning that it will be 5-10 years before official deployment. And in the meantime, there will be countermeasures developed- it isn’t that hard to aim a ballistic missile off course and then correct it 7/8ths of the way through the flight, causing the system to miss entirely. Anyways, nuclear weapons could be brought into the country much more easily on all those unchecked shipping containers arriving at ports every day.
January 30th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Thanks for the mention - I must say that while I have authored over 50 articles on computer security, I’ve not yet published any books. It’s bound to happen sooner or later though.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:18 am
Eliezer’s AGI architecture known as FriendlyAI is probably going to be unfriendly. The root of this problem is that you shouldn’t build any kind of goals to superintelligence, because it might blindly follow that goal. But the FriendlyAI system is going to have a goal, “be friendly”.
If you ask a strict definition of this friendliness you don’t get a clear answer. They will answer some fuzzy definition like “being good to the humankind”. Basicly the FriendlyAI replaces the three Asimov’s laws with one law: “1. Be friendly to humankind”.
Eliezer has not provided any test which can determine how friendly some AGI system is. Infact, friendliness is probably going to be very complex concept with no practical strict definition. Reminds me of philosophers trying to define what “beauty” is for thousands of years. There are no simple definition to this word. And beauty seems to be far more easier word to define than “friendliness”.
To ensure a friendly AGI would be to build no goal system at all. Humans have no goals built into us that we have to follow to my knowledge. You could say something like survive and reproduce, but many people kill themselves each year and so on.
This is the solution to the friendliness problem: use intelligence to decide what to do. This is what humans do. Unfortunately humans are quite stupid and do alot of evil things. These evil people are actually stupid because they haven’t studied moral philosophy etc enough. I could predict that people with IQ of 500+ are very moral and friendly people, if that is the intelligent thing to do. It might be that when you are intelligent enough you might realise that it is stupid to follow morals, but then we are all in big trouble anyways.
January 31st, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Missle shields have never worked, don’t work, and never will work. It will always be cheaper to build dummy warheads than an interceptor. You would need hundreds of thousands of interceptors to even come close to a missing just a few percent of the incomming warheads. On top of that, you sort of need to know, generaly where most of the warheads might be comming from. Launches from submarines and trucks in Mexico can’t be intercepted with any concievable technology.
Sorry, missle shields have little chance of ever working. They are useful only as job security for some contractors.
January 31st, 2007 at 7:40 pm
As to the missile defense shield…
1. Back in the day, when Ronald Reagan was busily spending us all into the poor house in order to beat the Evil Empire called Russia (part of how he did this was by funding terrorists, of course, back then, they were freedom fighters, but I digress), the Missile Shield to Keep Us All Safe Forever and Ever (MSKUASFE) got started.
At that time, there were three BIG questions that no one, not even the experts, had any answers for:
Question 1: How are you going to write the program, let alone debug it? Millions of lines of code and you think you’re going to have every eventuality covered?
But we’ll pretend somehow a perfectly written computer program is somehow made.
Question 2: So, part of the system, at least, has to be in space, right? Satellites orbiting the earth, ready to shoot down missiles. How do you prevent an attacking power from simply making the first missile they fire detonate in space, where the EM pulse will burn out the satellite computers of the Missile Defense Grid, thereby allowing the remaining missiles to carry on their merry way? Okay, we’ll just pretend somehow the satellites have been shielded (maybe that fancy metaphasic shielding from the latter incarnations of Star Trek.)
Question 3. (And this one’s always a killer.) How is the MSKUASFE going to stop a missile fired from a few miles off-shore (in international waters) at an East Coast or West Coast city?
2. Now, in the Bush Days, there are two new questions.
Question 4: How would a missile defense grid have been of any use on 9/11? Or in any similar civilian-heavy scenario? Can anyone conceive of any possible good argument for developing a computerized system that would have as one of its programmed functions the shooting down of civilian transports?
Question 5: How would a missile defense grid be of any help, even if Questions 1 through 4 were addressed? If you were a terrorist or a rogue nation, wouldn’t you simply sit there and say, “OK. Evil Americans can’t be bombed. Let’s send in the bioweapons.”
Think of all the good that money could have done. ..
February 1st, 2007 at 9:25 am
Randpost, that was Eliezer’s original idea, before he realized that it was naive.
An AI with no goal system at all would do nothing at all. An AI with a goal system that does not directly refer to humans is very likely to find that it can satisfy its goals best in a way that eliminates humans.
If there is an objective morality (a possibility that seems very unlikely) than an AI based on extrapolated volition of humans will follow it if it determines that humans would want it to. If there is no objective morality, such an AI will still do want humans would want, so we’re not screwed - as long as you get the goal system right, which I agree is hard.
February 1st, 2007 at 10:14 am
“An AI with no goal system at all would do nothing at all.”
It would have no built in goal system, but would use its intelligence to make decisions, just like humans.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Randpost,
Do you think that humans seek out sex, music, status, gourmet food, and the like solely *because* of their intelligence?
February 1st, 2007 at 1:07 pm
“The root of this problem is that you shouldn’t build any kind of goals to superintelligence, because it might blindly follow that goal.”
So then what determines the superintelligence’s behavior? Coinflipping?
“Eliezer has not provided any test which can determine how friendly some AGI system is.”
I can. If it’s activation doesn’t constitute an existential risk as defined by Nick Bostrom, it’s Friendly.
“Infact, friendliness is probably going to be very complex concept with no practical strict definition.”
So? Some programs involve literally millions of different interacting pieces; this scale of complexity is not beyond us with enough effort.
“This is the solution to the friendliness problem: use intelligence to decide what to do.”
Intelligence is excellent at thinking of solutions, but you have to have a problem before you have a solution. If you can think of a way around this, you could get billions of dollars from college students who would like to know what the answer to the test is before knowing what the question is.
“This is what humans do.”
No; humans use their very complex, evolved moral system to decide what to do. You are going to have a hard time separating a human into “intelligence” and “goal system”, because the brain wasn’t built with separability in mind, but there is still a definite distinction between “motive” and “means”.
“These evil people are actually stupid because they haven’t studied moral philosophy etc enough.”
No. If you take a very, very smart human and make them evil, you get a sci-fi evil genius or real-life brutal dictator. Stalin was very smart at playing politics and getting everyone who threatened him shot, and we all know how moral he was.
“I could predict that people with IQ of 500+ are very moral and friendly people, if that is the intelligent thing to do.”
A human with an IQ of 500 would not be stable in modern society; we already see how people with IQs of around 140+ act very weird in comparison with human norms.
“It would have no built in goal system, but would use its intelligence to make decisions, just like humans.”
You can’t make decisions without options, and you can’t have options without a goal system; the expected utility equation will break down.
“Do you think that humans seek out sex, music, status, gourmet food, and the like solely *because* of their intelligence?”
We already have a drug in testing, Bremelanotide, that will heighten your sex drive without making you any more or less intelligent.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:25 pm
“I can. If it’s activation doesn’t constitute an existential risk as defined by Nick Bostrom, it’s Friendly.”
There is no test to see whether activating it constitutes an existential risk defined by Nick Bostrom. The bottom line is that you will never be able to prove that a system complex as AGI is friendly.
February 2nd, 2007 at 1:53 am
Yes there is, randpost. If a seed AI kills us upon hard takeoff, then it’s not Friendly. If it doesn’t, then in all likelihood, it’s Friendly enough. It’s Bostrom’s Maxipok principle - maximize the probability of an okay outcome.
February 2nd, 2007 at 4:30 am
Again, there is no test to determine if an AGI is friendly without killing us.
February 2nd, 2007 at 4:56 am
If we’re alive, it’s friendly enough. Keep in mind that Friendly and friendly are different things, and you keep using them interchangeably.
February 2nd, 2007 at 7:45 am
The most effective missile defense is when you have remote detectors that can locate missiles and key components on the ground from a distance that an overflying plane or satellite can spot them. That would provide the option of hitting them first when they are vulnerable and stationary. It would also remove the issue of what is fake and what is not.
Superconducting versions of high resolution gamma ray imagers might be able to perform the detection.
http://people.csail.mit.edu/bkph/papers/Large_Area_Passive_Detector.pdf
Plus if you had portable particle accelerators (like the new desktop versions) you could ping for nuclear materials with particles that cause the nuclear materials to emit more detectable radiation. Combining active and passive detection.
The other technology that seems to be only a few years away is High Power Microwaves.
