NASA Future Strategic Issues & Warfare Circa 2025 - Dr Dennis M Bushnell

[Sol Logos]

Below I'm pasting in text for a doc that appears to be a part of a presentation by a Dr Dennis M. Bushnell done in 2000. Perhaps it's been discussed here already but I couldn't find it - if so, please disregard.

I imagine this is probably psy-op-like material, so highly likely disinformation. However, there's a lot of things that indicate to me at least - potentially real technology, at least a real view of the type of thinking that goes on when such organisations go and make long term strategies and "predictions". I figured it would be of interest here. It's interesting too considering when it was mean't to be published (2000)

Here's a link to the doc hosted with Scribd.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/149650698/Summary-Of-The-NASA-Future-Strategic-Issues-and-Warfare-Circa-2025-Document-Dennis-M-Bushnell-Chief-Scientist-NASA-Langley-Research-Center-Warf

Here's a site where the validity of it has been reviewed somewhat (further down the page)
http://loveforlife.com.au/content/13/06/24/nasa-future-strategic-issues-warfare-circa-2025-dr-dennis-m-bushnell-warfare-strate

Text below:

-------------------------------------------

Dennis M. Bushnell Chief Scientist NASA Langley Research Center

Future Strategic Issues/Future Warfare [Circa 2025]
• Capabilities of the “Enemy After Next” -Ongoing Worldwide Technological Revolutions -Economic Trends • Potential Nature of Farther Term Warfare
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

The ‘Bots, ‘Borgs, ‘& Humans Welcome You to 2025 A.D.

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

THIS PRESENTATION BASED ON “FUTURES” WORK FOR/WITH
• USAF NWV • USAF 2025 • National Research Council • Army After Next • ACOM Joint Futures • SSG of the CNO • Australian DOD • NRO, DSB • • • • • • • • • • DARPA, SBCCOM DIA, AFSOC, EB, AU CIA, STIC, L-M, IDA APL, ONA, SEALS ONI, FBI, AWC/SSI NSAP, SOCOM, CNO MSIC, TRADOC, QDR NGIC, JWAC, NAIC JFCOM, TACOM SACLANT, OOTW

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

THIS PRESENTATION
• Is meant to incite thought/ discussion • Is based in all cases upon existing data/trends/analyses/technologies (e.g., NO PIXIE DUST) • Provides in some cases a somewhat broader view of prospective developments and issues

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Utilization/Application of 2025+ Projections
• Inputs to Future Warfighting Concepts Development(s) (Enemy After Next & Blue) • Inputs to New Procurement Decision (15+ years to Produce, 40+ years in Inventory • “Heads Up” for Intel Community (“Watches and Warnings”) • Inputs to DOD R&D Planning
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

“Going In” Assumptions
• Politics can/does change “overnight” (e.g. Russia, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, etc.), Potential CAPABILITIES is the future warfare issue, not Who but WHAT

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Need to Plan “Differently”
• WORLD is in the throes of triple/exponential (IT/Bio/Nano) Technological Revolutions • Changes occurring at scales of months (instead of decades) • Zeroth order potential effects upon Defense/Offense equipment/conops/threat

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

“SPACESHIP EARTH”
The crew are:
- Plundering the ship’s supplies - Tinkering with the temperature and life-support controls - Still looking for the instruction manual - Engaging in bloody skirmishes in every corner of the vessel - Increasing the size of the crew by 2 million PER WEEK
P. Creola
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Humans Have “Taken Over” and Vastly Shortened “Evolution”
• Of the Planet
– Global Warming/Pollution/Deforestation – Huge “Public Work” (e.g. 3 Gorges Dam)

• Of the Human Species
– Genomic Design and Repair – “Mind Children” (Moravec)

• Products/Life Forms
– Cross Species Molecular Breeding – “Directed Evolution” (Maxygen etc.)
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

CURRENTLY
• Order of 70% of Worlds Research conducted outside of U.S. (to first order, a % of GDP, U.S. produces order of 18% of worlds GDP) • Order of 70% of U.S. Research now “Commercial” (as opposed to Government sponsored)

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

NanoTechnology Research
• • • • 29% in Europe 28% in Japan 27% in U.S. 16% “Other(s)”

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Technological Ages of Humankind
• Hunter/Killer groups [Million BC~10K BC] • Agriculture [10K BC~1800 AD] • Industrial [1800~1950] • IT [1950~2020] • Bio/NANO [2020-?] • Virtual
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

• Hunter-Gatherer - “Nature Provided” • Agriculture - Controlled Nature (Plants/Animals) • Industrial - Mechanized Agriculture • IT/BIO/Nano - Automating Industry/Agriculture • Virtual - Robotization of IT/Bio/Nano/Industry/Agriculture
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

KEY “FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES” (all highly synergistic/at the frontiers of the small, in a “feeding frenzy” off each other)
• IT – Silicon/bio/optical/quantum/nano computing (“no end in sight,” another 106 +) – (Virtual reality/holographic) immersive ubiquitous comms., hyperspectral sensors, “virtual presence” – Automatic/robotic “everything” – Huge cost reductions • Bio – – – Nano – – – Life span doubling Genetic engineering before birth Plants irrigated by seawater (food, petro-chem feed stock, minerals, terraforming) Carbon nanotubes (600X strength-to-weight of steel) “Assemblers”/“living factories” Huge cost reductions

•

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Worldwide IT Revolution
• Comms/Computing/Sensors/Electronics • U.S. Commercial IT R&D ~ $100B/yr. • Factor of 1 Million further improvement [Silicon,Molecular,Quantum,Bio,Optical] • Beyond Human AI? • Automatics/Robotics “in the large” • Immersive multi-sensory VR/”Holodecks” • Ubiquitous multi physics/hyperspectral sensors [land/sea/air/space] • Micro/Nano sats/GNC/sensors,etc.
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

[Worldwide] Impacts of Ongoing IT Revolution Upon Society
• • • • • • • • •
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Tele-commuting Tele-shopping Tele-entertainment Tele-travel Tele-Education Tele-medicine Tele-commerce Tele-politics Tele-socialization

IT Status
• 10E6 improvements in Computing since ‘59, 10E8 further possible next 30 years (10E3 provides “better than Human” capabilities) • 100 Million Telecommuters Worldwide NOW (expected to at least double in 15 years) • India graduates three times more software engineers than the U.S., More software written in Bangalore than Southern CA • IW effectively constitutes a 4th WMD
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

SOME IT “PREDICTIONS”
• Quantum computing initially available in 5 years • 15% of all power today is used by computers, will reach 60% by 2010 • Wearable/implantable (on-person) electronics--comms, computing, sensory augmentation, health monitoring, brain stimulation
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

AI (AND BEYOND) COMPUTING
Human Brain Characteristics/Capabilities • 100 billion neurons • 100 trillion connections • 200 calculations/second, (slow) speed of neural circuitry • 20 million billion calculations/second • Excellent at (parallel-computing) pattern recognition, “poor” at sequential thinking • Operates via “random tries” Machine Capabilities • Currently, 10,000 billion calculations/second; 100,000 billion by 2004 • By 2010, 20 million billion is available (by 2025, on a PC) • By 2030, PC has collective computing power of a town full of human minds
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

