All posts by admin

Green digital code raining down on a black background, forming a circular pattern resembling the Matrix movie style.

How To Guard Against a Malware Attack

Categories, Savvy Life Strategies, , , , ,

In 2017, malware attacks affected over half of the adult population of the United States. Let’s be clear about what we mean by malware. Malware is an umbrella term. It stands for a variety of malicious software, including Trojans, spyware, worms, adware, ransomware, and viruses. While it’s true that all viruses are malware, not all malware are viruses. Unfortunately, many people and organizations operate under the assumption that virus detection software will protect their computer from malware. However, often that is not the case.

Some antivirus software may have rudimentary tools to remove malware. However, modern malware is sophisticated and these rudimentary tools typically do not detect or remove it. It can hide in the infected computer undetected and the hacker can attack at any time.

Among the worst of the malware attacks is identity theft. Unfortunately, this type of attack is increasing. For example, the 2017 Identity Fraud Study (Javelin Strategy & Research) indicates that hackers stole $16 billion from 15.4 million U.S. consumers in 2016, compared with $15.3 billion and 13.1 million victims in 2015. In 2017, attackers stole over half of the adult U.S. population’s (143 million) Social Security numbers. Experts estimate about one in three of the stolen Social Security numbers will result in an identity theft. Sadly, the occurrence rate of identity theft is about once every two seconds.

A Proactive Approach

Now let’s discuss what you personally can do to protect your identity. This is one area where an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Here are some precautions you can take:

  • Guard your social security number:
    • Don’t carry your social security card in your wallet or write your number on your checks
    • Only give out your SSN when absolutely necessary
  • Don’t respond to unsolicited requests for personal information (your name, birthdate, social security number, or bank account number) by phone, mail, or online
  • Don’t open any email whose sender is unfamiliar to you and, even then, don’t open any attachments unless absolutely necessary
  • Install malware protection software on your computer, not just antivirus software

This last point deserves some explanation. Antivirus programs may not protect you against malware. It has to do with their design. Their primary function is to protect your computer from computer viruses. Remember, while a virus is malware, not all malware are viruses. There are malware protection programs specifically designed to detect and remove malware. Here are two for your consideration:

  1. Anti-Malware Pro 2017. Security software that removes viruses, malware, spyware, adware and privacy traces. This is a fast and simple service relied upon by millions of satisfied users. Click here to check out Anti-Malware Pro 2017
  2. SpyRemover Pro. This is state of the art software that is both clean, modern and very effective in detecting and removing all kinds of viruses, spyware, malware, and adware. Click here to check out SpyRemover Pro 

Protection Against Electronic Pickpockets

It is not sufficient to protect your computer. Unfortunately, there are electronic pickpockets that can access to your sensitive cards, passport, and drivers license, while on your person. A classic pickpocket might use sleight of hand or a diversion to steal a wallet and other valuable. Today, though, an electronic pickpocket can steal your most important information by simply scanning you with a concealed RFID (i.e., Radio Frequency Identification) reader. You may be in a bus station, airport, or stadium parking lot. It does not matter. A powered RFID reader can scan and steel your unprotected information at distances of up to 300 hundred feet away, without a direct line-of-sight to the victim. In other words, you may never see the thief or know that your most sensitive information is being stolen. To protect against electronic pickpockets I suggest you check out SignalVault, which can protect you in seconds. All SignalVault products use RFID protection to keep scammers from getting electronic access to your sensitive cards, passport, and drivers license. Explore their slim debit and credit card protector, their protecting phone case, and their protecting passport organizer. Click here to check out SignalVault.

Take Action!

The widespread occurrence of identity theft is causing millions of people anguish. Unfortunately, restoring and repairing your credit report can take months to years. On average, it takes six months to recover from identity theft. This means identity theft victims have credit issues for months until they are able to restore their credit and lock out the hackers. While it’s true that homeowners and renters policies provide coverage for theft of money or credit cards, the amount of coverage is limited (usually $200 in cash and $50 on credit cards). Specific identity theft policies may provide greater coverage. However, this is analogous to closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.

I strongly suggest you take action and adopt the recommendations outlined above. They will go a long way to protecting your identity and valuable data.

 

This content uses referral links. Read our disclosure statement for more information.

A digital representation of a Bitcoin symbol surrounded by pixelated golden particles on a dark background.

The Coming Bitcoin Collapse

Categories, economic collapse, ,

Many people have heard the term “bitcoin,” but have no idea of what it means. Is it a like a stock or a work of art? Should I invest in it? After all, many articles note that at bitcoin’s introduction in 2009 it sold for $0.08 and is currently valued over $17,000. In addition, many predict it will rise even more in the future, despite its recent one-day drop from over $19,000 to a little over $17,000.