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/01/military-defense-may-get-step-up-on.html
They are broader beams of power that zap the electronics of all kinds of missiles and vehicles. The missiles electronics would have to be hardened to resist the pulses. But at higher power ranges of terawatt and petawatt this could be very difficult. How difficult it is to shield, I do not know since a lot of electronic hardening info is classified. The issue of difficulty and problems for missiles also has to do with weight. If the hardening involves heavy shielding that means the hardened missiles could be too heavy to fly at the old speed and ranges or may need extensive re-design. A broad beam could be very easy to aim. Even against high speed missiles coming at you the problem would be lot easier. They are talking about taking out cruise missiles from hundreds of miles away.
The detection devices are the first key to making effective defense a far more practical issue. Then you can stop someone from placing something close to you. You detect and intercept before they are in position.
February 2nd, 2007 at 8:06 am
Mike, Tom: Please try to avoid flamewars. If randpost isn’t willing to read or able to understand any of the dozens of documents you have linked to on this subject you certainly won’t persuade him here. Remember how hard it was to convince Eli of this? Don’t be surprised if almost all humans, for personality reasons fairly distinct from intelligence, simply *can’t* learn it. My guess is that some people model intelligence as “the characteristic of my self-model that makes it different from my “generic person” model”. Given that error, the rest of the errors follow.
Tom: I’m not at all sure that sf style evil geniuses are possible OR that IQ 500 humans are not. The latter inference seems like another extrapolation without much theoretical foundation. Also, it seems likely to involve conflating multiple features that we identify as intelligence but which are not part of IQ with IQ. Maralyn vos Savant X 4 doesn’t give you anything very unstable. It doesn’t even give you Feynman. And Feynman seems to have been far from unstable. Not surprisingly, instability seems to come from an unbalanced mix of abilities, not from an excess of general ability. Either of these two features can lead to genius, but as entropy would suggest, genius seems to usually involve some mix of them.
Very minor point about “Evil Geniuses”. I wonder if the evil overlord list could be expanded, promoted in the sf community, and slanted towards providing actually useful advice.
February 2nd, 2007 at 8:20 am
Why would an AI want to kill us in the first place? It’s like the 2.0 version of the B-movies of the 1950s where the Martians come to Earth to kidnap the women.
February 2nd, 2007 at 8:31 am
“If we’re alive, it’s friendly enough.”
Again, there are no tests whatsoever to determine if an AGI is friendly or not without killing us. You have provided only one test: to see if it kills us, which is exactly what we are trying to find out without killing us.
Friendliness and friendliness are basicly the same things. You just brought that up to look “smart”.
Also note that Friendliness has no definition yet, it is some fuzzy magical word.
“Do you think that humans seek out sex, music, status, gourmet food, and the like solely *because* of their intelligence?”
No, but we can.
Michael, your argument is basicly that I’m wrong because I’m stupid. I think that kind of name calling argument is quite rude.
In practice we are only left with the “hunch” test; the AGI designer feels his own mind-design is safe. And every AGI designer has that same hunch..
February 2nd, 2007 at 9:26 am
btw: effective nuclear weapon and material detection at significant ranges and effective against shielding also takes care of the issue of smuggled weapons at ports, in trucks and other places.
Use a combination of active and passive detectors and also detect for large amounts of shielding. If large amounts of shielding are detected then either actively probe with particles or take other measures.
February 2nd, 2007 at 1:22 pm
“That would provide the option of hitting them first when they are vulnerable and stationary. It would also remove the issue of what is fake and what is not.”
It would also require several hours to fly out to the target, by which time the missile is long gone.
“that cause the nuclear materials to emit more detectable radiation. ”
Said nuclear material, if the packager has any brains at all, will be distributed in a very sub-critical pattern, so on average, a single neutron makes the uranium fission, say, around %0.5 of the time, giving back 0.01 neutrons. But other materials also reflect neutrons; the neutron can simply hit a heavy nucleus and bounce back. So how do you tell the difference?
“Plus if you had portable particle accelerators (like the new desktop versions)”
I’m currently trying to build one- where can I get a good-quality vacuum pump for less than $2000?
“But at higher power ranges of terawatt and petawatt this could be very difficult.”
The combined electricity generation of every power plant in the world is currently around two terawatts, so this isn’t happening without some major revamping to power production technology.
“How difficult it is to shield, I do not know since a lot of electronic hardening info is classified.”
Non-ionizing radiation is ridiculously easy to stop with a Faraday cage.
“You detect and intercept before they are in position.”
Huh? ICBMs are usually launched from submarines or fixed ground launchpads; neither would require any time to “get in position”. These launchers are designed so that they can fire back even in a MAD scenario with twenty minutes’ lead time.
“Mike, Tom: Please try to avoid flamewars. If randpost isn’t willing to read or able to understand any of the dozens of documents you have linked to on this subject you certainly won’t persuade him here.”
Point taken.
“Remember how hard it was to convince Eli of this?”
No, please provide a link. My memory must be going again.
“for personality reasons fairly distinct from intelligence, simply *can’t* learn it.”
I’m still convinced that most people could understand at least the basic principles of FAI if they wanted to. However, that’s the key point; a lot of people seem to have a “Knowledge Defense System” in place, so anything new is automatically dismissed as “irrelevant” or “gay” or “liberal bias” or “conservative bias” or whatever the catchphrase is nowadays.
““the characteristic of my self-model that makes it different from my “generic person” model””
So people internally attribute intelligence only to themselves? That would surprise me; even if people are horrendously biased, they will have all kinds of problems if they dismiss everyone else as total robots.
“I’m not at all sure that sf style evil geniuses are possible”
I don’t claim they’re possible; I simply gave the first result that came to mind when you combined those personality characteristics. Sorry if that was poorly worded.
“that IQ 500 humans are not.”
Obviously some sort of being with a 500 IQ is possible, I’m just questioning whether it would act like a human. I obviously don’t have an IQ anywhere near that high, yet a lot of people I’ve met physically still think of me as some sort of Creature From Outer Space ™. The eccentricity of high-intelligence humans has become a cultural stereotype, so we do have quite a few examples in this regard.
“but which are not part of IQ with IQ”
I’m just using IQ as short for general intelligence. Actually, Randpost is using IQ as short for GI, and I’m just replying to him in the same terms he used.
“Maralyn vos Savant X 4″
Weirdness doesn’t scale linearly, I think. The upper end of the IQ chart is similar to an exponential decay, and so people’s conceptions of what is “kind of weird” versus “weird” versus “totally incomprehensible” is likely to be biased towards the more populated, lower intelligence regions of the graph (availability heuristic).
“Why would an AI want to kill us in the first place? It’s like the 2.0 version of the B-movies of the 1950s where the Martians come to Earth to kidnap the women.”
It wouldn’t kill us, really, in the classical sense; we would just die as an unintended side effect of the AI taking apart the Earth for spare atoms.
“No, but we can.”
Precisely. Intelligence gives you the ability to do whatever you want; it expands your range of options. It does not tell you which option to choose.
“Michael, your argument is basicly that I’m wrong because I’m stupid.”
No, he’s writing you off as stupid because you’re wrong so consistently. Big difference.
“I think that kind of name calling argument is quite rude.”
Rudeness must be subordinate to truth; otherwise we might tell each other “2 + 2 = 5″ all day and pat ourselves on the back because we’re being polite.
“also detect for large amounts of shielding”
The best way to slow down neutrons so they can be absorbed quickly is with hydrogen, which is kind of difficult to scan for. I can imagine it now:
“Captain, we’ve detected a shipping container with a bomb!”
“Which one?”
“That big blue one over there!”
“You mean the ocean we just sailed over?”
“Exactly! It should be arrested for smuggling nuclear materials; call in SWAT!”
February 2nd, 2007 at 2:25 pm
It is likely that the west will suffer a few nuclear detonations in its cities. That may be the cost of waking up into the world as it exists in reality, as opposed to the one that exists in the minds of most professors and journalists.
The natural state of humankind through history is not peace, but rather war. Unfortunately war tends to escalate toward the most powerful weapon of the era, which at this time would be WMDs of the ABC variety. It is nice for a peaceful culture to consider effective defensive weapons as the herald of a new and more civilised era. Unfortunately, we have not yet arrived there.
I expect that many people will die, but I do not wish that to be true. I am hoping that Michael is closer to the truth.
February 2nd, 2007 at 3:03 pm
The power levels are based on pulsed bursts of power.
>It would also require several hours to fly out >to the target, by which time the missile is >long gone.
Nuclear materials surveillance would be constant.
If a plane flies overhead, the defender would need to know that it was one with detectors inside. Against smaller nuclear powers, the US could fly over with stealth equiped planes loaded with detection gear. Then as the they detect they hit the sites with precision guided weapons. One would try to take them out all at once. One would use deep diggers for the fortified and buried locations.
One can perform the detection at all times. Are you saying that the defender would launch the minute any plane took off from a US base ? already that would be forcing them into a posture of detectable activity. Missile launch prep can be spotted by regular satellites as well.