U.S. “HUMAN BRAIN PROJECT”
• Begun in early 90’s, funded by 16 organizations across 5 agencies (NIH, NSF, DOD, NASA, DOE) • AKA “Neuroinformatics” (intersection of neuroscience and informatics) • “Exploding field;” 10,000 individual presentations at annual meeting of Society for Neuroscience (from molecular geneticists to cognitive psychologists) • Determining detailed neuroanatomy of human brain (“digital brain atlas”) • Use of IT to study brain, use of brain info to aid IT/AI
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

THE “IMAGINATION ENGINE” aka “Creativity Machine,” aka “Creative Agent”
• Current AI “best bet,” not a rule based/expert system • GENERATES new ideas/concepts via starving a trained neural net of meaningful inputs, forcing it to “dream”/”cavitate,” create new concepts, etc. An attendant neural net used to capture/record/evaluate and report on these “writings.”
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

“In this [Worldwide] economy our ability to create wealth is not bounded by physical limits/resources but by our ability to come up with new ideas”
[However,even “universal wealth” will not obviate the other causes of warfare which include Politics,”Face”,Religion, Megalomania and Territorial Disputes]
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Global Problems/“Solutions”
• (Serious) Problems
– – – – – – – Energy (2) Water (2) Food (2) Land (2) Population Growth (1) Wealth Generation (1) “Pollution/Warming” (2)

• “Killer Ap Solutions”
– (1) Motivational/inexpensive Web-based Asynchronous “Distance Learning” – (2) Bio mass/food via seawater irrigation in current “wastelands”

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Inexpensive Motivational Asynchronous Web-Based Distance Education Enables:
• • • • • • Demise of the U.S. “underclasses” Wealth Creation from enabled “Invention” Stabilization of World Population [Even More] Rapid Technology Diffusion Equalization of “Haves” and “Havenots” Altered Political/military outlooks Worldwide - I.E. Changes “Everything”

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Motivational learner/web-based asynchronous distance learning allows only method of providing requisite/improved educational – BREADTH – DEPTH – QUALITY – RESPONSIVENESS to shifting global economic warfare requirements/ accelerated increase in knowledge At orders of magnitude (1) reduced societal/individual cost (2) increased convenience/accessibility
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

By ~ 2025, 40% of Private and 15% of Public Colleges and Universities are Expected to Close Due to Web-Based Competition
A Northern VA Business man recently donated ~ $100M to set up a FREE Ivy League Class On-Line University
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

The “Ultimate” Education Approach - Plug and Play
Direct Silicon (or other such) device connection to brain, (very rapid) uploads, Education in minutes instead of (many) years

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Advantages of Shallow Sea/Desert Production of Biomass (Via Seawater Irrigation)
• Closed CO2 Cycle (Obviates Global Warming) • Food • Petro-chemical feedstock
– Materials/clothing, etc. – ENERGY (end reliance on Middle East)

• • • •

Terraforming, alter desertification etc. Preservation/Production of Fresh Water Rich Mineral source (Seawater) Utilization of “Wastelands” (Sahara, etc.)

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Probable Circa 2025 Societal Changes
• (Much) Increased Life Span (Bio) • “Solution” to Energy/Water/“Warming” (Bio) • (Far More) Global Distribution of Technology, Education, Economics, Wealth (IT) • (Tremendous) Increases in Capability of Automatic/Robotic “Everythings” (IT/Bio/Nano)
– Resulting in Reduced Tensions Associated with “Have/Have Nots” and Historical/Religious Issues – Also Resulting in (Greatly) Increased Individual destructive power (Bio, IW, etc.) and General Societal Disaffection WRT “Machines”
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Major Emerging Law Enforcement “Issues”
• • • • • • Privacy (Ubiquitous micro/nano sensors) IT/Net Crime (wide spectrum) Bio Crime (binary pathogens, genetics) Protection of Human Electronic Implants Protection of CONUS (Beyond Terrorism) Societal Disaffection/Upheaval Caused by Rapid Technological Change(s) (Road/Air Rage, Psychosomatic Illnesses, Withdrawal)

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Of Particular Concern
Uncontrolled/Uncontrollable SELF-REPLICATION Of - Brilliant Robots (IT) - Nano-Replicators (Nano) - Rampant Recombinant Bio
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Current Competitive Landscape
• • • • U.S. produces only 18% of Worlds GDP ~70% of Research conducted offshore $400B/yr trade deficit 32 other nations devote a larger % of their GDP to Research • 5th in No of R&D personnel/labor unit • 3% savings rate vs. 30% in Asia • 13th out of 30 - Student Math/Science Scores

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

AN EMERGING MULTIPOLAR ECONOMIC WORLD
25 Percentage Share of Global GDP
U.S.

20

Europe China

15

India Japan

10

Brazil

5 0
1995 2020 Low-Growth 2020 High-Growth

OECD SCENARIOS
Source: OCED, The World in 2020, p. 92
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Bio Revolution Applications
• “Pharm Animals” [drugs, spare parts] • Fast Growing plants on/near sea surface & sea water irrigated plants for biomass energy/closed CO2 cycle • Polymer growing plants • Spider genes in goats allow spider silk spinning from goat milk for “Biosteel”, 3.5X strength of aramid fibers for Armor • Binary Bio-weaponry
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Examples Confluence of IT/Bio/Nano
• Brain of a sea lampry inserted/connected to body of a robotic fish (an initial cyborg) • “Chew-Chew” - a flesh/plant eating robot that hunts/bio-digests “natural foods” to “live off the land”

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Carbon Nanotubes
• C1,000,000, Buckminister Fullerine Carbon • 100X strength, 1/6 weight of steel • 8X better Armor • Low energy Molecular/Petaflop Computing (10-4 En. Usage) • Ultra Capacitor/High Temperature SC
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Revolutionary Power Generation/Storage Opportunities
• Ultracapacitors • Adv. Fuel Cells (e.g. Lithium/water/air) • HEDM (e.g. Solid H2, Isomers, antimatter, etc. • Adv. PV (50%?) • Room Temperature SC/SMES
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

• C-Nanotube storage of H2 (non-cryo)? • Offshore Methane Hydrate • Black light power? • LENR • ZPE

Free Form Fabrication
• Powder/Wire Metallurgy using robotic magnetically steered electron beams to create accreting local melts - GROW instead of CUT • No fasteners, no strong backs for fasteners • Nearly infinite fatigue life, excellent metallurgy • (Repairable) metals at lower weight than far more expensive composites
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Aluminum/Vortex Combustor
• Micro powdered Aluminum fed into a vortex combustor “burns” SEAWATER • Provides AIP with high energy density/efficiency for: -inexpensive SS with “near SSN” perf. -Transoceanic UUV’s • Would allow “Enemy After Next” to AFFORDABLY Threaten CONUS via Multitudinous in-shore short-time-offlight “popups”
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

(Sample) New(er) Sensors
• Lidar w/ 50% efficiency via S-C optical Amplifiers, Also Fempto-second Lasers • Molec./Bio Sensors • Nanotags • Smart Card Sensors • Sensors implanted during Manuf./Servicing • Nano IR (10E-6 Sensitivity) • Smart Dust
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Some Sensor “Swarms”
• SMART DUST
– Cubic mm or less – Combined sensors, comms and power supply – Floats in air currents