What is bitcoin? It is a cryptocurrency designed as a medium of exchange that uses cryptography to control its creation and management. What is a cryptocurrency? It is a digital currency that uses encryption techniques to regulate its generation and use, independently of a central bank. In simple terms, it is a fiat currency, but without being backed by a government.

A fiat currency is money deem legal by a government, but in itself has no intrinsic value. For our purposes, we can define money as an object of perceived value that is acceptable as payment for goods, services, and debt.

Historically, many commodities, which have a clear intrinsic value, such as livestock and oil, have served as money. This use of commodities as money was a form of bartering. It required each recipient to have a “coincidence of wants” and agree on “value.” This system of barter still survives today on some parts of the globe. However, as civilization progressed, items widely deemed as “precious” began to serve as money, such as gold and silver, including coins made from gold and silver. Even today, gold and silver are widely valued and find use in monetary transactions.

The next step in the evolution of money occurred when national banks guaranteed to change “paper” money, known as “bank notes,” into gold at a promised rate. For example, on March 14, 1900, the United States adopted the “gold standard,” with the passage of the Gold Standard Act, which stated “…the dollar consisting of twenty-five and eight-tenths grains (1.67 g) of gold nine-tenths fine, as established by section thirty-five hundred and eleven of the Revised Statutes of the United States, shall be the standard unit of value, and all forms of money issued or coined by the United States shall be maintained at a parity of value with this standard…”

However, maintaining the gold standard during wars and depressions became extremely difficult for the United States, which led to its abandonment in 1971 by President Richard Nixon, via an executive order commonly termed the “Nixon Shock.” Once unhinged from the gold standard, the dollar became a “pure fiat currency,” which meant it had no intrinsic value. U.S. dollars became a legal tender by government order. The dollar then fell to its free-market exchange price versus gold, which as of this writing is over $1200 per ounce.

This abbreviated history of money and the example of the United States dollar demonstrates that a pure fiat currency is only as strong as the global trust in their currency. This is also true of bitcoin. Those people buying and trading it determine its value.

You may at first want to think of this like buying and selling stocks, whose value is determined by sales transactions. However, stocks represent ownership in a tangible asset, such as a company. Bitcoin does not represent value in anything tangible. This is true of all fiat currencies. However, the United States exchanges goods and services for U.S. dollars and accepts it to service debt. If you believe the United States will remain a strong and vibrant economy, then having faith in its currency is justifiable. Countries often base their international trade on U.S dollars. However, even the dollar’s value fluctuates in the world market, as perceptions of the U.S. economy’s strength fluctuate.

Bitcoin, on the other hand, has no country backing it. Much like trading in art, the increase in its value depends on “the bigger fool theory.” When someone invests in bitcoins, they are essentially betting that someone else in the future will pay more them, even though bitcoins have no intrinsic value. That someone is paying more for something whose only value is determined by whimsical perceptions, hence the name “bigger fool.”

In the case of art, even if its price drops, the art is a tangible object that provides a level of joy to the owner. In a sense, it enriches the human spirit. Bitcoin only enriches those that are able to sell it at a higher price than they paid for it.

Eventually, the market for bitcoins is going to vanish, as the bigger fool theory runs its course and businesses refuse to accept it as a currency. When that happens, investors will recognize the world’s pool of fools has dried up and bitcoins will not be worth the digital energy it takes to create and trade in them.

A close-up of a rope tied in a detailed knot next to a knife on a brown surface.

Will the United States Use Nanoweapons to Topple the Kim Regime?

Categories, Nanoweapons, North Korea, ,

Nanoweapons are the next and most deadly generation of military weapons the world has ever encountered. In fact, they promise to be even more deadly than nuclear weapons. A cloud of secrecy has kept most people from even knowing they exist. Given this fact, let’s define nanoweapons. Nanoweapons are any military technology that exploits the power of nanotechnology. This begs a question, What is nanotechnology? According to the United States National Nanotechnology Initiative’s website, nano.gov, “Nanotechnology is science, engineering, and technology conducted at the nanoscale, which is about 1 to 100 nanometers.” In simple terms, the diameter of a typical human hair equals about 100,000 nanometers. Therefore, the largest nanotechnology is over a thousand times smaller than the diameter of a human hair. This means nanotechnology is invisible to the naked eye or even under an optical microscope.