I am talking about detecting bombs and missiles that are in underground facilities.
Terahertz and millimeter radiation can detect active and inactive nuclear plants from 9 kilometers away.
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2006/10/improved-detection-of-small-amounts-of.html
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2006/06/other-tech-new-sensor-technology.html
http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/News/2006/news060321.html
Gamma ray telescope detection of nuclear material
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2006/06/gamma-ray-telescope-could-be-used-to.html
The energy spectrum of photons emitted from isotopes of uranium or plutonium in the 40-1000 keV energy range give unique signatures that, if accurately measured, give inspectors important information about the age and enrichment of the material and therefore its intended purpose.
The before they get in position scenario was when people were talking about floating bombs over on ships to the coastline. If one has effective detectors then ports and ships can be monitored. One would setup blimps or position detectors at locations on the shipping lanes.
I am not saying that this would be effective against Russia. But this threatening the missiles on the ground or in boat capability is better than try to shoot them when they are going at 5000mph.
Table top particle accelerators
http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn10741-tabletop-particle-accelerator-created.html
Not all ordinary shielding would be effective against the power levels the high power microwaves are working at.
http://www.ieee-virtual-museum.org/collection/tech.php?taid=&id=2345911&lid=1
The problem with Faraday cages is that most vital equipment needs to be in contact with the outside world. This contact point can allow the electromagentic field to enter the cage, which ultimately renders the enclosure useless. There are ways to protect against these Faraday cage flaws, but the fact remains that this is a dangerous weakpoint.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/hpm.htm
February 2nd, 2007 at 3:18 pm
btw: One of the main points that I am trying to address is the claim that nuclear weapon and nuclear missile defense is an intractable problem.
I am indicating that new sensor technology is making it possible.
I am also indicating that detecting and going after the problem earlier in the build, development, safe storage stage is better and less time constrained than hitting them in the launch, boost, re-entry stages.
Creating ubitquitous sensors is also possible with more advanced tech. I am indicating that possible nearer term breakthroughs with gamma radiation detection and differentiation, terahertz radiation, millimeter radiation could start shifting the balance earlier.
February 2nd, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Some random thoughts…
Missile Defense is something that can strategically be justified if all it does is cause the “enemy” to spend their money to work around it, assuming your nation has the financial upper hand. The fact that it might work for “rogue nations” is another pretty good reason to make the effort. Can North Korea or Iran easily afford thousands of decoys per nuke? Maybe, but I’d rather they spend a bunch more money on that than some other method of trying to target our country, assuming they are targeting us of course.
The argument that we can’t do something like this seems to me to not carry any weight. Every time there is something that some expert says can’t be done early the next decade or century someone is doing it and often it is mass produced. The “it’s impossible” argument almost screams invalid premise to me.
Who would have thought that building thousands of nuclear tipped missiles would be a great idea to prevent nuclear annihilation? Building something that keeps someone from “accidentally” pushing the button and killing millions seems like a noble effort. Arguments against appear political to me. Even an imperfect “shield” would be better than none, especially if we are proactive and attempt to protect our allies as well.
Is there a reason you couldn’t address the short range missile attack by creating anti-missile batteries near the coastal cities themselves? Maybe you need more, but defending the high population centers seems like a priority to reduce the incentive of the enemy to attempt to attack in the first place.
How do you protect a nation with open borders from smuggling in nuclear, biological or chemical weapons? I’m reading a lot about sensors here as the solution. Ok. That is great. Let’s have a strong border and import regulation to verify what is coming into the country. All for it. However, isn’t the real question, “What is the root cause?” Shouldn’t we be proactively attempting to identify who our enemies are and who is developing what weapons and has what plans to use them? Increase our intelligence capacity both high tech and low tech. Get some feet on the ground within some of these target countries and infiltrate their organizations. Preventative medicine (action) is what is necessary. Know beforehand that an attack is coming. Foil it before they even contemplate launching an attack… Just a thought.
February 2nd, 2007 at 4:29 pm
The difference in terms of detection is the exact spectral analysis of the gamma rays
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray
I believe the scientific american article in the Nov 2006 issue has some spectral diagrams that show the higher resolution of analysis from superconductors allows for the differentiation of isotopes. Certain isotopes would only be in nuclear weapons.
Seeing with Superconductors; November 2006; Scientific American Magazine; by Kent D. Irwin; 8 Page(s)
Your eyes are exquisite light detectors, determining the intensity, color and spatial distribution of the rays incident on them. The human retina has more “pixels” than a consumer digital camera, containing about six million color-sensing cone cells and more than 100 million of the rod cells responsible for vision in the dark. And eyes are highly sensitive: a dark-adapted rod cell can fire off a signal to the brain on absorbing a single particle of light, or photon, the smallest quantum unit of an electromagnetic wave. As few as six of these single-photon signals are required for your brain to perceive a flash. But eyes and commercial cameras are far from ideal for many tasks, because they can detect only those photons whose frequencies lie in the narrow visible range. Furthermore, their color capabilities do not involve a measurement of each photon’s precise frequency.
Scientific and industrial photon detectors, in contrast, peer into the electromagnetic realms beyond that of visible light–into the low-frequency (long-wavelength, low-energy) world of infrared and microwaves and into the high-frequency regime of x-rays and gamma rays. Yet they too are limited in their abilities. In particular, for visible and longer wavelengths scientists have lacked a detector able to “see” an individual photon and discern its frequency, and thus its energy, with any accuracy. Determining the frequency of photons opens the door to a wealth of information about the matter that emitted the photons.
February 2nd, 2007 at 5:40 pm
“The power levels are based on pulsed bursts of power.”
Okay, but damage doesn’t usually depend on total power level; it depends primarily on how much energy is applied. If you have a petawatt-level burst for one nanosecond, that’s only 1 MJ, and since it would spread out on route it wouldn’t do any damage at all.
“Nuclear materials surveillance would be constant.”
Oh, so you’re talking about peacetime, in which case you’re talking about flying over another countries’ airspace with heavy weapons. I don’t think we would like it if Chinese bombers regularly flew over our major cities and blew up the occasional military installation.
“Against smaller nuclear powers, the US could fly over with stealth equipped planes loaded with detection gear. Then as the they detect they hit the sites with precision guided weapons.”
Yup. After all, we all know that the US’s jurisdiction includes the known universe and they have total freedom to fly over any countries’ airspace, with heavily armed bombers, and blow up the (nuclear-armed!) military installations, without any complaints, threats of retaliation or declarations of WWIII. Something like this happened before; the president called it “a day that will live in infamy”, and we responded with a four-year all out military assault.
“Are you saying that the defender would launch the minute any plane took off from a US base ?”
If there’s a state of war, any sane defender would launch their missiles as soon as said war turned nuclear.
If there’s no state of war, the US is going to quickly become known for its violent surprise attacks.
“http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2006/10/improved-detection-of-small-amounts-of.html”
If you actually read the article, they’re talking about searching nuclear plants on the ground and using technology to rapidly identify whether samples of uranium are weapons-grade. While cool, this technology cannot detect anything at large distances or behind large quantities of matter.
“http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/mg19025566.100.html”
Okay, these can detect nuclear materials at moderate distances, but once again, they cannot work behind radshields or large quantities of matter.
“http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/News/2006/news060321.html”
Okay, they can detect nuclear materials in the open from 600 meters away on the ground. How you’re going to get within 600 meters of exposed nuclear material in a hostile enemy country is beyond me.
“http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060523072848.htm”
“with instruments located 9 km from a nuclear power plant showed clear differences between when the plant was operating and when it was idling”
This is a commercial nuclear power plant; it’s not hidden! Congratulations, you managed to find something when you already knew where it was. Secret nuclear facilities would obviously not have giant towers poking a hundred meters into the air that conveniently release large clouds of visible, detectable smoke into the atmosphere.
“The before they get in position scenario was when people were talking about floating bombs over on ships to the coastline”
Oops. My misinterpretation.
“One would setup blimps or position detectors at locations on the shipping lanes.”
Okay, now you’ve got the huge cargo ships covered, but nuclear bombs are small enough that they can come in on almost any ship, from any direction. We can’t even stem the flow of heroin from Afghanistan, with a ten-billion dollar budget, and anyone can recognize heroin on-sight without the need for special detectors.
“Not all ordinary shielding would be effective against the power levels the high power microwaves are working at.”
“The average power is not high enough to significantly damage living tissue, although it can heat nerves and break down cells. Even so, heating cells requires sustained exposure of several seconds or more and the duration of an HPM pulse is generally only microseconds.”
If the damn thing can’t even burn through your skin, how is it going to blow up a missile in flight? Yes, it is very painful (as demonstrated by the military’s new riot-inducing ADS), but metal can heat up to several hundred degrees C without even needing special cooling systems.