• NANOTAGS
– Placed on everything/everywhere – Identification and Status Info

• Co-opted INSECTS
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Some “Explosive” Smart Dust Opportunities
• Optimal Positioning of Explosive Dust Dust/Air Explosives • Formation of “Explosive Lenses” • Infiltration of Deeply Buried/other such targets

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Micro Dust Weaponry
A Mechanical Analog to Bio, Micron sized mechanized “dust” which is distributed as an aerosol and inhaled into the lungs. Dust mechanically bores into lung tissue and executes various “Pathological Missions.” A Wholly “New” class of Weaponry which is legal.
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

“Givens” (Now-to-“Soon”)
• Gb data transfer rates, optical comms • Petaflop + computing • Exceptional AI (from Bioinfomatics, biomimetics) • Wonderous/Ubiquitous land/sea/air/space multiphysics/hyperspectral sensor swarms (military/commercial/scientific) • Survival requires dispersion/size reduction and concealment • Robotic/swarm technologies primarily commercial/endemic worldwide
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

(Agreed Upon) Assumptions, Combat in 2025
• Proliferation of TBM’s, IT, Precision strike/targeting, ubiquitous micro sensors, camo/spoofing, robotics, bio/chem munitions • Logistic assets highly vulnerable in or out of theater • In and near theater ports/airfields possibly unusable • Beam weapons increasingly prevalent
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Cruise Missiles (Current Status)
• Range/payload similar to TBM at fraction of the cost and far greater accuracy • 75,000 in inventory of 75 countries, 130 different versions produced in 19 countries (10 “exporting” countries) • German V-1 cruise killed 5,000; injured 40,000 • LO, launchable “anywhere/from anything,” highly maneuverable • “Then Year” costs potentially reduced to 10K - 25K • Warhead(s) de jour/de hour (HE/carbon fibers/EMP/sub munitions/CNB/volumetric)

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Cruise Missiles (Potential Outlook)
• Any RPV/UAV (or UUV) is a potential “cruise missile” (50 countries have UAV’s!) • Low cost and “ready availability” of requisite technology/components essentially ensure the “Enemy after Next” will have/inventory/ field “hordes” of very capable/easily concealed/very difficult (and expensive) to counter/accurate cruise “missiles” with a potential “devil’s brew” of warheads.
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

“Volumetric” Weaponry
[Alternatives to HE] • • • • • • • • EMP Info/Net/Psy warfare Miniature brilliant sensor/mine combo’s Fuel/air & dust/air/Thermobarics RF Chem/bio Antifunctionals/antifauna Isomers, Strained Bond Energy Release, etc. Carbon fibers and “Blades,” Acoustics etc.

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Antipersonnel MW/RF Weaponry
• Heating [High Power Requirements(s)] • Surface Effects • Brain Interactions [Low Frequency Modulation]

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

EFFECTS OF LOW POWER MICROWAVES (U.S. ARMY, SRI, WALTER REED)
• • • • • Behavioral performance decrements Seizures Gross alteration in brain function 30% to 100% increases in brain blood flow Lethality
– Interactions between low power (microwatts per sq. cm./.4 to 3 GHz) MW and brain function
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Often “Fingerprintless” Bio Archipelago
• • • • • • • • Bacteriological Viruses Prions Parasites Fungi Carcinogens Toxins Hormones/Regulators • Fatal-to-disabling • Short-to-long time scales • Antiflora/fauna/functional • Direct and (undetectable) Binary • Natural, Genomic • Bio-Hacking

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Some Interesting “Then Year” BW Possibilities
• Aflatoxin - (“natural,” parts-per-billion, carcinogen) • Airborne varieties of Ebola, Lassa, etc. • Binary agents distributed via imported products (Vitamins, Clothing, Food) • Genomicaly (individual/societal) targeted pathogens • Long term/fingerprintless campaign (as opposed to “shock and awe” BW)
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

An (Existing Bio Calmative VEE (Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis)
• • • • • • • Ideal Incap. BW Agent Weaponized by U.S. & USSR in 50’s/60’s Easily transmitted via Aerosol Highly infectious, Low Fatality Rate 1 to 5 day incubation, 3 week recovery Tested on Humans (Operation Whitecoat) No Treatment Available

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Frontiers of (Rapidly Growing/Genomic/Insitu) “Bio on the Battlefield”
• Sustainment:
– – – – – Food Water (soil/air/purif.) Energy (HC, H2, PV) Meds/“Health” Computing, Clothing

• Lethality
– – – – – Capabilities Enhancement Armor Concealment (living camo) Sensors, FOF ID Bio-weaponry (antipersonnel/functional, bio virus into bio computer) – Explosives (e.g. N2 fixation, grow overnite)

GREATLY REDUCES “LOGISTICS TAIL” & ENHANCES CAPABILITIES

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

What is Apparently “Legal”
• Microwave/RF Anti-Functional and AntiPersonnel Weaponry • Chemical Anti-Functional Weaponry • Chemical “Psychological Effects” via Sensory Organs Weaponry (e.g. smell) • Chemical Personnel Incapacitation Weaponry [“Non-Warfare” (e.g. Hostage/Terrorism) only] • PSYWAR • Acoustic Weaponry • Mechanical Micro Dust
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

(FUTURE) NON-NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVES FOR “VOLUMETRIC”/ WEAPONS OF “MASS EFFECT”
• Metastable interstitial composite (MIC/Cubanes) – Order of 6 x TNT • Fuel-air/dust-air explosives – Order of 15 x TNT • Strain-bond energy release (SBER) – Order of 100 x TNT • Hafnium (metastable) isomers – Order of 1,000 to 100,000 x TNT • Atomic boron, carbon, hydrogen

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

High Energy Density Materials (HEDM) (Power, Explosives, Propellants)
• • • • • • Tetrahedral N (Isp 600+ sec) Atomic Born, C, H (Isp 600+ sec) Metastable He (Isp 1500 sec) Metallic Hz (Isp 2000 sec) ISOMERS ( 105 x TNT) Anti-matter, LENR’s

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Transoceanic UAV’s
• Current Capability - (‘98 - 29 lbs, 2000 mi., 1.5 gals. Fuel; ‘01 - Transpac, 5000 mi. • Provides Capability for Undetectable Ultra-inexpensive Swarms Against CONUS • Interesting (Precision) “Payloads” – ISR – Smart Dust/Explosive – Target/explode Hazmat Trucks, Chem. Plants, Oil Storage/Refineries, etc. – Bio Dispensers (Anti-People, Things, Plants) – IW/EMP – Brilliant/Miniature sensor/Mine Combos – CNT’s (Power Lines, “Wire Blade”)
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Blast Wave Accelerator
• Global Precision Strike “On the Cheap” • No barrel, ~200 ft. notched rails, sequentially detonated Distributed HE • Mach 21 or less as desired, up to 3000 lb • Base anywhere, ~$200/lb of projectile • Excellent stealth [no plume], affordability, ferocity, reaction time, survivability, recallability, effectiveness • Being worked at Aberdeen and NASA MSFC for lofting of Fuel and Nanosats
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