North Korea’s leader, Kim Jung um, has already accused the United States of attempting to assassinate him using nanoweapons. In a 1,800 report issued on May 5, 2017, the North Korean state news agency KCNA said a “terrorist group” conspired with the CIA and South Korea’s Intelligence Service (IS) to assassinate its leader Kim Jong un using a “biochemical substances including radioactive substance and nano poisonous substance.” This report marks the second time the United States finds itself accused of using nanoweapons. Pravda, Russia’s state-run newspaper ran this headline on June 6, 2016: “US nano weapon killed Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, scientists say.” While both Russia and North Korea are widely known to issue fake news to support their political agendas, it is striking that they both mention the United States’ use of nanoweapons, specifically nano poisons.

 Is it true? It could be. The United States leads in the development of nanoweapons. Using nano poison to assassinate someone would be virtually untraceable. Unlike a conventional poison, it is nearly impossible to detect its use. What are nano poisons? A nano poison consists of toxic nanoparticles. Because of the size, less than a 100 nanometers in diameter, toxic nanoparticles are absorbed more readily than other known toxins. Nanoparticles are able to cross biological membranes and access cells, tissues, and organs that their larger counterparts cannot. Therefore, nano poisons are more deadly than their bulk counterparts are. Cancer-causing radioactive nanoparticles are particularly deadly and almost impossible to detect. Once a person ingests radioactive nanoparticles, they may die months or even years later, as was claimed regarding the death of Venezuela’s former president, Hugo Chavez.

Currently, the United States, China, and Russia are secretly spending billions of dollars to gain an asymmetrical advantage in nanoweapons. In 2000, the United States government launched the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), a research and development initiative involving the nanotechnology-related activities of 25 Federal agencies with a range of research and regulatory roles and responsibilities. To date, the US has invested over $20 billion in NNI programs. NNI dedicates at least 20% of its budget to DOD programs. In addition, each branch of the US military has its own nanotechnology R&D facility. Nanoweapons are real. As I fully describe in my latest book, Nanoweapons: A Growing Threat to Humanity, the United States already secretly deploys them.

Nanoweapons are particularly attractive as military weapons since:

1. Unlike nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, no international treaties limit the development and deployment of nanoweapons or their use in warfare

2. Nanoweapons, for example toxic nanoparticles, have the potential to be weapons of mass destruction

3. Developing nanoweapons is less costly than developing nuclear weapons

4. Detecting nanoweapons manufacturing facilities is difficult

5. Detecting the source of a nanoweapons attack is difficult

Ironically, the next big thing in military weapons will be small and almost invisible, nanoweapons. The United States is the world nanoweapons leader. Therefore, it’s logical that they would use this capability to defend the homeland. If we learn that Kim Jung un is dying from cancer, similar to Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, it may be the result of a nanoweapons attack. Science fiction? No! Science Fact.

The iconic pyramids of Egypt stand majestically under a colorful sky at sunset in the desert.

Cosmic Rays Reveal Hidden Chamber in Great Pyramid of Giza

Categories, Technology, Universe Mysteries, , ,

For millennia, grave robbers and archaeologists have been digging tunnels in search of a hidden room in Khufu’s Pyramid (a.k.a. The Great Pyramid of Giza). Until today, they were literally searching in the dark. Now, using cosmic-ray muon radiography, Kunihiro Morishima’s, et al., publication in Nature is providing a roadmap, potentially a treasure map, to a previously unknown chamber in Khufu’s Pyramid. In their article, they report “Discovery of a big void in Khufu’s Pyramid by observation of cosmic-ray muons discovery of a large void (with a cross section similar to the Grand Gallery and a length of 30 m minimum) above the Grand Gallery, which constitutes the first major inner structure found in the Great Pyramid since the 19th century.”

Cosmic ray-muons are subatomic particles, with an electrical charge equal to an electron, but with a mass around 200 times greater than an electron. Muons form in the upper layer of the Earth’s atmosphere, the by-products of cosmic rays (i.e., a highly energetic atomic nuclei) colliding with molecules in the upper atmosphere. Traveling near the speed of light, approximately10,000 muons reach every square meter of the earth’s surface a minute. Two factors make muons useful:

  1. Their ability to penetrate solids deeper than x-rays
  2. The difference in their speed in solids (i.e., slower) than air (i.e., faster)

Armed with this knowledge, Kunihiro Morishima, et al., used three different muon detection technologies and three independent analyses to confirm this hidden chamber, now named, “ScanPyramids Big Void.”

This marks the potential beginning of a new field in archeology, namely archeological cosmic-ray muon radiography. According to the Nature article, “While there is currently no information about the role of this void, these findings show how modern particle physics can shed new light on the world’s archaeological heritage.”

Using muons to generate three-dimensional images of volumes is not new. Developed in the 1950s, the technology is termed “muon tomography.” Current applications include detecting nuclear material in road transport vehicles and cargo containers for security reasons and non-invasive nuclear waste characterization for safety reasons. However, the Nature article marks the first archeological application.

