Commission warns of nuclear or biological weapons attack by 2013

A U.S. bi-partisan commission is warning that the world will "more likely than not" face a terrorist attack using nuclear or biological weapons by 2013 if governments fail to undertake major security and prevention measures.

The report, titled World at Risk, recommends that the Obama administration appoint a national security aide devoted exclusively to coordinating U.S. intelligence, military and political efforts to curb weapons proliferation.

Other recommendations include:

• better safeguards for uranium and plutonium stockpiles and step up measures against nuclear smuggling rings
• toughen the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
• ensure access to nuclear fuel for countries committed to developing only peaceful atomic technology
• prevent new countries, including Iran and North Korea, from possessing uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing capabilities
• urgently tighten security in domestic bio-sphere institutes and laboratories
• call for an international conference of countries with major biotechnology industries
• secure nuclear and biological materials in Pakistan
• constrain a growing Asian arms race
• agree with Russia on extending essential monitoring provisions of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty due to expire in 2009
• create a White House advisory post on weapons of mass destruction proliferation

The report also went on to describe Pakistan as the weakest link in world security, and it noted that terrorists are more likely to be able to obtain biological than nuclear weapons, with anthrax being a particular concern.

These threats are "evolving faster than our multi-layered response," says the commission, "our margin of safety is shrinking, not growing."

The waste that is terrorism

Over 100 dead in Mumbai and the death toll is expected to rise. Terrorists have struck yet again -- and for what? What is it exactly that they hope to achieve with these tactics?

Actually, the answer is quite simple: they're working to create chaos. Ultimately, paramilitary groups are hoping to destabilize regimes to the point where they'll cave to their demands.

And given the fact that these organizations often lack the resources to launch an all-out assault and attack military targets, they do the only thing they can do: attack those who cannot defend themselves.

In the case of the recent attacks in Mumbai, the terrorists chose high profile sites and targeted tourists (particularly Westerners). By doing so they hoped to attract an international audience and draw attention to their cause. They're also trying to rattle some political cages; if this organization is indeed a Muslim paramilitary group, it may be working to increase tensions between India and Pakistan.

But what organizations like these fail to realize is that terrorism simply does not work. Terrorist groups very rarely achieve their political objectives. Blowing up buildings and killing innocent civilians does not result in the kinds of changes they're hoping for. If anything, it causes target governments to retrench and dig their heels even further.

Which makes complete sense. Government are supposed to represent and protect its civilians. Consequently, countries will never make policy concessions to these groups -- even when their own people are being targeted.

Terrorism is a tool for the desperate. It's for those who feel that they have to resort to violence in order to exert any kind of political will. In a way it's a sign of defeat; the message is loud and clear: We don't have the means to get what we want so we'll resort to nihilism.

In the end, terrorist groups who attack innocent civilians fail, while leaving a bloody trail behind them. And it doesn't matter who or what is being targeted or the scale.

Sadly, terrorists don't understand this, so they'll continue to target innocent people.

What a waste.

[photo credit: BBC]

How not to prepare for an alien invasion

This is the most ridiculous book I've seen in quite some time: An Introduction to Planetary Defense: A Study of Modern Warfare Applied to Extra-Terrestrial Invasion by Travis S. Taylor et al.

Book description

"This book describes a serious look at defending the planet in the event of an extra-terrestrial invasion. Travis Taylor, et al, have written the definitive book on the defense of earth against a potential alien incursion. Whatever your beliefs on the subject...the book also serves as an important primer on the potential future of warfare on every level. It is tightly grounded in current day realities of war and extrapolates thoughtfully but closely about future potentials. It should be on the reading list of anyone who is serious about national security and the future of war."

The authors believe that there is a "high probability" that one or two intelligent alien species visit Earth every century. They also reject Carl Sagan's famous assertion that advanced space-faring civs have by necessity (i.e. selectional processes) advanced beyond the need for war. "It's a wonderful idea that has no basis in reality," claims Taylor.

Consequently, they feel that the world, or more specifically "America," needs to be on the ready. They advocate asymmetric warfare to combat the extraterrestrials. The authors argue that the likely technological imbalance would force defending forces to adopt guerrilla-like tactics -- warfare along the lines of what is currently being experienced by troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. "[I]if we were attacked by aliens, this is our best defense," writes Taylor.

Post-Singularity warfare

There is so much wrong with all this that I don't know where to begin. Their line of argumentation seems to belong in the 20th century.

The idea of the United States defending the planet with guerrilla tactics reminds me of one of the most absurd films of all-time, Independence Day. In this movie, America experiences a supreme ass kicking until the alien invaders are thwarted by the Fresh Prince and his Apple Newton (remember those?).

Okay, time for a 21st century reality check. And let me put it this way: setting aside hand-waving dismissals of the Fermi Paradox (and that's a BIG caveat), if an advanced space-faring intelligence were to arrive at Earth with hostile intentions, their attack would be over before we could say, "E.T. phone home."

Specifically, I'm imagining a post-Singularity machine intelligence with access to artificial superintelligence, advanced robotics, genetically designed phages, and Drexlerian nanotechnology (if not femtotechnology). It would be like the Terminator and Matrix worlds on steroids. And that's if they want a planet to recover; the use of anti-matter weapons would make quick work of our planet should they want to destroy it. Alternately they could set the atmosphere aflame using grey-goo nano. Or how about robotic locust swarms, autonomous hunter-killers, and neurowarfare?

Moreover, malevolent ETIs wouldn't even need to visit the Earth -- they could send their forces by proxy in the form of Von Neumann probes, or what has also been dubbed berserker probes. These are self-replicating space-craft that could conceivably reproduce and travel across the Galaxy at an exponential rate. These devices could carry a number of nasty weapons with them for their attack.

As an aside, the theoretical prospect of berserkers poses a conundrum that's related to the Fermi Paradox. Any malevolent or misguided advanced intelligence could spawn a fleet of these probes to sterilize the Galaxy in fairly short order. That said, we clearly don't live in a sterile Galaxy as witnessed by our ongoing existence. We appear to live in a Galaxy that's devoid of berserkers for non-obvious reasons.

So, my advice on preparing for an alien invasion?

Simple: don't bother -- you won't even know what hit you.