“The problem with Faraday cages is that most vital equipment needs to be in contact with the outside world. This contact point can allow the electromagentic field to enter the cage,”
The entire missile is made of metal! The entire bloody thing is already a Faraday cage, without even needing to do anything in particular. Yes, these missiles can communicate via radio, so the antennas are obviously exposed, but an antenna isn’t exactly delicate electronics.
Oh, and the cage doesn’t need to be solid metal all around; it still works with a wire mesh.
” Can North Korea or Iran easily afford thousands of decoys per nuke?”
No, but nukes are so much more expensive than missiles they could easily afford, say, ten.
“The “it’s impossible” argument almost screams invalid premise to me.”
It’s not impossible to magically detect secret nuclear systems from space; it’s just damn hard. All the obvious stuff, neutron and gamma radiation, is blocked by several meters of shielding (it has to be, or else the radiation would kill everyone working there).
“by creating anti-missile batteries near the coastal cities themselves?”
Okay, so now you plan to put anti-missile batteries in every coastal town or city around the US? We have over 3,000 km of coastline, not including Alaska.
“The difference in terms of detection is the exact spectral analysis of the gamma rays”
Gamma rays are scattered by matter; even before a ray is absorbed, it has gone through hundreds of scatterings (each of which alters the wavelength), meaning this won’t work at all behind any thickness of material.
February 3rd, 2007 at 1:14 am
The HPM claims are that they can down a cruise missile at over 100 miles of distance. Why can they down a cruise missile and not a ballistic missile? there are seams, vents and rivets in the metal. Plus the back end of the rocket has an opening.
I did not claim that this stuff would work perfectly or that a lot more development is not needed but that this is a promising area. that it is on the way to be very useful. Better detection and surveillance. Plus being able to detect nuclear reactors at range is start. (btw. the advancednano blog is mine, I wrote all of the articles on that site)
Surveillance can be performed during peacetime to locate the weapons. The shooting only goes off when the war starts.
>Yup. After all, we all know that the US’s >jurisdiction includes the known universe and >they have total freedom to fly over any >countries’ airspace, with heavily armed >bombers, and blow up the (nuclear-armed!) >military installations, without any complaints, >threats of retaliation or declarations of >WWIII.
Are the nuclear weapons impossible to deal with or only impossible to deal with if you are not willing to do what might work?
AS I said you fly over with what looks like a civilian transport in peacetime with your detection gear. Or you stick them into drones. Or you supply your spies with the necessary gear. The USA is not the only country that has trouble protecting and detecting what passes through their borders.
the anti-personnel microwave - I am assuming that they crank up the power to make it more deadly and have more range on it.
Heroin does not have a unique spectral signature that can be detected at distance.
Bombing a smaller power with targeted attacks against actual nuclear WMDs is an improvement over an invasion/occupation of a country without WMDs.
Terahertz and millimeter waves can penetrate metal and material and there are other wavelengths and particles that can do that as well. The point being with research this could be solvable problem. Plus traces could be detectable upon people who work at the facility. Detect and track them to the sources
February 3rd, 2007 at 9:22 am
“The HPM claims are that they can down a cruise missile at over 100 miles of distance.”
Okay, but if they can do that, every air force in the world is going to become instantly obsolete. A plane is very similar in structure to a missile: large volatile fuel tanks, fragile, lightweight metal skin, so it should be easy to shoot down dozens of planes at a time with these things.
“(btw. the advancednano blog is mine, I wrote all of the articles on that site)”
Oops, sorry. I thought that it was someone else’s blog that you had linked to, in which case it would be a thirdhand story and therefore prone to distortion.
“Surveillance can be performed during peacetime to locate the weapons.”
Hostile nations will obviously not permit regular overflight of their territory by surveillance drones; look at what the Soviet Union did, for instance, when we tried to fly over with U2 planes.
“The shooting only goes off when the war starts.”
When the war starts, a hostile defender would probably not keep their nuclear weapons in one spot and risk having them destroyed. Why would any sane nation not powerful enough to have a MAD deterrent keep their nuclear weapons right next to a large, easy-to-detect facility?
“AS I said you fly over with what looks like a civilian transport in peacetime with your detection gear. Or you stick them into drones. Or you supply your spies with the necessary gear. The USA is not the only country that has trouble protecting and detecting what passes through their borders.”
When this is discovered, it would be a major scandal and a violation of numerous treaties and international law, and a hostile nation would probably retaliate violently. Remember the Lusitania?
“Heroin does not have a unique spectral signature that can be detected at distance.”
Yes, it does; every material will behave in a certain way when pummeled with a beam of neutrons, and heroin is no exception. Heroin can also be easily recognized on sight without special equipment of any kind.
“Terahertz and millimeter waves can penetrate metal and material and there are other wavelengths and particles that can do that as well.”
THz radiation is even easier to defend against than neutron radiation; just surround the materials in a metal sheath. THz radiation is not magically immune to the laws of electromagnetism; it is physically impossible to maintain a large electric potential in a metal.
“Bombing a smaller power with targeted attacks against actual nuclear WMDs is an improvement over an invasion/occupation of a country without WMDs.”
Until said country retaliates with their nuclear weapons, probably causing tens if not hundreds of thousands of people to be blown into bloody smithereens.
“Plus the back end of the rocket has an opening.”
Which is filled with hot ionized plasma, an excellent absorber of all kinds of radiation.
“there are seams, vents and rivets in the metal.”
Obviously an accidental Faraday cage isn’t going to be absolutely perfect, but it would probably work well enough to make 90% or more of the energy going into heating the metal skin rather than the electronics. Electronics are a very small target to hit in a missile anyway.
February 3rd, 2007 at 10:05 am
Superb discussion (as usual). Thanks to all, but especially to the back-&-forth betwenn Brian and Tom—thanks much, guys!! Please forgive my johnny-come-lateliness…
1. randpost would seem to be right on at least one particular point (at as far as specifically embedded in the above discussion): There is as yet no non-existentially-lethal **test** for whether an AGI is friendly (or Friendly, if one prefers). To rather cavaleirly, if not, indeed, whimsically retort to the effect that the (relevant?!) “test” is whether or not humankind is annihilated (indirectly, of course, as a side-effect of the AGI’s well-considered plan of “better living through nanotech [and eventually, probably, femtotech]”). But this is, rather obviously, NOT a meaningful “test” AT ALL, meaningful, that is, **epistemically** and **pragmatically**, as there will be, *ex hypothesi* NO KNOWING SUBJECTS LEFT TO *ACT* UPON THE “TEST’S” RESULT(S)!!! Which is, I take it, randpost’s implicit point. Yet this—surely relevant, to say the least—point seems not to be grasped (or at least insufficiently appreciated) by randpost’s “opponents” in this discussion. Positing such a “test” is simply methodologically *self-stulltifying* in the extreme, and thus of no pragmatic use at all! (Which is, again I take it, randpost’s point!) And this merely highlights why we need to be able to test (in a more realistic, robust sense!) a developing AGI isolated *in situ*, in a sealed-off (from the rest of the world) environment over which we will have control. And this, admittedly, will be no easy task, if we’re talking even moderate genuine learning, environmentally-modifying AGI with access to nanotech (itself being embodied nanotech, if the two tech trajectories continue on toward convergence around 2020 or sooner). But w/o such isolation-&-control, one cannot realistically and meaningfully have a (series of) test(s) as to whether or not the thing is friendly (or, again, Friendly). (And while it might be argued that the thing would have no motive to deceive us, it would, presumably, have the intelligence/skill(s) to do so, if it did so choose…) Except the “turn it loose & see what happens” “test”, which, as we’ve seen, is really no test at all… All this is nothing new, this very cluster of issues/problems being (at least part of) the very core of concerns about the development (much less deployment) of superhuman AGI. I’m just surprised (if not appalled) that randpost’s point in this regard was, not just ignored, but seemingly not even appreciated!
