The End, v2

Welcome to DavidTarver.com

The End, Version 2.0

When I was a kid, we feared nuclear annihilation at the hands of the Soviet Union. Our vision of The End was a nuclear conflagration borne on Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles. In the ensuing decades, the U.S. and its allies patiently and assiduously contained the threat posed by the Soviet Union, and Armageddon was avoided. Nowadays, while a nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the Soviet Union remains a distinct possibility, the thought of such an event is definitely "old school".

Several years ago I began to contemplate a new version of The End. I call it Version 2.0. My new vision was triggered by a very interesting newspaper article. In the article, two professors at the University of Utah, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishmann, declared that they had found a way to produce a nuclear fusion reaction at room temperature. Their supposed discovery, "cold fusion", promised an era of unlimited, cheap energy. On the surface, this seemed to be great news. No more gas lines or rising fuel costs. No more being "held hostage" to Middle East oil. On the surface, it seemed like nirvana.

Then I started to think below the surface. Unlimited energy equals unlimited power, available to practically everyone in the world. It is the energy equivalent of the way the Internet suddenly made it possible, in theory, for anyone on earth to communicate with anyone else, practically for free. Just as unlimited communication made it possible for a 9/11 terrorist in Pakistan to communicate with colleagues in New Jersey, so unlimited energy would make it possible, in theory, for anyone to make a weapon of mass destruction. For better or worse, the Pons and Fleishmann "discovery" turned out to be a bust, at least initially, but the startling implications of their work remain. The work of Pons and Fleishman, and of legions of other scientists and technologists, points to a new, more amorphous threat.

Clearly the destructive force available to individuals and small groups has been increasing over time. Conventional weapons such as assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, shoulder-fired missiles, and fertilizer bombs have all been used to wreak destruction and terror in countries around the world. These weapons, while dangerous enough, pale in comparison to those produced by twentieth century science and technology. In just the past few weeks, we have learned of the dangers posed by katusha rockets, home-made liquid explosives, and even lithium-ion computer batteries. The nuclear bomb, chemical weapons, and genetically-engineered biological agents all have the power to cause destruction on a much broader scale. As the pace of scientific discovery accelerates, the prospect of these frightening technologies being available to "rogue" states, small groups and even individuals becomes more and more real. That is why our leaders tell us that it is "just a matter of time" before a terrorist employs a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) on U.S. soil.

The frightening prospect of powerful weapons in the hands of a potential foe has led our leaders to talk of preempting potential threats, tightly controlling access to information, taking aggressive measures to secure the "homeland", and granting the government new powers of surveillance over citizens. These are understandable impulses, but where do they lead? The future seems to be a very dangerous time, both because of the threat of powerful weapons and because of our response to the threat. In the end, it is hard to know which will cause more havoc and destruction in the world. Whether one dies at the hand of a madman, or at the hand of one who fears the madman, one is still dead.

In the long run, it is impossible to stifle technological innovation. It is also impossible to preemptively destroy every potential foe, tightly control every public space and closely monitor every citizen. In any event, I doubt that this is the kind of society that most of us would want to live in.

What can we do then? We can start by aggressively pursuing and eliminating any group that has attacked us or is actively planning to attack us, e.g. al Qaeda. We can secure existing WMD stocks wherever they exist, starting with the former Soviet Union. We can severely reduce government-sponsored weapons of mass destruction, with the ultimate goal of eliminating them altogether. We can continue to promote, but not force, the development of democracy and openness around the world. We can use our enormous diplomatic and economic power to reduce suffering in the world’s most troubled regions. We can work assiduously with those governments, groups, and individuals who share our values. We can support and strengthen international institutions, especially the U.N.

We can do all of these things, but in the end there is no guarantee. Just as 20^th century science brought an understanding of nuclear energy, 21^st century science is certain to usher in new discoveries. When these discoveries occur, they will be transmitted almost instantaneously throughout our interconnected world. We must work to ensure that these discoveries find a world that is cooperating to reduce both potential and actual human suffering. We must work to ensure that these discoveries do not find a world in which hordes of terrorists are looking to "get back at" the United States with a new generation of WMD.

The End, Version 2.0 is a frightening prospect, but we must not be consumed by fear. We steered clear of The End, Version 1.0. We can do it again.

W. David Tarver