Regulating Weaponized Nanotechnology: How the International Criminal Court Offers a Way Forward

Ana Maria Mihalcea, MD, PhD - Jan 15, 2023 ∙ Paid ∙ Source

Likes: 121 | Comments: 89 | Reposts: 0 | ALL OTHER POSTS

Image courtesy: Nanotechnology in C19 vials - Dr. David Nixon

First, thank you to John Lukach for his research in finding this article and sending it to me. I would like to quote some of the passages of this document as it is pertinent to the worldwide findings of nanotechnology in the C19 shots. The information in this document is so truthfully devastating, it requires no comment. I simply took passages and posted them here. I highlighted areas that are pertinent. Two thirds of humanity has been injected with nanotechnology, we are inhaling it on a daily basis via geoengineering programs, as well as consuming it in the food and water supply. Thus, our environment has been weaponized.

Please note this document was written in 2013, a decade ago. By now, what was postulated then as a danger, has long become reality.

Here is the link to the full document, :

Regulating Weaponized Nanotechnology: How the International Criminal Court Offers a Way Forward

Advances in nanoparticles and nanorobotics are already altering conceptions of surgery, mechanization, and construction. Materials that emerge from the field could soon be ubiquitous in worldwide technology, and scientists promise further advances. Against this promising background, it is easy to overlook the dangers that nanotechnology presents. Nanoparticles interact unpredictably and unprecedentedly with the human body. Nanorobots may soon possess the ability to create new nanorobots or even to replicate themselves many times over. These technologies, if managed negligently, could lead to catastrophic accidents. If intentionally weaponized, they could represent a paradigm shift in warfare. Because of its difficulty to trace, its unpredictability, its capacity for grave biological harm, its potential ability to infiltrate technological systems, and its possible ability to self-replicate in the future, nanotechnology could contribute to devastating new weapons. These weapons could contribute to massive human rights violations, both because of the numbers of people they could endanger and the horrific types of damage they could inflict.

Growth of Nanotechnology military applications in the last 2 decades:

The field of nanotechnology is growing worldwide at a staggering rate. Global funding topped $4 billion in 2005 and has since increased . Militaries are avidly researching nanotechnology; the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Russia, and India are all turning to nanotechnology as a potentially useful area of combat research. United States military alone spent almost $400 million in 2010 on nanotechnology. In the private sphere, the United States has issued over 4,400 patents for nanotechnology-related innovations.

Catastrophic biological effects:

The effects of a weapon engineered using actual nanotechnology could be catastrophic. Indeed, the effects of available proto-nanotechnology are already severe.

The prospect of a DIME-style weapon that incorporates nanoparticles becomes more terrifying with the emergence of research as to the effects of these nanoparticles on biological systems. Even carbon nanotubes, which are designed for inherently peaceful, industrial purposes, are biologically devastating. Studies have shown that they become lodged in the lungs and are nearly impossible for the body to break down because of their unique structure and tiny size. The particles can eventually cause suffocation.

A device that forces shrapnel into the skin, like the DIME device, w ould not be necessary to effectively weaponize nanoparticles because these particles can be inhaled. Once they enter the bloodstream, they are theoretically capable of directly infiltrating the brain. The nanoparticles can use body systems and pathways that typical biological pathogens cannot. For example, nanoparticles can travel along the olfactory nerves after inhalation. Even if they are kept out of the bloodstream, they may still be capable of infiltrating the brain. The ease with which nanoparticles can enter the body, the bloodstream, and the brain is made worse by the difficulties encountered in treating their effects. Nanoparticles trigger oxidative stress, and “cationic [nanoparticles] have an immediate toxic effect at the blood-brain barrier.” These immediate and severe consequences are difficult to diagnose in time to counteract their effects. Nanomaterials can be “more chemically reactive” than normal particles. They have a higher ratio of surface area to total area because of their small size and the precise structures to which they are engineered. Nanoparticles actually are so small that their movements and interactions with surrounding particles are partially governed by the laws of quantum mechanics, which are inherently unpredictable.