2. Ballistic missle defense is fine, as far as it goes. But it doesn’t “go” all that far. Tom is quite correct that a small, tactical nuke (or, at least in-principle, a larger, missle-grade strategic nuke for that matter)—sufficient to obliterate at least, say, 10-15 sq. km—could easily be smuggled in via one of the myriad freight containers (typically railway-configured containers) that almost *literally* *pour* into the major American ports (from Boston and NYC, to New Orleans and Houston, to LA and SF) **daily**. And security in this regard, while slightly improved over the last several yrs, is still little more than a joke compared to what the security measures could be and should be. And this doesn’t mean draconian police-state crap either, just sensible protocols which nonetheless have yet to be implemented (wonder why…?!?!) From such a port city, such a nuke could farily easily be transported virtually anywhere, and then detonated. And both the Canadian and Mexican borders are so porous, that anyone who wants to bring-in, quitely literally, a “back-pack” nuke could do so…
3. But as far as terrorism goes, colleagues, we must be very careful to not discount the possibility (and, indeed, in my judgment, rather high probability) of false-flag terror tactics. Is it genuinely realistic to think that a bunch of 3rd World wacko-zealots (and/or domestic “right-wing” wackos) could’ve pulled-off that which they are alleged to have pulled-off?! The evidence really does suggest otherwise, if one takes the time to investigate it thoroughly. “Remember the Maine!!” indeed!!! There is ample evidence to suggest—if not prove beyond any reasonable doubt—that most-if-not-all of the terror events of the last 15-20 yrs or so (not just in America, but worldwide) have indeed been false-flag terror ops. I was somewhate skeptical of this myself, at first. But the more one researches the various events, the facts, the timelines, etc., it becomes obvious that the official accounts are bullshit. The neo-cons would like nothing better than for a back-pack nuke to detonate somewhere within the lower 48 as a *pretext* to further eviscerate Constitutional liberties, protections, and rights, all in the name of protecting us from terror, of course. See Webster Tarpley’s book, *9/11: Synthetic Terrorism–Made in the USA*, among many others, for a discussion. And see also Michael Ruppert’s exhaustively thorough *Crossing the Rubicon…* for further discussion. The neo-cons, the Straussian bastards, wanted a pretext to militarily secure the central-asian oil fields, as well as have a pretext for police-state machinations here in America. Far from being an “extreme” position, this is actually a straightforward one, once one examines the evidence and puts on one’s neo-con cap: What would an oil-industry-steeped, Straussian ideologues-cum-would-be-oligarchs DO? Precisely the kind of crap we’ve seen over the last 15 yrs or so, and especially over the last 5 or so yrs. Far from being unrealistic, this real politik 101!!
In terms of both domestic and international politics, it well behooves us all to recall the the title (and contents) of Albert J. Nock’s classic, *Our Enemy, the STATE*…
Ciao
February 3rd, 2007 at 11:26 am
“randpost would seem to be right on at least one particular point (at as far as specifically embedded in the above discussion): There is as yet no non-existentially-lethal **test** for whether an AGI is friendly (or Friendly, if one prefers).”
By Rice’s theorem, it is mathematically impossible to write a test that can predict whether an arbitrary AI is Friendly. I was referring to a test that can take the statement “AI Bob will do ABC” and spit back the statement “ABC is/is not Friendly”.
“The neo-cons would like nothing better than for a back-pack nuke to detonate somewhere within the lower 48 as a *pretext*”
Be *on your guard* for something like this happening in the next few months. It is obvious that the US government is gearing for war with Iran, and another “attack” would be just the thing required to increase popular support. We have already moved two aircraft carriers, along with their associated battle groups, cruisers, destroyers, oilers, submarines, gunboats, AA batteries, fighters, bombers, missiles, supply ships, troop transports, et cetera ad nauseam (anyone remember the submarine-tanker collision a few weeks back? We have so many ships there we can hardly keep them from running into each other) in the Persian Gulf area. This could trigger any number of undesirable things:
- Several members of this board being drafted to go get blown up by a Chinese-made cruise missile. Unlike the last draft, students and women are “eligible”, and the age limit has been raised to 35 (see the SS website).
- A drastic rise in the oil price. Any war in Iran would rapidly shut down the Persian Gulf, pretty much cutting off the oil of not only Iran, but Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and others.
- A declaration of emergency in the US, with subsequent loss of any remaining democracy or civil liberties.
- Nuclear warfare. Any use of nuclear weapons in Iran would pretty much scrap the NPT and could easily start a nuclear arms race.
- Terrorist attacks in the US, either by American, Israeli, Iranian, or rogue operatives.
- A loss of control over Iraq. The Mahdi Army, Iraq’s largest militia, does not usually battle with US forces (yes, Iraq’s Shiite death squads are effectively condoned by the American army). The Shiite militias are much larger and better armed than the Sunni militias we’ve been fighting, and obviously they would retaliate in the event of an attack on Iran.
- The dollar crashing on international markets. If you have a dollar bill in your pocket, it could easily and instantly lose 20%, 40%, 60% or more of its value. Poof, there goes the money to pay the rent.
- I’m sure there are others.
How did this get so off-topic anyway?
February 3rd, 2007 at 2:48 pm
THANK YOU, as always, Tom, for your clarification. If it was implicit in your earlier remarks, then I missed it in my perusal (forgive my dumb-dumbness…).
Forgive my shunting off onto “this topic”. I just want(ed) to make sure that my esteemed colleagues here are aware that not only the current administration, but the last 15 or 20 administrations have been the most corrupt and evil imaginable. The entire world has actual been enthralled by an international financial elite for many generations. FDR alluded to it, as did Woodrow Wilson, both more than once. I’m afraid Alex Jones and Aaron Russo are RIGHT: Fascism has already come to America (now more appropriately spelled, AmeriKa). If we expect to have any decent, (trans)humane future, it is this oligarchic, Straussian, **fascism** that must be uncovered, disclosed and routed…as they say, Thoreau the rascals out (and throw their asses in jail, for that matter…) IF there is another “terror” attact anywhere in the world, large or small, you can bet it is a false-flag black-op using 3rd world patsies and actually carried out by Intelligence Community black-ops agents, whether nominally of the CIA, Military Intelligence, MI6/SAS, or Mossad. Don’t be fooled if the Corporate-Fascist media spins as a “right-wing militia” sort of terrorist op (a la McVeigh/OKC) or an “Islamic terrorist” op. It’s just the black ops branch of the Establishment oligarchy doing its “job” to foment fear and lay the groundwork for a draconia police state domestically, and more fascist-imperialism abroad. We need to protect our borders and get the hell out of just about everywhere else in the world. Again, don’t by fooled by mainstream spin bullshit if/where there’s another terror insident—and KEEP YOUR POWDER DRY, folks…
February 3rd, 2007 at 3:11 pm
My (meta)point, in other words is: If we (are to) have any chance of navigating robotech, nanotech and the Singularity successfully, then we must also focus our attention (in part) on exposing and routing the already metastasising neo-fascist, neo-totalitarian cancer in our midst. This is not about nominal, superficial, left-right, Demopublican-Republicrat polarizing CRAP. If we let the Corporate-fascist media control what the “masses” think is going on, their mindset and biases, if we let net-neutrality and vigorous/robust First Amendment protections, and net-neutral, pro-robust-First-Amendment-access/exercise regulations go by the wayside (as they already partially have as of the passing of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which was slipped-through with nary an examination, much less debate, in either chamber), then you can kiss your liberty—and eventually your life—good by. These neo-con maniacs (and there is, literally, a frothing mania about them), who are ultimately merely minions/Mandarins of the transnational ultra-wealthy oligarchic super-elite(s), want nothing more than or other than to turn the entire planet into one big, unified, borderless, totalitarian, feudal/hierarchical **police state**. We try to deny this, ignore this, not unlike whistling past a graveyard, but the evidence is now too overwhelming to mistake, if one will only investigate it thoroughly. The evidence for virtually each and every terror event over the last few decades being a false-flag black op simply can no longer be ignored. Good ol’ Ben (Franklin), when ask by an uppercrust matron, upon his exiting the final meeting ratifying the Constitution, what he and Jefferson, and Madison (bless his soul), *et al*, “had wrought us”, he replied, “A REPUBLIC, madame, *if you can keep it*.” The battle for the American Republic is already joined, already underway. To have any hope of a (trans)humane future, do your homework, dear esteemed colleagues, and join the fray—we have a future to win…
February 3rd, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Forgive my dictional/grammatical faux pas in both the above posts—I was carpal-tunneling (i.e., typing) fast and furiously…
February 3rd, 2007 at 5:47 pm
“hen we must also focus our attention (in part) on exposing and routing the already metastasising neo-fascist, neo-totalitarian cancer in our midst.”
I don’t see why this is a serious problem. If the government gets bad enough to prevent the kind of work we need to face the future, then the smart people will move to Europe and continue work there. The US could implode and it wouldn’t be the end of the world.
February 3rd, 2007 at 6:29 pm
“The US could implode and it wouldn’t be the end of the world.”
No, but it would be very, very bad for everyone. The modern economy is so interwoven that a crash of one industry will affect every industry. Say there’s a depression and a screw factory goes bankrupt. The truck factory down the road requires screws, and now it has to buy them from faraway markets at elevated prices, so it also goes bankrupt. The food factory, which buys trucks to cart its product to stores, now also has to buy them internationally at elevated prices, so it goes bankrupt. The store now has to buy food at high prices, so it goes bankrupt, and then Joe Consumer has to go to another store with higher prices, which then makes him go bankrupt, and since Joe Consumer is 75% of the US economy, it just rolls downhill from there.