“Slingatron” for Global Precision Strike
• • • • 10Kg projectiles, up to thousands/minute Global, or less, range $20M/device, 80m diameter Mechanical “on-the-ground” propulsion via Gyrating Spiral Guide Tube (a multiple “hula hoop” • “Poor Mans” Global Precision Strike/“Takedown Weapon”
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Then Year Targeting/ Connectivity etc.
• MILITARY overheads/systems • Ubiquitous COMMERCIAL overheads/systems • SCIENTIFIC overheads/systems IN the context of: - Inexp. Reconstitution via micro/nano sats - Optical comms /GPS etc. - Ubiquitous inexp. UAV/HALE adjuncts
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

EXAMPLE: POTENTIAL “COMPETITOR” MILITARY (SURVELIANCE/INTELLIGENCE/TARGETING/DAMAGE ASSESSMENT) UTILIZATION OF INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC “GLOBAL CHANGE” PROGRAMS/ASSETS

•

•

• •

Extensive/increasing international assets (land-based, ship, aircraft (conventional/HALE), spacecraft) dedicated to measuring, on a global scale, details of land, atmospheric, ice, ocean, biota status/“dynamics” (to understand total Earth “system” and effects of humans on the global environment) Extensive/magnificent/often redundant wide coverage and detailed instrumentation suite(s) (imaging radars/SARS/LIDARS/radar altimeters/laser altimeters/radiometers/scatterometers/spectrometers/IR sensors/ magnetomiters/etc. Terrabites+ of data archived/readily/publicably available increasingly in near real time Sample measurements include: OH, O 3, HCI, NO, NO2, N 2 O, CO, CH 2 , HNO3 , CO2, H2 O, aerosols, wind speed/vector/profile(s), vegetation type, temperature profile(s), humidity profile(s), soil moisture/composition, snow cover/depth/moisture content, cloud/surface reflectance, sea ice type/coverage/temperature, ocean temperature(s)/sediments/topography/salinity/currents, magnetic field(s), surface emissivities/reflectance, leaf area index, land topography/use/temperature/cover, ice sheet elevation/topography gravity field/gradients, fires extension/temperature, 3-D cloud distributions/temperatures/ice content, pressure distribution(s), ocean wave heights/period(s)/direction(s)

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Then Year, Global Targeting Capabilities are a Given - Major Issue is “Legs”/Range for Increasingly Miniaturized Affordable Payloads/Systems
• Range Enhancement Approaches: – Airbreathing or “water breathing,” to first order doubles range – Initial boost for cruise (ala Blast Wave Acceleror) – HEDM Fuels [Atomic Boron, Carbon, Isomers, etc.) – Drag Reduction (Wave/Friction/Drag-due-to-lift, Increased Dia.) – Hypersonic Maneuvering Boost-Glide

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Summary - Major Influences of IT/Bio/Nano Upon Future Warfare
• Ubiquitous miniaturized/networked multi physics,hyperspectral sensors • Robotics/Automatics “in the large” • Long range precision strike/targeting • Info/net Warfare • Mini/micro/nano Sats, Cruise, UAV’s • Binary Bio Weaponry • Miniature/ubiquitous “smart mines”
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Increasingly Critical Human Limitations/Downsides
• • • • • Large Heavy Tender Slow (Pysically, Mentally) Require Huge Logistic Train(s) i.e. Humans have rapidly decreasing-tonegative “Value Added”

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

ROBOTICS “IN THE LARGE” (saves lives, enhances affordability, redefines risk/threat environment, enhances effectiveness)
“Unattended” – Munitions – Sensors – Platforms • Air (UAV’s) • Sea (UUV’s) • Land (UGV’s)

• • • •

Logistics Spoofing/obscurants RSTA (including NBC) Defense (across the board including counter recon/ambush) • Offense – Obstacle breaching – “The Shooter” (especially Mout) – Mine Clearing

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Emerging Characteristics of Robotic Systems (Enabled by Ongoing IT RevolutionsComms/Sensors/Computation/Miniaturization
• From expert systems toward AI and beyond • Much more reactive than humans, greatly increased tempo • Greatly improved hyperspectral sensors/data fusion • Greatly improved accuracy and lethality • Greatly improved affordability/miniaturization • Redefines “risk,” minimal casualties, salutes CNN syndrome • Greatly reduced logistics
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Robotic Intelligence
• Two “flavors
– Traditional AI - Rule Based – Experiential - Behavior Based (Neural Nets/other “Soft Computing”

• Combination of these is current “best bet” (per Moravec) to produce artificial/cyber “life” which will possibly-to-probably be sentient but will not be anthropomorphic
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

WHAT IS BEYOND ROBOTIC SYSTEMS (SENSORS/PLATFORMS/WEAPONS/ MUNITIONS)
• Robotic/automatic autonomous warfare? – Computer capability will exist (beyond terra flop) to do “AI” (or better?), required connectivity is a “given” – Competitor capabilities /tempo sidelines the innate inadequacies of human interactions/education/conscious decision timelines – Little-to-no “troops” “Acme warfare Ltd.” – Flat hierarchy demise of “main in the chair?” – High level/”soft sciences” human aspects “boundary conditions” • Sociological/”humanitarian” • Political • Environmental Extent/scale, projected effects/ Damage(s), personnel attrition • Religious (general-to-specific) • Psychological • Economics • Etc.
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

“Non-Explosive Warfare”
• IW/IO • PSYWAR “In-the-Large” • Anti-Functionals
– – – – MW Chem Bio Micro-Mechanical

• Anti-Personnel MW/RF, Micro-Mechanical
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

“Natural Warfare”
• Sensors:
– Utilize insitu plants/animals/insects as sensor platforms/instruments to indicate presence/movement/characteristics

• Weapons/Munitions:
– Utilize animals (e.g. urban rats)/insects as “delivery systems”/munitions (“feeding,” swarming, biting, poisoning) – Utilize insitu explosive/destructive capability (e.g. offshore Methane Hydrate, Dams, etc.)
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Characteristics - Future/Emerging Sensors/Munitions/Weapons/Platforms
• • • • • • • • Inexpensive Numerous-to-Hordes/Clouds/Swarms Small/light/ubiquitous Readily Available (Largely Comm. Tech.) Long Range “Volumetric” or “Precise” Both “Explosive” and “Non-Explosive” Smart-to-Brilliant

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Potential Future “Orders of Magnitude” Increases in Overall Weapon Effectiveness/Availability at Orders of Magnitude Reduced Cost(s)
• • • • • Bio/Chem/Molec./Nano Computing - (E6) Ubiquitous Optical Comms - (E4) Micro/Nano/Ubiquitous Sensors - (E4) BioWeaponry - (EN) Co-operative Swarms of Cheap/Small Weapons/Sensors - (E4) • Volumetric Weaponry - (E4) • Cyber/Artificial Life (Beyond AI) - (E?)
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Major (Anti-U.S.) Asymmetries
• Long increasingly vulnerable logistics chain • Long, “undefendable” coastline (esp. against underwater threats) • Sensitivity to casualties (greatly enhanced by the “CNN syndrome”) • Vulnerabilities to “terrorism” (esp. IT, bio) • Increasing over reliance upon vulnerable “overhead” assets