Khufu’s Pyramid, built on the Giza Plateau (Egypt), dates back to the pharaoh Khufu (Cheops), who reigned from 2509 to 2483 BCE. It is one of the oldest and largest monuments on Earth. However, there is no consensus regarding how the ancient Egyptians constructed it.

Muons have a rich history in scientific discovery. The Rossi–Hall experiment in 1940 confirmed Einstein’s time dilation effect, as predicted in his theory of special relativity. In 1963, the Frisch-Smith experiment confirmed Rossi-Hall’s experiment and measured mean muon velocities between 0.995 c and 0.9954 c (where c is the speed of light in a vacuum). In 1977, Bailey et al. measured the lifetime of positive and negative muons using the CERN Muon storage ring (particle accelerator). This experiment confirmed both time dilation and the twin paradox. The twin paradox predicts, via Einstein’s special theory of relativity, that one twin in a rocket ship traveling near the speed of light will age slower than the other twin, who is standing stationary on the Earth.

Our friend the muon continues to help us push back the frontiers of science, from Einstein’s special theory of reality to a hidden chamber in Khufu’s Pyramid.

A woman holding a sign that says 'We are better than this!' at a protest or rally with a crowd in the background.

Politics In Science

Categories, climate change, fossil fuels, Political, , , ,

Many of us would like to believe that science is the search for truth as it relates to the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world. However, that belief is only partially true.

Scientific research is often driven by government grants and contracts, whether you’re in a university or Fortune 500 company. While the research itself may follow the scientific method and lead to unbiased results, politics determines the fate of those results. For example, the carbon dioxide level is currently about 400 parts per million (ppm). For the last 650,000 to about 1950, the carbon dioxide level never cross the 300 ppm level. However, with the increased use of fossil fuel, such as coal and gasoline, the carbon dioxide level began climbing to its current level. The bad news, it is still climbing. At 500 ppm it is a health hazard to humans.

Well over 90% of the scientific community agrees that global warming is related to the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a “greenhouse” gas that traps heat. As a result, we are seeing the sea level rise and the Gulf of Mexico become a catcher’s mitt for the increased frequency of hurricanes. In addition to the human suffering caused by climate change, there is a financial impact. According to the US Government Accountability Office’s Website, their report “Information on Potential Economic Effects Could Help Guide Federal Efforts to Reduce Fiscal Exposure” projects climate change will cost the US Government “between $4 billion and $6 billion in annual coastal property damages from sea level rise and more frequent and intense storms,” between 2020 and 2039. However, the reality of climate change is being treated as a political issue. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for example, kept three scientists from speaking at the October 23rd Narragansett Bay Estuary Program workshop on the 2017 State of Narragansett Bay and Its Watershed report.

The government has the ability to politicize science by directing research via:

  • University grants
  • Military industrial complex programs
  • Government laboratories/agencies programs
  • Censorship of government scientists

Obviously, science is no longer the pure search for truth regarding natural phenomena. Today’s science follows the government’s roadmap. Acting on results is a political decision, even when life and death are in the balance.

What does all this mean? Science is riddled with politics. Scientists working on government programs have two choices, follow the government roadmap or quit. Let me be clear. I am not talking about defense contract research, which for security reasons must be kept secret. I am talking about fundamental science, such as climate change research, which should proceed without censorship or political agendas.

Unfortunately, the EPA’s mission of “protecting human health and the environment” is now politicized to the point that they will censor government scientists and deny the reality of climate change. Although the World Health Organization estimates that “Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress,” the EPA director, Scott Pruitt, told CNBC that “ “I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.” Pruitt is an attorney, not a scientist. However, he apparently feels comfortable challenging the mass of scientific evidence that contradicts his viewpoint.

Human endeavors tend to always be inherently political, including scientific research. However, politics in science should be confined to interpreting the results, not refuting results that have been widely established via the scientific method. For example, are these irrefutable facts or results open to interpretation:

  1. Greenhouse gasses, like carbon dioxide, trap heat.
  2. Carbon dioxide is increasing dramatically to the point that the amount of heat trapped is causing sea levels to rise and weather extremes, such as droughts and hurricanes.
  3. The increase in carbon dioxide is due to human activity, specifically burning fossil fuels like coal and gasoline.

The bulk of the scientific community would argue they are facts. Is it possible they are wrong? Yes, it is possible. However, government censorship and policies will not set the truth free. As Einstein stated, “ Truth is what stands the test of experience.” If we examine our current experience, we are seeing unprecedented carbon dioxide levels associated with unprecedented climate change. We need to embrace the facts and work on solutions. Governments can censor scientists or deny reality, but Mother Nature will have the final say.

