posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 08:25 AM
Of this thread other than stating the obvious. But, yes of course there are military applications, and not all offensive.
I am also always shocked when "good" scientists turn "bad." I was at a talk given by the Chief Scientist at NASA Langley. He was telling us
about all of the amazing and wonderful space science and missions that were being planned.
Then, suddenly, he switched tones, and told us about a microwave gun that he designed for the army. It was shocking to me, and I think to the
students as well who were in the course. Everyone was looking around the room like we were being attacked.
But, the problem is that as long as we have a perceived "enemy" there will always be a need to defend against them. Having a good defense means
having a good offense.
It would be irresponsible for us to not develop advanced weapons. Since we produce technology so readily, and teach scientists from other counties
about our advanced technology, inevitably someone will come up with these things.
I agree that having chemical weapons seems sketchy, since it has been addressed in the Geneva accords. However, most of these nanotechnologies seem
to me more oriented towards James Bond like gadgets that might poison a single attacker or a small group in defense, allowing for the agent to escape,
rather than wiping out an entire population.
The thing is that people will always be developing these things, so we should just get used to this. Some of them are pretty cool, like having fabric
than can stop bullets by weaving in carbon nanotubules.