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Potential En-route Logistic Vulnerabilities
Logistic surface ships and aircraft are non-LO and undefended, could be targeted and attrited inside the continental shelf by: -“Eggs” [subsurface floating encapsulated missiles implanted by freighters/SS/air] -SS [torps/missiles/subsam] -Transoceanic UUV’s, UAV’s, USV’s -Blast wave accelerator -Cruise, TBM’s -MINES
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Fundamental Problem With Future U.S. Power Projection
• “EAN” can have “country sized magazines” filled with hordes of inexpensive Precision strike “Munitions” - Area Denial • U.S. Forces run out of “bullets” and die [Beam weapons not panacea, inexpensive workarounds available] • Deep Water Subs with large loadout/“swimin” weaponry only survivable “Close-in” platform

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Sampling of TBM/Cruise Missile “Penaids” (Derived from Extensive Worldwide ICBM/IRBM RV Cold War Defensive/Offensive Studies Over Some Three Decades
• Decoys (anti-sensor) • Ablative/subliming coatings (thermal [laser/mw] protection) • Fluid injection (laser protection) • Wake modification(s) (anti-sensor) • Electronic/optical “shielding” (MW protection) • RAM/RAS/shaping (anti-sensor) e.g., current efforts involving beam weapons (laser, MW) “kills” of undefended”/“unpenaided” “dumb” incoming NOT REALISTIC
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Potential “Workarounds” for Beam Weapon Effects on Missile Sensors/Comms
• Off board sensors (networked, everywhere, on everything) • Optical Comms • Optical/fluidic Computing • Optical GPS

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Example ‘Then Year” Direct Conus Attack Capabilities
[~80% of CONUS population/infrastructure within ~ 50 Miles of a “coastline”] • Inexp. Transoceanic UUV’s/UAV’s/Cruise • Inexp. Blast Wave Accelerators • Inexp. Info/Net/Psywar • Inexp. Inshore AIP SS [mines/torps/SLCM] • Inexp. Binary Bio into Food Supply • Inexp. Semi-submerged Missile “eggs” • Inexp. ‘Trojan Horse” “civilian” systems [Above in addition to ICBM/TBM]
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

“Unconventional” Nuc Delivery
• Sink a ship offshore, detonate to produce Tidal Waves with Radioactive spume • Transcontinental UAV’s, UUV’s (nano, AI) • Ballons with GPS sport ‘chutes • Ganged Micro Rockets (ala MIT) • Trojan Horse Everything (ships, boats, planes, cars, trucks, packages, cargo, containers)
– Targeted “Effects” include Tidal Waves, EMP, Earthquakes, Radiation, Blast
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

(Civilian) IW Examples/CONUS
• (National) Banking System Computers
– 3 sites/nodes - HE/EMP/IW/C/B (attack buildings, power, software, hardware) – Interruptions in National/International Payments system irrecoverable

• Railroads
– 4 sites, attack options as above – All freight cars networked, “everyone” on “just in time,” no reserves/stockpiles – Takes down Auto Industry, power grid, chicken farms, all movements of “War Materials,” ETC!!!
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

The Revolutionary Size/Capability/Cost Warfighting Spiral
1 Commercial electronics/GNC/Comms/Sensors (Much smaller/cheaper/better - Allows: 2 IO and “Precision” - Reduces Reqd. munition size and Numbers much-Leads to: 3 Small/Light/Deadly/Inexpensive Munitions 4 Which Reduces requisite Platform size/cost 5 Which is reduced still further by (also enabled) “Automatics/Robotics” - Uninhabited 6 Combined with Much lighter/cheaper Revol. Materials/Fabrication for structure and energetics (propul./warhead) - Yields “Cheap Warfare”
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

And Then There Is NANO ...

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Future Warfare “On The Cheap”
• • • • • • Info/net warfare Binary bio [anti-functional/fauna] Non-lethals Miniature brilliant sensor-mines Micro/Nano Sats LO/Long leg/precision UUV’s/UAV’s/Cruise • Inexp./Superb/survivability ISR/comms • Blast wave accelerator
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

“Then Year” “Peer Competitors”
Peer Competitor no longer defined by “megatonnage” of obsolescent Industrial age steel and aluminum Artifacts. The Drastically reduced entry investment enabled by “Warfare on the Cheap” ensures almost any nation or sizable organization can be a very worrisome Military “peer.”
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

SOME INTERESTING POSSIBILITIES • Surreptitious nano “tagging” (with MW interrogation) of “everything/everyone” (imprinted during manufacture/maintenance etc.) • Detonation of offshore seabed methane hydrate deposits to produce tactical/strategic level tidal waves against littoral regions • Demise of “stealth” via ubiquitous multistatic, multi-physics sensors operated on “take-a-vote”

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

“Anti-Access”
• MINES • Hordes/Swarms (country-sized/dispersed magazines) of small/inexpensive/brilliant cruise/UAVs, micro rockets, BWA/slingatron projectiles, UUVs (e.g. RPGs on jet skis) • Tyvek nets • Attrite/“take out”/threaten APODS/SPODS • EMP, IW/IO • TBM/Cruise/HPM/Lasers • “The Sensor Web”
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Counters to U.S. “Information Dominance”
• EMP (“conventional,” Isomers/other HEDM, Nuc.) • Jammers “in the Large” • “Fry” (MW, Lasers), “Blowup” • Anti-Sensor (various, include D&D) • “Software” (subvert/deception/decimation/Trojan Horse/viruses/etc., other IO/IW) • “Chaos” (Excite circuit nonlinearitys) • PSYWAR
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Counter U.S. Logistics
• Take out pre-positioned everything • Ubiquitous nano inexpensive multiphysics, hyperspectral land/sea/air/space military, scientific, commercial sensors; Nano tags (aka “The Sensor Web”) • Target/attrite logistic air/sea lift over continental shelf via Brilliant mines, cruise, UAVs, UUVs, TBMs, Micro missiles, prepositioned semi-submerged missile “eggs,” AI/vortex SS weaponry (include Subsam), BWA, slingatron, Automatic MANPADS in CONUS (via Blast/EMP etc.) • Small number of military ports/airfields in CONUS; C-17/5/141, Ro-Ro/other ships, trains inside CONUS are non LO, undefended
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Anti-U.S. RMA “Strategies/Tactics”
• Threaten Bio to force “suit-up”/degrade effectiveness • Keep forces beyond range of short-legged fighters • Attrite JSTARS/AWACS/ABL/Missile “cows” etc. platforms • Miniaturize/Disperse EVERYTHING - no large/massed/ interesting targets • Use “Hard to Degrade”/Jam optical Comms/GPS • Operate out of cities/International Commercial Entities • Degrade U.S. Info Dominance • Machine Intell. “automatic warfare,” (much) tighter OUDA loop (faster than Human ops)
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Exploit “CNN Syndrome”
• Sink Carrier(s) via “swarm attacks” • Capture/torture Americans in living color on prime time • “Terror” attacks within CONUS (binary bio, critical infrastructure “takedown,” IO/IW, EMP, RF against Brain, etc.) • Serious “Psywar” (collateral damage exploitation, etc.)