 

A man in an orange shirt signing an autograph for a child wearing a red cap at an outdoor event with people and umbrellas in the background.

EPA Gags Scientists Amid Skyrocketing Climate Change Economic Impact

Categories, climate change, Political, , , , , , , , , ,

In its latest move to silence any discussion of climate change, the Environmental Protection Agency kept three scientists from speaking at a Monday event regarding the health of Narragansett Bay, New England’s largest estuary. The irony is that the EPA is the sole funder of the $600,000 program that published the document, the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program.

However, silencing discussions on climate change is impossible given the unprecedented frequency of environmental disasters. Former EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, who served under President George W. Bush, told CNN that the environmental devastation from the last three hurricanes and droughts that led to forest fires is going to cost US taxpayers upwards of $300 billion dollars. However, Ms. Whitman noted that estimate does not include the devastation in Puerto Rico from hurricane Maria or the current wildfires in Northern California that have already claimed 233,000 acres and 8400 structures. While no one specific environmental disaster can be directly attributed directly to climate change, Ms. Whitman stated, “…scientists say this is what you can expect.”

It is also going to become increasingly difficult to salience discussions on climate change as the cost of dealing with environmental disasters skyrockets. According to the US Government Accountability Office’s Website today, their report “Information on Potential Economic Effects Could Help Guide Federal Efforts to Reduce Fiscal Exposure” projects climate change will cost the US Government “between $4 billion and $6 billion in annual coastal property damages from sea level rise and more frequent and intense storms,” between 2020 and 2039.

The current EPA Director, Scott Pruitt, is under attack, literally. In addition to criticism over his direction of the EPA, Pruitt has received multiple death threats. As a result, Pruitt doubled his security and added a new soundproof booth in his office. According to CNN, this prompted Reps. Peter DeFazio and Grace Napolitano to request the EPA inspector general to investigate potential misuse of taxpayer funds by Pruitt.

Unfortunately, denying the science that underpins climate change is due to human activity will have no effect on the ever-increasing weather extremes. In March, Pruitt stated carbon dioxide is not a “primary contributor” to global warming, a statement that scientists around the globe argue is false. Carbon dioxide is a “greenhouse” gas and traps heat. According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), “Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important heat-trapping (greenhouse) gas, which is released through human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels, as well as natural processes such as respiration and volcanic eruptions.” The current level of carbon dioxide is hovering around 400 parts per million, 100 parts per million higher than any time in the last 650,000 years. Most scientists agree this increase is unequivocally due to human activity. The bad news is that the carbon dioxide level continues to rise. At 500 parts per million, it becomes a health hazard to humans.

Many people think that climate change, specifically global warming, means that it is just going to get slightly warmer around the Earth. However, that is not how it works. Global warming causes weather extremes, similar to the recent frequency of hurricanes and droughts we’ve experienced. It also means loss of coastal lands as the world’s oceans rise due to heat expansion and glacial melting. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):

Global sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2014, global sea level was 2.6 inches above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present). Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch per year.

Higher sea levels mean that deadly and destructive storm surges push farther inland than they once did, which also means more frequent nuisance flooding. Disruptive and expensive, nuisance flooding is estimated to be from 300 percent to 900 percent more frequent within U.S. coastal communities than it was just 50 years ago.

The evidence is clear. The Earth is experiencing climate change due in large part to human activity. The economic impact, in addition to human suffering, is enormous. Removing EPA regulations and denying the science will create more jobs. Unfortunately, those jobs will be in the emergency relief agencies and health agencies.

Book cover titled 'Nanoweapons: Growing Threat to Humanity' by Louis A. Del Monte, featuring a small insect image.

AUSA Book Review of Nanoweapons: A Growing Threat To Humanity

book reviews, Categories, nanotechnology, Nanoweapons, , , , ,

The Association of the United States Army (AUSA) published this book review (for inclusion in the print version of their magazine). The full review is below and a link to the review is on the AUSA website at this URL: https://www.ausa.org/articles/august-2017-book-reviews

Here is the full review:

Nanoweapons: A Growing Threat to Humanity. Louis A. Del Monte. Potomac Books. 244 pages. $29.95

By Scott R. Gourley
Contributing Writer

There are times when a book best serves as the starting point for new discussions or to broaden existing discussions on military technology. Ominous title aside, Nanoweapons: A Growing Threat to Humanity fulfills the role of starting the discussion.

Drawing on three decades of experience as a physicist and business executive leading the development of microelectronics and sensors key to the integrated circuit industry, author Louis A. Del Monte presents a broad look at the emergence of nanotechnology—the science of manipulating materials on an atomic or molecular scale—and the potential implications of “nanoweapons” in future warfare.