The US has a population of three hundred million people used to first-world living standards. If there’s a depression, or trade restrictions, or a crash in the dollar’s value, or a war, or anything else that disrupts the basic infrastructure, all those people are going to have to go somewhere. The US has not had a war on its soil for a hundred and fifty years, has not had a major economic depression for seventy years. The entire country has become hypnotized; even something as serious and immediately threatening as nuclear war is treated as a joke by the American populace. I honestly don’t know what would happen.
February 3rd, 2007 at 11:03 pm
this site
http://trshare.triumf.ca/~safety/EHS/rpt/rpt_7/node17.html
seems to indicate that gamma rays can go through a lot of material. The site lists how thick to drop the gamma rays to a tenth of their intensity.
A pdf on gamma ray interaction with matter
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/lib-www/la-pubs/00326397.pdf
Possibilties for Moun detection
http://www.lanl.gov/quarterly/q_spring03/muon_text.shtml
Wired 2002 article on nuke detection ideas
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.11/nukes_pr.html
A pdf that reviews the issues of detection of nuclear weapons and the current and developing options
http://www.ndu.edu/ctnsp/Def_Tech/DTP%2013%20Primer%20on%20Detection.pdf
February 4th, 2007 at 10:05 am
“seems to indicate that gamma rays can go through a lot of material. The site lists how thick to drop the gamma rays to a tenth of their intensity.”
A “lot” of material? The chart shows the average 1 MeV gamma ray will get absorbed half the time after going through a hundred meters of air, a material not exactly known for its excellent shielding qualities. So a plane at 5,000 meters up is going to detect nothing at all, not even because of the shielding, but because of all that air in the way.
“Possibilties for Moun detection
http://www.lanl.gov/quarterly/q_spring03/muon_text.shtml”
The annoying thing about uranium is that you simply don’t need very much to make a bomb; a few dozen kilograms is plenty enough even if you don’t have very sophisticated technology. So while this can detect large, solid lumps of uranium, it couldn’t detect, say, 30 kg of uranium mixed in with 3,000 kg of iron or aluminium (the mixing could be done by any half-decent metal smelter, and then the uranium could be recovered through remelting or chemical processes).
” In the split second he was under the scanner, 500 gamma rays might collide with it.”
This would very quickly become a standing joke among the officials there, as such a sensor would detect any radiological materials passing through. Nobody would take it very seriously if it was set off every time a truck carrying smoke detectors or potassium chloride went by. According to the chart you provided, it would only take ten centimeters of lead to shield the gammas below detectability anyway.
February 4th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
You speak about smart people moving to Europe as a solution, no? Not smart idea. Europe will be imploding much more quick than United State. Smart people hence going opposite derection. You be thinking danger comes from fascists inside United State? Ha. Good one frend. Plenty fascists sure. Not in United State though. But coming with bad toys for bad boys.
February 4th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Reading through the gamma ray info, it seems that more sensors that are closer than a plane flying over would be better. The superconducting gamma ray detectors can provide more details as to what is setting things off but it is better to get them closer. As the wired article indicates a network of smaller sensors. This would also need to be combined with detailed high resolution radiation maps of target locations and borders and other areas that are being monitored so that it would be easier to determine when something is there that should not be.
The terahertz and millimeter atmospheric detection would be to monitor when someone gets sloppy and allows for a radioactive leak or does any unshielded work.
Ten centimeters of lead is quite a bit. And forcing the enemy to take more measures than they currently are could make it easier for other monitoring and spying to detect the unusual activity.
By monitoring passively and actively across the spectrum (terahertz radiation and x-rays could spot that much lead shielding) it can cause mistakes to be made where guarding against detecting with one method allows for detection with another method.
ie. make a big lead and metal shield could look unusual and out of place. Burying things deep can show detectable construction.
As I indicated, improvements need to be made on the various methods.
Getting detectors in closer on insect sized drones or planted by agents and then relaying information out.
The problem is still very difficult and needs layers of detection and monitoring. But I think it is worthwhile to try to figure this out.
February 4th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
It is rather easy to design sensors of very small size, that fly into a region of interest, perhaps solar powered. Tiny robotic sensors could work their way into the most sensitive areas, then relay information out through a network of nano-sensors. There is really no way of preventing such an incursion if well designed.
February 4th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
“Ten centimeters of lead is quite a bit.”
It’s small enough to be easily concealed in an ordinary shipping box and light enough to put on a truck.
“And forcing the enemy to take more measures than they currently are could make it easier for other monitoring and spying to detect the unusual activity.”
As compared to the cost of getting the enriched uranium in the first place, everything I’ve described is trivial. The cost of twenty kilos or so of HEU or plutonium could run into the billions of dollars, since that’s what people would be willing to pay for it.
“Burying things deep can show detectable construction.”
Detectable construction?! Things are “constructed” literally every day. In my own home town, in the last five years, we’ve built a library, an elementary school, several large housing developments, at least five restaurants, and a whole bunch of other stuff. Should the whole town then be bombed into oblivion because of “detectable construction”?
“There is really no way of preventing such an incursion if well designed.”
True, but by the time we have nanotech that sophisticated we’ll have much bigger worries than nuclear weaponry.
“(terahertz radiation and x-rays could spot that much lead shielding)”
THz radiation would be very quickly absorbed, because lead is a conductive material just like any other metal. X-rays would also be absorbed, because lead is very thick and is a good gamma blocker. Both of these properties are shared by things as mundane as large blocks of iron, aluminium, copper, and a whole bunch of other metals.
“when something is there that should not be.”
You seem to have the view that each and every one of the millions of cars, trucks, boats, planes, bicycles, and other vehicles going in and out of America every day are all coordinated by some central agency. Even under the heading of “radioactive materials”, there are plenty of things that aren’t really regulated, let alone constantly monitored, including various tritium lights, smoke detectors, things with large amounts of potassium, test sources, radioactive rock, broken CRT televisions and monitors, et cetera.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:12 am
I am not saying that the monitoring is happening now. I am saying that in order to handle detection of nuclear materials and being able to prevent bombs from being snuck in from Mexico etc… that the heightened level of monitoring is what will need to be achieved.
So let me repeat that again. I know that it is not being done now. I know that the measures that I am proposing are not mature or capable now. I am suggesting that if the shoot the missiles down in the air is impossible or that it is leaving open the vulnerability of smuggled bombs via truck and ship, then R&D into massive and effective detection is what is needed.
Gamma rays by themselves will not do it. Ten centimeters of lead is not forcing enough of a response. Thus the need for a wider range of things Muons going through several feet of material. The atmospheric effects. Again what I listed is not enough as you have pointed out. It is the necessary path. What are you suggesting. It is impossible so do not try? Or let things continue as usual, let the even cruder and larger force approach for Iraq be used in Iran an N Korea.
The other thing is that people can get sloppy. Developing some detection ability when previously there was none, might catch some activity before the new capabilities are widely known.
The fact that something is absorbed is an indication that something is there.
Detectable construction would be to detect something buried 300 feet underground. I do not think your schools, library, restaurants etc… were built that far down. Deep diggers can reach down to those levels.
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2006/11/destroying-bunkers-and-entrances-down.html
A more precise way to get to the deep bunkers that Iran has buried under its cities. Thus the town can mostly avoid oblivion
February 5th, 2007 at 9:08 am
“hen we must also focus our attention (in part) on exposing and routing the already metastasising neo-fascist, neo-totalitarian cancer in our midst.”
“”I don’t see why this is a serious problem. If the government gets bad enough to prevent the kind of work we need to face the future, then the smart people will move to Europe and continue work there. The US could implode and it wouldn’t be the end of the world.”"
1) Europe is falling to the influx and birth rate of their Islamic citizens and temporary workers. 40% of 15-25 year olds in France are islamic (or some % close to that.) Europe will be in the midst of a freeze on intellectual investigation, only the koran can be read, or in the midst of civil war…
The USA will likely see an influx of the best and brightest free thinkers from Europe since it appears the Europeans don’t intend to stand up and fight for all they’ve earned since the Renaissance…
2) I’m not sure I understand the argument of the US being neo-fascist or neo-communist, unless the “neo” changes the meanings of the root word? Socialist-capitalist-republic and not necessarily in that order is how I’d attempt to describe our current state. I do tend to agree that there isn’t much real significant difference between the two political parties, but for the sake of advancing research, etc I think both are equal.
The only area I can think of that there is a difference wrt to R&D is embryonic stem cell research. Even there it is simply a difference of whether or not new embryos are destroyed. How significant is this to the overall cause of advanced R&D? It seems to be a very small % of new development to me, but I could be wrong.