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

The Key Technologies
• • • • • Free form/“point of use” fabrication Beyond silicon computing (quantum, optical, bio, nano, molec. Optical comms/nav Nano sensors/tags/materials/bots/GNC HEDM explosives and propellants (NANO POWDERS, CUBANES, SBER, ISOMERS, LENR, THERMOBARICS, F-S LASERS/4TH GEN NUCS) • Anti-personnel/material (Binary) Bio, MW • Robotics/Machine Intelligence • Miniaturized/brilliant/lightweight/low-power/inexpensive swarms of everything (SATS, weapons, robots, sensors, mines, etc.)
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Fundamental Military Issues/Metrics
• Affordability [“Warfare on the Cheap”] • Survivability [“Can see everything, Anything you can see you can kill”] • Effectiveness [Lethality of Precision and Volumetric weaponry] I.E. Simultaneous ongoing Revolutions in all three of the major Warfare Metrics
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Given the Superb/Ubiquitous World Wide Sensor Suites and Precision Strike Capabilities “Then Year” the Following WILL NOT BE SURVIVABLE
• • • • • APODS/SPODS Runways Surface Ships Manned (logistic/combat) Aircraft Manned (logistic/combat) Ground Vehicles
Due to their size & (multi-physics) signatures
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

CONCERNING (CURRENT) FARTHER TERM (U.S.) DEFENSE “STRATEGIC STUDIES” • Almost wholly dedicated to/concentrated on offensive operations (DOO?)
– Across the board (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, OSD)

• (Apparent) wholly inadequate consideration of defense
– Defense of Conus, especially from short time of flight inshore undersea attack – Defense of the offensive forces [especially in terms of the “enemy after next” capabilities definitization and response(s) thereto] – Defense of the logistics assets, especially “out of theater”
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Typical Scenario - “Takedown” of U.S. by 10 People and <$10M • Binary Bio [via (imported Vitamins/Clothing, etc., food supply(s)] • Terror Bio (e.g. Aflatoxin) • IW (“usual” plus physical against key nodes such as Railroads - take down the economy) • Selective anti-personnel RF/MW (Towers) • Water Supply Contamination via Intercontinental UAV’s Accompanied by SERIOUS “PSYWAR”
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Trends Summary
• Tele-everything • U.S. just “one of the crowd” economically • “Warfare on the cheap,” many potential “peers” • Warfare Increasingly Robotic • Survivable/Affordable power projection via deep water subs and Blast Wave Accelerators • CONUS and Logistics Defense increasingly worrisome
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

FROM U.S. COMMISSION ON NATIONAL SECURITY/21ST CENTURY
• It will soon be possible to connect human brain cells to silicon chips • Due to IT technology we will witness the “death of distance” • More than 2/3rds of the satellites are foreign owned • Large scale missile attacks will be able to overwhelm defensive systems • Development of genetically engineered pathogens that will thwart our bio detection/defense measures/cycles
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

“Circa 2025”
• Machines as creative/“smart” as humans “Robotics” the “norm” • Zeroth order “warstopper” - Binary bio into nation’s agric./food distrib. system (every home/fox hole) • Next level of concern: Ubiquitous/Cheap micro-to-nano EVERYTHING (sensors, munitions, weapons swarms/hordes) • Battlefield attrition/CNN syndrome forces U.S. Army to look/act like SOCOM
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

(Suggested) Major U.S. Future (2025) Warfare Issues
• CONUS Defense (Requirement(s) for, potential approaches) • Logistics Defense/Protection (in/out of theater) • Survivability/Effectiveness of U.S. Forces on/near the “Killing Ground” in an era of affordable ubiquitous multiphysics hyperspectral sensors, precision strike, volumetric weaponry, “swarms” and hardened munitions
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

• “Non-explosive Warfare” (psywar, biowar IT/net war, “anti-operability war,” Beam weaponry including RF, Spoofing/Cammo • Robotic Warfare “in the large”/better than human AI/“Cyber life” • Alternative Power Projection Approaches (e.g. Deep Water depth/death sphere, blast wave accelerator, etc.)
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Future “Power Projection”?
• Humans “hold” instead of “take” ground (go in after “Sanitization”) • Sanitization via:
– – – – IW/Psywar Global Reach “Guns” (BWA/Slingatron) Deep water/large loadout Subs w/“swimins” “Robotic Everything” w/Volumetric weaponry, non-explosive warfare

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Future(s) of SOF
• Becomes THE (only survivable) HUMAN Strike Force (Army/Marines forced to become “SOF-Like”) • Increasingly The “Overseas FBI” to counter the increasingly capable (IO/Bio WMD) & horrific destructive power of INDIVIDUALS and Groups • Ops involve increasingly difficult-to-deal-with omnipresent/omni-physics sensor/ID suites, Few-to-No exploitable Interstices for Covert/Clandestine “work” - THE Challenge
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Future “Warfare”
• “Defense” against the “then year” multitudinous conventional and unconventional delivery methods for volumetric and precision munitions is essentially neither doable nor affordable. • Suggested National Defense Approaches:
– Work Technology, Intel, Diplomacy, SOCOM for detection/interdiction/deflection of the “pre-delivery” phases (causes of war, motivational and decision processes, design and construction, test) – Work and ADVERTISE a REALLY EFFECTIVE RETRIBUTION to deter delivery (ala MAD)
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Changing Nature of Warfare
H u nter/ G ath erer
Hu nti n g Grou nds Tr i a bl Ban ds Hand H el d / Thrown Hand H el d / Thrown M ech./Ch e m.

Agric u l tura l Farm Lan ds In d ustri a l
N atura l Resou rces

Prof. Arm ies

M ass L e v ee

tal IT/Bio/N a no Soci e

Ever yone

IT/Bi o /’Bots

Di s r pti u o n

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

RMA Planning “Shortfalls” (NPS)
• “Indications of the innovative paths adversaries might take or how they might adapt technologies from the civilian world” (Being worked in the “Technical War Games”) • “The path from todays systems and capabilities to those hypothesized for the future (2020+)”
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

What is needed is a “Then Year” (~2030) Serious/Holistic Vision of Warfare Changes Resulting from the On-going IT/Bio/Nano/Virtual Technological Revolutions • Such does not exist, “bumper sticker” attempts extant. • All are agreed, warfare will become increasingly robotic and probably more affordable, swarms of sensors/shooters are a given. • A longer term “Vision” of these changes would enable “mapping” from the present, NOT AT ALL CLEAR HOW TO “Get There From Here” as do not know where “there” is!
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

“War between mass armies weighed down with baroque equipment has become a third world sport. The advanced world, too vulnerable to survive a war of attrition or mass destruction, must learn to conduct its affairs by the Rapier--by the threat or use of small specialized forces exploiting high tempo and strategic surprise”

R. E. Simpkin, “Race to the Swift: 1985

Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

In the second half of the 1900’s Nuclear/Bio Warfare was “Unthinkable” In the first half of the 2000’s “conventional” warfare may become so deadly/effective as to become “Unthinkable” (“Killer Aps” available to mitigate the “Causes of War”)
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

Approaches to Countering Group/Individual Deployment of IO/Bio WMD PREVENTION - Universal inexpensive Web based educ. - Biomass via sea water irrigation DISCOVERY - All Source Intel/Fusion/AI Analysis PREEMPTION/RETRIBUTION - SOF (Foreign)
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01

(Usual) Reactions to this Presentation
• Is in the “Too Hard Box” • Not being done yet by anyone, therefore, will not be done • They would not do that • We have to Hope they would not do that • Why go there, cannot defend against it • Some Disbelief, but agreement there is too much there to disregard
Future Strategic Issues, 7/01



 

[Sol Logos]

Considering it being another distraction, I did a search for the doc on Google to see where else it's been fed - over the years, a whole lot of "conspiracy-oriented" sites, like David Icke etc.