In defining the technology, Del Monte offers the criteria used by the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative, which calls for only one dimension of the macroscale product to be in the nanoscale of 1 to 100 nanometers.

“This interpretation opens the door for numerous scientific fields to engage in nanotechnology research and application, including the fields of surface science, organic chemistry, molecular biology, semiconductor physics and microfabrication,” he says, noting that the multidisciplinary research category brings with it “unprecedented optimism and serious concerns.”

The concerns in this book are focused on what he asserts to be the weaponization of the technology and specifically the risk of losing control of those weapons.

After combing through the available open-source literature, the author makes projections about the research, the leading countries involved and what some of those research directions might be. Because of the limited amount of information on nanoweapons research he could uncover, the author asserts it is ongoing classified work and then relies on a level of supposition and conjecture to spotlight hypothetical nanoweapon threats like self-replicating smart nanobots, able to build copies of themselves from raw materials and operating in ways similar to biological viruses.

The rough time frame of 2050 is presented as a possibility for when two “technological singularities” may occur—first, a point when artificially intelligent machines exist that exceed the combined cognitive intelligence of humanity, and then a point when the self-replicating smart nanobots will “have completely changed every aspect of human existence” and “have the potential to render humanity extinct.”

While some readers might dismiss the resulting vignettes as a cross between Terminator and Star Trek, the presentations are based on intriguing open-source threads that the author weaves into an interesting fabric based on his experience with the rapid evolution of integrated circuits. Common supporting caveats include: “My insight suggests,” “speculation on my part,” and “based on publicly available information.”

Those looking for hard data on weapons will not find it in this book. In fact, the author’s commercial background results in occasionally confusing statements that overlook current military realities, such as: “Nanoelectronics and nanosensors have the capability to make artillery projectiles ‘smart,’ meaning that they will have properties that resemble guided missiles.”

However, the author’s insight is founded on a broad technology background and does include many thoughtful suggestions on how categories of nanoweapons could be regulated as extensions of existing arms agreements.

The strength of the book is in establishing awareness and either starting or expanding discussions on some of the issues surrounding the potential of nanoweapons. If the author’s 2050 timeline is correct, this issue is not far in the future. That time frame is more than a decade prior to the planned U.S. retirement of its F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and likely a time when the Army will still employ upgraded models of many current combat systems.

Clearly, it’s not too soon to expand some of the discussion on the warfighting implications resulting from nanotechnology.

A mechanical insect with metal legs and two large barrel-shaped eyes resembling gun barrels.

Will the United States Use Nanoweapons to Resolve the North Korean Crisis?

Categories, nanotechnology, Nanoweapons, North Korea, , , , , , , ,
Unless you’re working in the field, you probably never heard about U.S. nanoweapons. This is intentional. The United States, as well as Russia and China, are spending billions of dollars per year developing nanoweapons, but all development is secret. Even after Pravda.ru’s June 6, 2016 headline, “US nano weapon killed Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, scientists say,” the U.S. offered no response. Earlier this year, May 5, 2017, North Korea claimed the CIA plotted to kill Kim Jong Un using a radioactive nano poison, similar to the nanoweapon Venezuelan scientists claim the U.S. used to assassinate former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. All major media covered North Korea’s claim. These accusations are substantial, but are they true? Let’s address this question.

 

Unfortunately, until earlier this year, nanoweapons gleaned little media attention. However, in March 2017 that changed with the publication of my book, Nanoweapons: A Growing Threat to Humanity (2017 Potomac Books), which inspired two articles. On March 9, 2017, American Security Today published “Nanoweapons: A Growing Threat to Humanity – Louis A. Del Monte,” and on March 17, 2017, CNBC published “Mini-nukes and mosquito-like robot weapons being primed for future warfare.” Suddenly, the genie was out of the bottle. The CNBC article became the most popular on their website for two days following its publication and garnered 6.5K shares. Still compared to other classes of military weapons, nanoweapons remain obscure. Factually, most people never even heard the term. If you find this surprising, recall most people never heard of stealth aircraft until their highly publicized use during the first Iraq war in 1990. Today, almost everyone that reads the news knows about stealth aircraft. This may become the case with nanoweapons, but for now, it remains obscure to the public.