February 5th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
“I am saying that in order to handle detection of nuclear materials and being able to prevent bombs from being snuck in from Mexico etc… that the heightened level of monitoring is what will need to be achieved.”
We can’t even keep thousands of illegal immigrants from pouring across the border, despite the fact that anyone can pick out humans from a background with a $200 infrared camera.
“It is the necessary path.”
It is the insane and ridiculous path. Unlike bombs, drugs, or other materials, nuclear bomb-making materials must start out under our direct control, as they can only be produced in large, high-tech facilities. It is much, much, much easier to guard a facility with a perimeter of one kilometer than a border with a perimeter of ten thousand kilometers.
“Or let things continue as usual, let the even cruder and larger force approach for Iraq be used in Iran an N Korea.”
Iraq and Iran don’t even have nuclear weapons. Iran has a nuclear program that may possibly be converted to produce nuclear weapons at some time in the indefinite future, but the same thing could be said for Japan. North Korea effectively already had nuclear weapons, as they have thousands of cannons trained on the city of Seoul which can rapidly disperse chemical agents and kill the population. If some rogue group wanted to get their hands on a nuclear weapon, they sure as hell wouldn’t go for North Korea- it’s the most heavily guarded country in the world.
“The other thing is that people can get sloppy.”
Yup, we all know that people doing as safe, routine and ordinary a job as smuggling a stolen nuclear weapon into a major US city are bound to become bored and get sloppy.
“The fact that something is absorbed is an indication that something is there. ”
Sure, something is there. What is there? We have no clue, as the radiation is absorbed and so nothing bounces back to the detector!
“Thus the town can mostly avoid oblivion”
Mostly avoid oblivion? Sure, the energy may go into creating an underground shockwave, but said shockwave is going to go into the foundation of every building in the area. It may not be as damaging, but it’s not a magic weapon that just hits one spot only.
“Detectable construction would be to detect something buried 300 feet underground.”
And how, pray tell, do you detect something buried 300 feet underground? Your own article admits that even the blast force of a nuclear explosion (!) can’t penetrate that much ground.
“40% of 15-25 year olds in France are islamic”
A government where %90 of the population is Islamic really isn’t that different from a government where %90 of the population is Christian or Jewish. The basic religious principles are still there.
“Socialist-capitalist-republic and not necessarily in that order is how I’d attempt to describe our current state.”
Okay, to go over the 14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism: (http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm)
Hmmm, that’s all fourteen. Sieg Heil!
“The only area I can think of that there is a difference wrt to R&D is embryonic stem cell research.”
And having a stable, functioning government and economy from which to base research off of. You don’t see much Singularity research going on in Nigeria. Everyone seems to forget that a stable, first-world country is something that must be worked for, not something that can just be taken as a given.
February 5th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Eric: Thank you very much for your input. The simple, verifiable facts are these. Both intranational and, especially, international politics (including war, terrorism, etc.) are, if not, indeed, controlled and managed, then at the very least very, very strongly influenced by the transnational financial/corporate elite, and has been for quite sometime. They control, for the vast most part, the media, the political parties, the military-industrial symbiotic complex, and the various (most active) intelligence services. All this is verifiable by anyone with the time and patience to dig it up. The national and transnational elites are corporativists and control freaks, essentially. They want nothing more or other than “Earth, Inc.” (with myriad “subsidiaries”, of course), controlled & managed, of course, by **themselves**. For them, constitutional protections & protocols, basic rights, due process for all, and full & accurate investigation & disclosure of facts (i.e., vigorous, virtuous, independent **journalism**), all are mere impediments to global dominance of the “consuming” masses (who, over the last 10-12 decades have been systematically dumbed-down and over-specialized—the works of Joel Spring and John Taylor Gatto). This is not wild-eyed “conspiracy theory”, but simple, verifiable fact. Nor is this merely my parroting, say, Noam Chomsky (though I concede that much of what Noam says is important and spot-on). The very nature of the modern corporation, qua institutional “person” is, as has been pointed out in a book and companion documentary DVD (”The Corporation”) that of a **psychopath** (or *sociopath*, if one prefers to split terminological hairs). And many (if not virtually all) of the flesh-&-blood persons comprinsing the global elite(s) are, if not full-blown psychopaths, then at least megalomanical, narcissistic *semi-psychopaths*. W/o a robust, ultimately Aristotelian/Lockean **culture** (which, via “dumbing-down”, has largely been gutted over the last several decades) with a robust appreciation (on the part of the “common man”) for fundamental constitutional protections, safeguards & protocols, the door is thrown if not wide-open, then at least a whole foot (jack-boot)-in-the-door’s worth for **corporativism** (which Mussolini himself said is a more accurated & appropriate term for “fascism”), and the elites behind it, to utilize the time-tested, almost-never-fails formula of “Problem > Reaction > (draconian) Solution” to…do what?…further expand the corporate state into virtually every aspect of citizen’s lives—all at the logically-necessary cost/price of systematic erosion of liberty (civil liberties in particular), privacy, etc.
The transnational elites (who finaced both the Bolsheviks and the Nazis—and, again, this is not a “wild-eyed” claim, but straightforwardly verifiable) first used the various World Wars and other, more-or-less manufactured “conflicts” (such as Korea & Vietnam) to achieve several ends, among which the two most pertinent are: Make money hand-over-fist supplying munitions (to both sides, of course), insidiously inculcate into the minds of humanity that some sort of transnational, global **government** (**STATE**), *with its own money* (the soon-to-be-unvailed “Bancor” version of SDRs), its own laws (which would override any vestiges of conventiional national sovereignty [which, in the USA, rests, mind you, ultimately **with the People (Citizens) themselves**, as John Jay’s Supreme court first early-on made absolutely clear]), its own court system(s), and, its own transnational police/military force. Again, this is not wild-eyed “fringe” stuff at all whatsoever. This is straightforwardly verifiable. But, with the demise of the Cold War, the ploys are now (the “War” on) Terrorism, and, of course, The Environment (or Climate Change, whatever). Note that most “offically” proposed (as distinguish, that is, from genuine **grass-roots** analysis/proposals) “solutions” to the Climate/Environment “Problem” usually entail massive taxation, restirction(s) and wheelbarrow loads of transnational bureaucracy/redtape, which advances the cause of a global police state (for the protection/preservation of the Environment, of course, don’t ya know…). Same with Terrorism. There is sufficient evidence—and I’ve researched it all fairly thoroughly, but am still on-goingly doing so, and am open to consturctive, collegial criticism—to provisionally (at least) conclude that there was/is a rather high degree of government involvement in virtually all the “terror” events of the last, say, 15-20 yrs. The specifics of that involvement/complicity vary (and reasonable persons might disagree about some particulars, etc.), but the fact of complicity is virtually unassailable, whether of the “knowingly let it happen” kind or the even more dastardly “actually *made* it happen” kind.
The process is akin to a constricting snakes m.o.: Keep the squeeze on! Keep mounting the pressure, via propaganda about the Environment and/or the Terror(ist) Threat, and throw in an oil-spill or two, and/or a terror-attack or two, and slowly propagandize the masses (via the lap-dog, in-their-back-pocket “mainstream” media) into accepting draconian incursions upon basic rights and civil liberties, all the while saying, in effect, “trust me, I’m your *elected* government, after all…”
This ain’t cynicism, and it damn-sure ain’t paranoia (clinical or otherwise), but simply informed common-sense. And, of course, now the elites want to throttle and control (”manage”) the INTERNET…to which I say, “JUST SAY ***NO***!!”
For further discussion, a list of suggested sources, etc., by all means please contact me. Just be duly skeptical of governments and their machinations, and their “offical” lines, dear colleagues, please…we don’t need a global depression-cum-police state virtually on the eve of the robotech, nanotech and SHFAGI breakthroughs…
Ciao for now…
And, oh yeah, OF COURSE, stem-cell research, of whatever variety, should push forward…
February 5th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Thanks, Tom, as always, for your contribution! Rock on, brother…!! (wink)
February 5th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
And, as always, forgive my dictional/grammatical typos…
February 5th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
MCP, I’m not sure what your agenda is here. I thought this was about accelerating to the future? I am not even sure that I disagree with what you’re saying in the first place, but the amount of conflict in your text leads me to believe that I should be just on that alone. What I believe you imply, if not state outright, is that all politicians (and especially the behind-the-scenes elite) are manipulating everything and everyone to become one world gov’t so they can control it all AND they’re all working together.
This is just way to basic for me to swallow. I just don’t believe any group of people are going to be able to work together in such an organized and efficient manner. Let alone that the very people you’re likely talking about are the most power hungry and self-motivated of the lot.