To put in context, I was just listening to: "Dr Colin Ross Interview: CIA Doctors and the Psychiatry Scam" (excellent and fascinating instalment - thank you guys) and I'd also come across this doc recently as well, which mentioned among other things mind-control devices, covered briefly in the show too.

But on second thought, the whole point of a lot of this is that we'd go about sharing distractions, which I've fallen into... So perhaps just file this under baked noodles. Sorry about that!

 

[Arne]

I friend of mine posted this on FB _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5xi4dejjWw
and just the title " ! Critical ! EMERGENCY EMERGENCY EMERGENCY EMERGENCy" got my BS-meter into red.

Thanks for the training sott-team. :)

Here's a link to the doc hosted with Scribd.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/149650698/Summary-Of-The-NASA-Future-Strategic-Issues-and-Warfare-Circa-2025-Document-Dennis-M-Bushnell-Chief-Scientist-NASA-Langley-Research-Center-Warf

First, the logo on this PP. Does it look official?

I did a quick google on Bushnell and his "The Future is Now" and it is a future scenario case worked out for the institute for Security Technology Studies at Dartmouth College. Again nothing official from NASA.

It can be found here. See page 372.
_http://www.dartmouth.edu/~engs05/md/whitepapers/Emerging_Tech/ETech.pdf

 

[United Gnosis]

The main question would be how old this document is. This represents a very complete summary of experimental or scientifically plausible technological advancements. If it was truly first published around 2000, I doubt this could be a fake, as I am relatively certain that even a team of futurists and hard science fiction writers - vernor vinge, charles strauss, ray kurzweil, etc - would have had to invest considerable time coming up with such a list.

Hence, it is unlikely this list was written by amateurs or even tin-foil-hat types, but rather by people in the know. However, the organization of ideas seems lacking, so I wouldn't think this comes from a really high-level source such as MITRA corp, but it does fit with the NASA scientist type. As for the logo, maybe it was added afterwards, as a second-thought, or purposefully placed in such low quality for plausible deniability purposes. Somebody investing the effort to counterfeit this could easily have added a way better logo.

Nor could I spot any techno-babble anywhere. These are all "legit" areas of research and development. I thus also doubt it is meant as disinfo, although perhaps its leaking was a deliberate psy-op of the Snowden/Hastings type, i.e. "here's what we can/will be able to do, so be afraid, very afraid".

I was sent that youtube link as well, and although it didn't exactly strike me as BS, my understanding was that the lady is of the conspiracy-theorist type and got hit by the "true horror of the situation" as she discovered this document, hence the manner of her presentation. Many people have been warning of different aspects of this document for years or decades individually, but this document gives a "big picture" view which is bound to hit hard, very hard.

 

[Arne]

The main question would be how old this document is. This represents a very complete summary of experimental or scientifically plausible technological advancements. If it was truly first published around 2000, I doubt this could be a fake, as I am relatively certain that even a team of futurists and hard science fiction writers - vernor vinge, charles strauss, ray kurzweil, etc - would have had to invest considerable time coming up with such a list.

Why would the main be about the date of the document?

I have not claimed that the document EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES: Recommendations for Counter-Terrorism (__http://www.dartmouth.edu/~engs05/md/whitepapers/Emerging_Tech/ETech.pdf) was BS, only that it was produced for the Institute for Security Technology Studies at Dartmouth College and published in January 2001 as possible future scenarios. Many of them are probably valid. This is where the content of the powerpoint alkhemst was referring to comes from. And well, yes, many of them are possible scenarios, many of them are wanted scenarios. But is there anything new and shocking in it?

What I was calling BS was the youtube video I was linking to. Here the PP alkhemst was linking to was used as basis for some blown up hysteria. I didn`t bother to watch more than a few minutes as I got a real slow internet connection.

Hence, it is unlikely this list was written by amateurs or even tin-foil-hat types, but rather by people in the know.

If you had read my reply you would have noticed that I pointed to a document confirming that it was written by people in the know.

 

[Arne]

It has alot of valuable info in it for those how are wondering what the empire wants in technology for the future, and where to focus the reseach and investment.

Mission Statement
The Institute for Security Technology Studies at Dartmouth College was awarded a grant
by the Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice to perform an assessment of emerging
technologies. These technologies may affect our national security either as potential threats or as
tools of counter-terrorism. These tools may be used as methods of prevention or as part of an
overall response plan to terrorist attacks.

Terrorism is defined by the FBI as a violent act, or an act dangerous to human life, in vio-
lation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state, to intimidate or coerce a govern-
ment, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objec-
tives. Terrorism, in the past, has generally used explosive, conventional weapons as their tools for
creating violent acts. In the future, it is expected that this may escalate to the use of weapons of
mass destruction and casualties. These weapons may include nuclear, chemical, biological, and/or
cyberthreats. In our report we concentrated on a combined bio and cyberthreat to emphasize a
specific type of attack.

This attack would be different than previous terrorist attacks, or future potential nuclear
or chemical attacks, in that it would present an attack that could be of strategic consequence to
Americas security. It would be an attack that if not prevented, or contained, would spread rapid-
ly throughout our society both geographically and within cyberspace. This type of attack would
also allow us to study what process is needed to prepare us for any type of attack from a weapon
of mass destruction, or from an attack with conventional weapons that involved multiple sites, or
one sustained over a period of time. This approach has given us a unique opportunity to provide
recommendations, and a system that could provide a simulation environment in which we could
prepare for any number of terrorist attack scenarios in the future. This simulation environment is
a key recommendation of our report and could be used to prepare, potentially prevent, and train
for a response to a large-scale strategic attack from a weapon of mass destruction. It could also
be used to implement an augmented reality system that could be used to coordinate a large-scale
tele-operated remote response to an overwhelming attack from a weapon of mass destruction,
such as a bioweapon.

In approaching our task, we emphasized emerging technologies from the present through
the future. We specifically looked at 2000, 2005, and 2025. We included first responders, both
from the law enforcement and the medical community. We included operators from the crisis and
consequence communities. We also included policy makers in our conferences and individual
meetings. We brought these groups together with leading technologies from many areas of
emerging technologies. These technologies, in many cases, had a double-edged sword in the sense
that they could be used for both threats and responses. We emphasized recommendations that we
obtained through extensive discussions with these groups and individuals.
What we have found to be the unique challenge is the process necessary to unite policy
makers, operators, and technologists into a common framework to rapidly change in the face of
emerging threats. Our present strategy and policy must respond to new threats that are brought on
by the introduction of inexpensive weapons of mass destruction such as bio weapons and
cyberthreats. These affect our policy decisions. Our policy then directs our operational plans. The
changes in our operational plans often require the introduction of new emerging technologies to
meet the demands of new threats. Then the cycle is repeated with the introduction of new threats.
This cycle is increasing in its tempo as we enter the 21 st century, and our ability to respond to this
need to evolve and change is critical to the protection of our institutions, whether it be our phys-
ical or cyberspace infrastructure.