 

Given their relative obscurity, we’ll start by defining nanoweapons. A nanoweapon is any military weapon that exploits the power of nanotechnology. This, of course, begs another question: What is nanotechnology? According to the United States National Nanotechnology Initiative’s website, nano.gov, “Nanotechnology is science, engineering, and technology conducted at the nanoscale, which is about 1 to 100 nanometers.” To put this in simple terms, the diameter of a typical human hair equals 100,000 nanometers. This means nanotechnology is invisible to the naked eye or even under an optical microscope.
If the U.S. chooses to use nanoweapons covertly, they most likely will use:

 

  • Toxic nanoparticles – These are toxic particles a nanoscale diameter, which means their surface area to volume ratio is enormous. What makes them extremely effective as a poison is that they are able to cross biological membranes that their bulk counterparts are unable to cross. Therefore, they can be readily absorbed. They are more toxic than their due to the large surface area to volume ratio, which allows them to be extremely chemically reactive.

 

If the U.S. chooses to use nanoweapons in open conflict with North Korea, it will likely be:

 

  • Nanoelectronic Weapon Systems – Nanoelectronics are integrated circuits with features in the nanoscale. Intel is shipping nanoelectronic microprocessors for use in commercial computer applications. Because of their nanoscale features, they are smaller, faster, and use less power to operate. This makes them ideal for military weapon systems, like guided missiles.

 

The U.S. has a formidable nanoweapons arsenal. Even as they use them covertly and in open conflict, it may not be apparent that the technology that underpins the weapons is nanotechnology, thus making them by definition nanoweapons.

 

When will that change? It will change when something big happens. Imagine billions of toxic nanoparticles released on an adversary’s army, causing death and chaos. This would significantly reduce the adversary’s military effectiveness. In all likelihood, it may take weeks or months for the adversary to determine the cause. Imagine millions of nanobots attacking an adversary’s army, again causing death and chaos. In effect, killer insect-like nanobots would be a technological plague.

 

Ironically, the next big thing in military weapons is small. Barely mentioned in the media, nanoweapons are as effective and lethal as their larger more visible counterparts. In time, a nation’s military might will be a measure of its nanoweapons capabilities, as well as it nuclear and more conventional capabilities. In fact, by the second half of this century, nanoweapon capabilities are likely to determine the superpowers.
A futuristic, sleek turbine engine with a conical front and illuminated blue accents in a dark setting.

Stephen Hawking Proposes Nanotechnology Spacecraft to Reach ‘Second Earth’ in 20 years

Categories, nanotechnology, Nanoweapons, Physics, Technology, Threats to Humankind, , , ,

Renowned physicist Stephen Hawking is proposing a nanotechnology spacecraft that can travel at a fifth of the speed of light. At that speed, it could reach the nearest star in 20 years and send back images of a suspected “Second Earth” within 5 years. That means if we launched it today, we would have our first look at an Earth-like planet within 25 years.

Hawking proposed a nano-spacecraft, termed “Star Chip,” at the Starmus Festival IV: Life And The Universe, Trondheim, Norway, June 18 – 23, 2017. Hawking told attendees that every time intelligent life evolves it annihilates itself with “war, disease and weapons of mass destruction.” He asserted this as the primary reason why advanced civilizations from another part of the Universe are not contacting Earth and the primary reason we need to leave the Earth. His advocates we colonize a “Second Earth.”

Scientific evidence appears to support Hawking’s claim. The SETI Institute has been listening for evidence of extraterrestrial radio signals, a sign of advanced extraterrestrial life, since 1984. To date, their efforts have been futile. SETI claims, rightly, that the universe is vast, and they are listening to only small sectors, which is much like finding a needle in a haystack. Additional evidence that Hawking may be right about the destructive nature of intelligent life comes from experts surveyed at the 2008 Global Catastrophic Risk Conference at the University of Oxford, whose poll suggested a 19% chance of human extinction by the end of this century, citing the top four most probable causes:

  1. Molecular nanotechnology weapons – 5% probability
  2. Super-intelligent AI – 5% probability
  3. Wars – 4% probability
  4. Engineered pandemic – 2% probability

Hawking envisions the nano-spacecraft to be a tiny probe propelled on its journey by a laser beam from Earth, much the same way wind propels sailing vessels. Once it reaches its destination, Hawking asserts, “Once there, the nano craft could image any planets discovered in the system, test for magnetic fields and organic molecules, and send the data back to Earth in another laser beam.”

Would Hawking’s nano-spacecraft work? Based on the research I performed during my career and in preparation for writing my latest book, Nanoweapons: A Growing Threat to Humanity (Potomac Books, 2017), I judge his concept is feasible. However, it would require significant engineering, as well as funding, to move from Hawking’s concept to a working nano-spacecraft, likely billions of dollars and decades of work. However, in Nanoweapons, I described the latest development of bullets that contain nanoelectronic guidance systems that allow the bullets to guide themselves, possibly to shoot an adversary hiding around a corner. Prototypes already exist.