Maybe, just maybe, your trying too hard to see something you want to see? Is it possible that there really are just a lot of individual agendas out there that result in some poor outcomes for individuals or for the world? Does there have to be a nefarious group running it all?
Tom:
“40% of 15-25 year olds in France are islamic”
“”A government where %90 of the population is Islamic really isn’t that different from a government where %90 of the population is Christian or Jewish. The basic religious principles are still there.”"
I have a feeling you want to say that all religion is evil. I won’t go there as it wasn’t my point at all. Religion is secondary to this discussion right now. I was saying that scientific research in much of the islamic world has been on hiatus for almost a millenia. A lot of that is simply due to the concept that there is only one truth, the koran. The argument that people of other faiths are suffering similarly is not bore out by the fact that the West has progressed scientifically over the same period. The Renaissance and the Reformation occurred in Christian regions, individuals questioning god and the natural order, etc. and the concept of the individual being important and relevant these are the important variances between christian countries and islamic countries. Enlighten me if I’m incorrect here.
“Okay, to go over the 14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism: (http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm)
Hmmm, that’s all fourteen. Sieg Heil!”
Thanks for the link. It truly helps me identify and understand your view on the world and especially the USA. Good luck with that, but it seems awfully one-sided. I’d really rather not get into a “bush is evil argument” if I can avoid it. Really, what is to be gained here by this link??
I would truly love to see America see a return of individualism and accountability, along the lines of where we were 200 years ago. Somehow I just don’t see the sense of entitlement prevalent in today’s society leaving us anytime soon. It is the concept of government being the final answer to everything and the government bailing us out of any and all of our problems that leads to fascism. You can only give power away, it cannot be taken. Unfortunately with each entitlement and bail-out I see something similar to what I believe you describe as seeing in each “feigned” terror attack or each “oil spill”.
I fundamentally hear something different from the left and right on issues like individualism and accountability. That is probably why I’m having difficulty simply agreeing with you. I can’t lump the left and the right together into some cooperative ‘evil’. One is for big government heading toward world government, this is the left and much of Europe. The other at least says they want smaller government, less entitlement and fewer laws, but unfortunately this “right” doesn’t do what it says it wants to do. So as I said earlier I don’t practically see much difference between left and right in power.
I’ll try to keep an eye on this blog as I had thought it looked promising from the initial entries. More tech and less political agendas, but I guess even in tech you can’t separate politics and religion…
February 5th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Eric: We can’t very easily accelerate into an awesome, post-Singularity future if society degenerates into an Orwellian, hi-tech Police State, now can we? Eric, check out the actual history of banking over the last, say, 300 yrs or so. In particular, check out the history of the Federal Reserve system, which is a privately-controlled entity (i.e., it’s neither federal, nor does it have any reserves…). While we might eventually evolve beyond the need for money, any group which controls money-as-such (what is legally permitted to be used as money) will have an inordinate control (more than influence) on policies, etc. The elites are more cohesive than you might imagine, and they pretty-much agree on authoritarian world government (for our own good, of course…)
You allude to “conflict” (inconsistency, incoherence, what?!?) in what I said earlier. Please edify me further, as I don’t understand what you’re getting at…
February 5th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
“I was saying that scientific research in much of the islamic world has been on hiatus for almost a millenia. A lot of that is simply due to the concept that there is only one truth, the koran.”
The Christian and Jewish religions have exactly the same principle- there is only one truth, the Bible/Torah. And indeed, what you saw during say, the Dark Ages, was a total stagnation of all scientific progress. The key element here is not the specifics of the religion- the prophets, the gods, the books, the rites, etc.- but the way in which it is practiced.
“I thought this was about accelerating to the future?”
That’s not a very good phrasing, but you have a point- we have gotten off topic. MCP2012, please stop posting long rants on the political system, that’s not what this blog is about.
“The argument that people of other faiths are suffering similarly is not bore out by the fact that the West has progressed scientifically over the same period.”
The West is not suffering now, because religion is no longer the one dominant force over society. We know that we can fall into the exact same trap as the Muslims, because we have the Dark Ages as a historical example.
“christian countries and islamic countries.”
Yes, but not between Christianity and Islam; it’s an important distinction.
“Good luck with that, but it seems awfully one-sided.”
Of course it’s one-sided, but the other side is hawked so often by the media we really don’t need to hear more of it.
“I can’t lump the left and the right together into some cooperative ‘evil’.”
The Demopublicans and the Republicrats are obviously cooperating- just look at the Senate. Even when the “opposition” party is in power, they have trouble getting enough votes to pass an utterly toothless, non-binding resolution talking about how we possibly shouldn’t use strategy X instead of strategy Y in prosecuting an aggressive war of conquest against a crippled, third-world country thousands of miles away.
“The other at least says they want smaller government, less entitlement and fewer laws,”
Seriously, when was the last time you even heard anything from Bush about this?
February 5th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
>Yup, we all know that people doing as safe, >routine and ordinary a job as smuggling a >stolen nuclear weapon into a major US city are >bound to become bored and get sloppy.
Actual example of sloppy nuclear material smuggling.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/24/uranium.sting.ap/index.html
Russian man who tried to sell a small amount of nuclear-bomb grade uranium in a plastic bag in his jacket pocket, U.S. and Georgian officials said. He forgot to carry any lead shielding or to even wrap in tinfoil.
>We can’t even keep thousands of illegal immigrants from pouring across the border, despite the fact that anyone can pick out humans from a background with a $200 infrared camera.
I believe the immigrant issue is because of lack of political will. Business interests that influence the politics. Presumably there is not a similar lack of will to prevent nuclear weapon smuggling and attack. Although I could be mistaken on the lack of will if Tom is representative.
Underground facility detection
imaging with radio waves
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/haarp.htm
advanced acoustic and seismic detection
in the future, highly advanced gravity gradient measurements to the nanometer precision.
>If some rogue group wanted to get their hands on a nuclear weapon, they sure as hell wouldn’t go for North Korea- it’s the most heavily guarded country in the world.
N Korea is helping Iran with nuclear testing
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/24/wiran24.xml
>It is much, much, much easier to guard a >facility with a perimeter of one kilometer than a border with a perimeter of ten thousand kilometers.
I guess you are assuming that nuclear materials should be prevented from leaving US and western facilities. I think the main problems are the lack of control of Russian materials and Pakistan and now N Korea.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
And yet we can “rant” about religion?! (at least occasionally?) Surely, Tom (and Michael A.), you’d concur that political institutions/processes can significantly impact future tech developments, for good or ill.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
“He forgot to carry any lead shielding or to even wrap in tinfoil. ”
This is Georgia, one of the most backwards countries on Earth and a prime black-market hub. I’ve read this story before; the guy was caught only by luck and undercover police work, radiation detection had nothing to do with it. I doubt there are a hundred Geiger counters in the entire country.
“I believe the immigrant issue is because of lack of political will. Business interests that influence the politics.”
Please tell me, what (legitimate) business interest is there in the shipping of large quantities of heroin and cocaine across the border?
“in the future, highly advanced gravity gradient measurements to the nanometer precision.”
Nanometer precision?! In order to measure anything with a gravity gradient, you have to have a thorough geological map of the area, including every structure, natural and manmade, other than the one you’re trying to detect. To get nanometer precision you’d have to have a 3D map of the entire planet (conveniently except for whatever you’re trying to detect) down to meter-level precision.
“N Korea is helping Iran with nuclear testing”
And how do we know this? We made it up!
Let’s run off the checklist we conveniently got four years ago for media propaganda stories-
- Anonymous sources. Check.
- Blatant accusations and bold statements with no evidence. Check.
- Government sources. Check.
- Agitation against a Western-unfriendly nation. Check.
- Scare tactics. Check.
- Trying to create the appearance of a “grand axis of evil”. Check.
Honestly, this sounds almost identical to the bogus reports we got about Iraq four years ago. You trust the media too much- the bloody exact same newspaper published the story at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml back in 2003, which we now know were lies invented by the Bush and Blair administrations.
February 5th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
>the guy was caught only by luck and undercover police work, radiation detection had nothing to do with it
With proper remote radiation detection we could catch more sloppy smugglers who we are missing because we were not lucky. Basketball analogy: Block the lane to prevent easy layups. Make them shoot the three pointers.
>3D map of the entire planet
Enhanced LIDAR (Laser Imaging Detection and Ranging)
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2006/09/follow-up-on-image-resolution.html
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2006/08/remote-imaging-1000-times-better.html
Current LIDAR systems with sub-millimeter feature accuracy
http://graphics.cs.ucdavis.edu/~okreylos/ResDev/LiDAR/index.html
High resolution aerial photography with millimeter per pixel resolution
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=170302
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2006/08/aerial-satellite-and