Self-Assembly:

In 1977, a physicist named K. Eric Drexler proposed that not only could scientists create and program robots on a nano-scale, but that those nano-robots could be programmed to construct and train future nano-robots. These nano-robots capable of fabricating similar machines are popularly called “assemblers.” Pinson notes that these assemblers are likely years from becoming a reality.

Please see Dr. David Nixon’s video here of darkfield microscopy showing self assembly. It is a reality now in 5.4 Billion bodies who have been injected with C19 shots:

Nanorobotics in C19 injections by Dr. David Nixon

Further in the text:

However, there are already products utilizing the benefits of nanotechnology, and the informatics, pharmaceutical, energy, and defense industries are investing heavily in research and development. Replicator nano-robots are the next logical step after assembler nanorobots. Vasily E. Tarasov, a quantum physicist at Moscow State University, believes that quantum replicating nano-robots are possible and will eventually be a reality.

These replicator nanorobots would theoretically be able to reproduce at a geometric rate. The weaponization of replicator robots is a frightening thought. Because existing nanoparticles already carry formidable biological effects, the cascade effect of replicators that can manipulate nanotech is deeply troubling.

Military, Universities and Industries collaborating in weapons development:

Not only are militaries researching the applications of nanotechnology to warfare, but some of this work is outsourced to universities and companies. For example, the United States military is working with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to determine applications of nanotechnology across a spectrum of uses in warfare. Universities are not the only private entities that already have access to advanced nanotechnology. Corporations and individuals account for over 75% of United States medical nanotechnology patents. The numbers are similar in other major areas of patent grants. Nanotechnology is therefore progressively owned by a more wide-ranging group of people. The increasing private ownership of the technology creates further avenues through which a malevolent actor could gain control of nanoscience and weaponize it—if more corporations, scientists, and universities have the technical schematics and equipment necessary to create nanoparticles, the pace of its proliferation will likely increase.

Nations unwilling to regulate Nanotechnology

Nations seem unwilling to acknowledge the severe deficiencies in their regulatory frameworks. For example, the United States’ various regulatory agencies have made it clear that they do not believe that nano-specific regulations are necessary. This belief may be based on an unwillingness or inability to delve into the scientific complexity inherent to nanotechnology. Most regulations aim to prevent the misuse of non-reproductive nanoparticles and do not address the threat of self-replicating or self-assembling nanorobots.

Nanotechnology are weapons of mass destruction

Robert Pinson points out many of the difficulties that would emerge from such a regulatory regime. He theorizes that the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) might have standing to govern nanotechnology. The United States, United Kingdom, and U.S.S.R. ratified the BWC in 1972. It bans the development or deployment of biological agents for weaponry, and crucially for nanotechnology governance, prohibits toxins, “regardless of their properties.” The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which went into effect in April 1997, also prohibits the deployment of “toxic chemicals and their precursors.” Given the consequences that nanoparticles, such as carbon nanotubes, can impose on human physiology, they might conceivably be brought under the purview of the Convention.

Indeed, modern regulatory frameworks are likely insufficient to deal with any intentional deployment of nanotechnology in a wartime setting. The field of nanotechnology could produce weapons that “span several traditional technological compartments and blur the distinction between conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction.” The kind of biological dangers mentioned earlier are merely one example of this blurred line—the idea of self-replicating robots would theoretically allow a relatively small weapon to affect a disproportionately large area. Other weapons, with the exception of prohibited biological agents, are not noted for reproducing themselves after their deployment. Not only does this ability to reproduce and continue causing damage distinguish nanorobots from traditional weapons, it distinguishes them from nuclear and chemical weapons as well.

Nanotechnology as a weapon

Because of the current state of regulation, it will be necessary to articulate and implement structures for regulating nanotechnology as a weapon and not just as a new research technology.

Likes: 121 | Comments: 89 | Reposts: 0 | Share Options: Copy Link

Comments