[extropy-chat] sole superpower/warfare 2003-2010 comments

[Avatar Polymorph]

Dear extropians/transhumanists

I would welcome any comments on the following draft article.

Avatar Polymorph


The notion of superpower and warfare 2003-2010

A. Polymorph


Over the last few years the phrase sole superpower has become a dangerous and false cliche. Disseminated by right-wing radicals it has provided the comforting illusion that America faces no major military challenge. The reality is that Russia retains its status as a superpower in fundamental military terms. Force projection is an area where America and its allies can operate as a sole superpower, but force projection means nothing in any theatre involving atomic warfare. Russia, currently, does not fear a land invasion by anyone, not just because it has become a loose ally of the west but because it retains an overwhelming number of nuclear weapons, on a rough par with America. Current nuclear disarmament involves storage of warheads, not destruction of them.


All this will change shortly because of innovations in beam weapons and computers. Satellite weaponry and portable weaponry are not the platforms of choice in the short term because of weight considerations with power sources. Beam weapons consume substantial power. It is likely that huge power sources or power plants will need to be placed nearby beam weapons for maximum effectiveness. Likely platforms would be mountain tops and ultrahigh towers, where line of sight is good. Another early platform might be large ships the size of aircraft carriers. With over-the-horizon radar and other inputs from aerial and satellite sources, arrayed beam weapons will be capable of neutralizing ICBMs. Beam weapons are superior to ABM systems because automated systems can take advantage of superior computer reaction time regarding delivery of destruction.


This is a dangerous period for Russia because it stands to erode the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction. If America does not share this technology with Russia then it will be assumed that it is not just meant for protection against terrorists or rogue states but also for protection against full-scale nuclear combat with Russia.


After 2010 the situation may become more destabilizing still, since it is likely that the first space towers will be constructed in the late 2010s. Space towers or vertical railways based on carbon nanotechnology allow for very cheap spacelifting costs and very effective space weaponry, both beam and linear accelerator weapons. They also allow for use of material from the Moon as weapons of mass destruction - rocks or other material thrown via linear accelerators - a type of weapon almost very difficult to protect oneself against.


It is unlikely that Russia will be able to match the construction costs which America is likely to assume in the case of beam weapon defences, and even if it does so, at a later stage Russia is faced with an inability to construct space towers and move into space industrially unless it commits itself to a level of expenditure equivalent to that undertaken during the militarization of the Cold War period, notably the 1960s.


America and Russia, currently, are not destroying much of their nuclear arsenals, only placing multiple warheads in storage areas where they cannot be used in timeframes of minutes or hours. These nuclear arsenals are the greatest danger to sentient survival if they are used. If America allows Russia access to beam weapons they will at least feel that they too have protection from a first strike in nuclear terms, and because American force projection in conventional arms is arguably not yet sufficient to overwhelm Russian forces they may not feel too threatened. On the other hand, beam weapons will coincide with other developments such as automated fighter planes and armoured forces, which will be strong factors in conventional warfare superiority. Without beam weapons to defend important sites, the Russians may believe America will be negating their superiority in nuclear defence and becoming an utterly dominant sole superpower in conventional terms. The question is, will Russia continue to move closer to the West, Europe and America and learn to cohabit peacefully, as appears to be happening at many levels, or will it succumb to a resumption of the arms race because of increased potential threat to the nuclear codominion.


The danger in accepting the currently false notion of a sole superpower is that it makes it easy to move this concept forward into the soon to be world of beam weapons, when a sole superpower will become a practical possibility. The worst outcome would be to pressure the Russians into using their atomic weapons while they still can, or ressurecting the global arms race. Increased recent American military budgets, including in ABM systems, seems to have started the ball rolling, but technological developments indicate that the first beam weapons are not far away, and will be much more effective than ABM systems for local site protection for cities and military facilities.


It will be curious to see what the reaction of the EEC to this developing situation is. So far the EEC, although co-operative, has remained somewhat distant from the notion of fuller American hegemony while quietly building its own separate power base, including technologically. It will also be interesting to see what the American reaction will be when they realize that many of their notions of economic and democratic efficiency are culturally defined and unlikely to be adopted socially, outside of areas as newly formed as the American midwest and west - such as Australia and Canada. Will the American national government define its stated cultural and political hegemony through the barrel of a beam weapon?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031212/13adf591/attachment.html>