<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4134.100" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT size=2>
<P align=justify>Dear extropians/transhumanists</P>
<P align=justify>I would welcome any comments on the following draft
article.</P>
<P align=justify>Avatar Polymorph</P>
<P align=justify></P><B>
<P align=justify>The notion of superpower and warfare 2003-2010</P></B>
<P align=justify>A. Polymorph</P>
<P align=justify></P>
<P align=justify>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.</P>
<P align=justify></P>
<P align=justify>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.</P>
<P align=justify></P>
<P align=justify>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.</P>
<P align=justify></P>
<P align=justify>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.</P>
<P align=justify></P>
<P align=justify>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.</P>
<P align=justify></P>
<P align=justify>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.</P>
<P align=justify></P>
<P align=justify>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.</P>
<P align=justify></P>
<P align=justify>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?</P></FONT></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>