We found a need early in our mission to address how emerging technology influences this
cycle of terrorism/counter-terrorism policy, operations, and emerging technology. Although we
have many recommendations regarding responses to specific threats with specific new technolo-
gies, we have found our over-arching recommendation to be a central technology that would
allow each of the groups, agencies, and individuals involved in creating our response to terrorist
threats to have a process that would enable them to more rapidly adapt to this challenge.
Our key recommendation is a process based on emerging technologies that will enable the
US to more rapidly respond to emerging threats from terrorists, especially if these threats move
from conventional explosive devices to weapons of mass destruction. This process involves the
use of virtual reality in the form of a large-scale distributed simulator that brings together policy
makers, crisis and consequence operators, and technologists. This will enable each of these
groups to participate in a realistic manner through a large number of scenarios and test our new
approaches to meet the challenge of terrorism. It will also allow us to determine if a given policy
and its implementation result in a favorable outcome, or an escalation in the terrorist response.
These simulation tools have been used successfully in the past by both the civilian and defense
communities to train and prepare for unusual events. This tool could play a key role in training
and preparation in our efforts against terrorism.

This same large-scale distributed simulation environment will provide the infrastructure
for more than just a training environment. It will also help to predict the outcomes of our respons-
es to specific scenarios. In many cases it may reveal that a response to a specific attack may cause
an inversion, in which what we believed to be right policy choice may lead to future escalation
of violence, or immediately to an increase in casualties. This may be especially true in attacks
where the site is contaminated, such as is the case with biological weapons, and with nuclear and
chemical attacks.

Finally, the infrastructure created through this large-scale virtual reality simulator may be
used in the prevention of terrorist attacks, or directly in the implementation of a response to a spe-
cific attack. Performance machines are augmented reality systems that combine a virtual model
of a situation superimposed on the real events. They are used in surgical simulators and in tele-
operations in remote areas. Teleoperations may be used in law enforcement for defusing bombs,
in industry for a response to a contaminated zone, or in deep-water rescue missions. This tech-
nology is ideal for a response to a large-scale terrorist event in which there are mass casualties
and the resources needed are either not available locally or the use of local responders will endan-
ger their lives. This system would allow the coordination of crisis and consequence management
from multiple remote sites to provide the necessary support in a timely manner to the sites under
attack. For this to work effectively it would first need to be practiced in a large-scale simulation
environment. We need to prepare for large-scale events prior to the events occurring, so that we
can minimize our casualties and protect our society from both tactical and strategic threats from
weapons of mass destruction.

It will be the mission of this report to explain how emerging technologies can be used to
respond to terrorist threats in the 21st Century from weapons of mass destruction and conven-
tional weapons. It will also be the mission of this report to provide insight into what emerging
technologies we expect will become available to the terrorist community in the future. Although
we hope that weapons of mass destruction do not become a tool for terrorists, we have seen a
trend over the past ten years with an escalation in not the number of events, but in the scale of
casualties from these events. We need to prepare at several levels to address this trend, and to pro-
tect America from emerging technologies that may threaten our society and critical infrastructures
whether they are physical ones or part of our cyberspace.
Joseph Rosen, MD

_http://www.dartmouth.edu/~engs05/md/whitepapers/Emerging_Tech/ETech.pdf

 

[United Gnosis]

The main question would be how old this document is. This represents a very complete summary of experimental or scientifically plausible technological advancements. If it was truly first published around 2000, I doubt this could be a fake, as I am relatively certain that even a team of futurists and hard science fiction writers - vernor vinge, charles strauss, ray kurzweil, etc - would have had to invest considerable time coming up with such a list.

Why would the main be about the date of the document?

Because alkhesmt's affirmation sounded like he was not sure whether that document was actually part of the 2000 presentation. If, for instance, the document was first seen in the wild in 2010, the emerging prevalence of these topics would have made it relatively easier to cook up compared with the amount of in-the-know research necessary to have authored it in 2000.

If you had read my reply you would have noticed that I pointed to a document confirming that it was written by people in the know.

But I did. However, you did not explicitely communicate what you believe you did, whereas alkhemst backpedaled and said this was a distraction which should be in baked noodles. This is why I came forward with reasons to give serious consideration to this document. I do not see a disagreement between us.

But is there anything new and shocking in it?

There's this thinktank saying that goes along the lines of, "The only news in the world is the intel you haven't yet seen". This won't come as a shocker to anyone who has done extensive research on the scientific means of full spectrum dominance. To anyone else, this is a great conceptual summary exposing the big picture of that which is already well into its implementation.

 

[Sol Logos]

It struck me as potentially a piece to pedal further a perception of all-pervasiveness, not saying though that the content is not feasible, likely is, mostly. My backpetaling was more about not wanting to partake in that intention by sharing it on.

 

[Niall]

Considering it being another distraction, I did a search for the doc on Google to see where else it's been fed - over the years, a whole lot of "conspiracy-oriented" sites, like David Icke etc.

To put in context, I was just listening to: "Dr Colin Ross Interview: CIA Doctors and the Psychiatry Scam" (excellent and fascinating instalment - thank you guys) and I'd also come across this doc recently as well, which mentioned among other things mind-control devices, covered briefly in the show too.

But on second thought, the whole point of a lot of this is that we'd go about sharing distractions, which I've fallen into... So perhaps just file this under baked noodles. Sorry about that!

What you could do is try to summarise in a few paragraphs what the document is saying, where it came from, who wrote it, what audience it was intended for, when it was written, etc. The benefits of such an exercise are twofold: you get to discover for yourself, during this exercise, how valuable the document is. You might, for example, realise half-way through; 'Hang on a minute, this is complete BS!' This would also be an act of external consideration towards others because they can decide, on the basis of your efforts to summarise the document, whether or not it is worth reading.

 

[Sol Logos]

Considering it being another distraction, I did a search for the doc on Google to see where else it's been fed - over the years, a whole lot of "conspiracy-oriented" sites, like David Icke etc.

To put in context, I was just listening to: "Dr Colin Ross Interview: CIA Doctors and the Psychiatry Scam" (excellent and fascinating instalment - thank you guys) and I'd also come across this doc recently as well, which mentioned among other things mind-control devices, covered briefly in the show too.

But on second thought, the whole point of a lot of this is that we'd go about sharing distractions, which I've fallen into... So perhaps just file this under baked noodles. Sorry about that!

What you could do is try to summarise in a few paragraphs what the document is saying, where it came from, who wrote it, what audience it was intended for, when it was written, etc. The benefits of such an exercise are twofold: you get to discover for yourself, during this exercise, how valuable the document is. You might, for example, realise half-way through; 'Hang on a minute, this is complete BS!' This would also be an act of external consideration towards others because they can decide, on the basis of your efforts to summarise the document, whether or not it is worth reading.

Good point, thanks. Will definitely do that for future such things.