Hawking’s concept is compelling. Propelling a larger conventional spacecraft using a laser would not attain the near light speed necessary to reach a distant planet. Propelling it with rockets would also fall short. According to Einstein’s theory of relativity, a large conventional spacecraft would require close to infinite energy to approach the speed of light. Almost certainly, Hawking proposed a nano-spacecraft for just that reason. Its mass would be small, perhaps measured in milligrams, similar to the weight of a typical household fly.

Hawking’s concept represents a unique application of nanotechnology that could give humanity its first up-close look at an inhabitable planet. What might we see? Perhaps it already harbors advanced intelligent life that chose not to contact Earth, given our hostile nature toward each other. Perhaps it harbors primitive life similar to the beginning of life on Earth. We have no way of knowing without contact.

You may choose to laugh at Hawking’s proposal. However, Hawking is one of the top scientists on Earth and well aware of advances in any branch of science he speaks about. I judge his concerns are well founded and his nano-spacecraft concept deserves serious consideration.

A surreal image of ocean waves crashing onto a road with yellow dividing lines under a cloudy sky.

Record Scorching Temperatures Are Result of Global Warming

Categories, climate change, fossil fuels, , ,

When many people hear about global warming, it conjures images of the world’s temperature getting just a little warmer. NASA’s website asserts, “the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.”

An increase of 1.4° Fahrenheit does not seem extreme. Actually, it seems relatively mild. Unfortunately, that is not how global warming works. We do not experience a slightly mild increase in temperature worldwide. We experience, instead, extremes in climate change. However, when added together they result in an average temperature increase of only 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) across the Earth’s surface.

Cyclical events, such as night, day, change of seasons, precipitation patterns, can fluctuate significantly on a local basis. However, the global temperature depends on how much energy the Earth receives from the Sun, minus the amount it radiates back into space. The amount of energy the Earth receives from the Sun is almost constant over the course of a single year, but does vary significantly with the 11-year sunspot solar cycle. For the most part, the amount of energy the Earth receives from the Sun is predictable. However, the amount of energy radiated by the Earth depends on the chemical composition of the atmosphere, and that is what is causing global warming. The chemical composition of the atmosphere is changing, particularly the increasing amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2). It is the increase in greenhouse gases that is causing the Earth’s temperature to rise. Some refer to this phenomenon as the “greenhouse effect.”   

One or two degrees (Fahrenheit) average temperature change may not appear like a big deal, but historically a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age. Likewise, a one to two degrees increase is now causing the sea level to rise. The sustained increase in temperature between 1880 and 2009 caused the sea level to increase an average of eight inches. The measured sea level increase on the United States East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico is even higher by several inches. Since 1993, the average annual rate of global sea level rise is accelerating. This increase in the average sea level is largely due to melting ice at the polar caps and the thermal expansion (i.e., expansion due to heat) of the ocean. If the current trend continues, recent studies project sea level increases from six to twenty feet by 2100. While six feet sounds manageable, it would represent a loss of land mass for the United States equal to Massachusetts. If the sea level increase is twenty feet, the United States coastline would be unrecognizable and the land loss would equal 48,000 square miles, displacing five percent of the United States population. The same would be true of all countries that border the world’s oceans. While there is still debate regarding how much the sea will rise, none argues the contrary.

In addition, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), seven million people die each year from prolonged exposure to air pollution directly caused by burning fossil fuels. In highly industrialized urban areas, each breath could be equivalent to puffing on a cigarette. We humans may find a way to engineer around this toxic environment by using special air and water filters in our homes, cars, and workplaces. However, numerous species will not be as fortunate. In fact, experts predict that one-fourth of Earth’s species will be heading toward extinction by 2050. By 2100, those same experts warn that humanity may face extinction.

There is little doubt that human activity is playing a significant role in global warming. NASA reports carbon dioxide levels have increased nearly 38 percent as of 2009 and methane levels have increased 148 percent since the 1750 Industrial Revolution. Indeed, for most of the 20th century, atmospheric carbon dioxide averaged in the mid 200 parts per million (ppm). Today, NASA reports it is over 400 ppm and it is on a trajectory that continues to increase.  

Where does all this carbon dioxide come from? The preponderance of evidence argues climate change, air pollution, and acid rain results from burning fossil fuels to power the machines of modern civilization. If you live in modern society, everything you use relies on fossil fuels, in one form or another. For example, consider any product. Fossil fuels may be essential for powering the machines that make the product, be a critical ingredient in the product, and/or be necessary to ship the product to market.

Unless we change the current trajectory of increasing greenhouse gasses, expect climatic disasters, including storms, heat waves, floods, and droughts. Currently, California and Arizona are experiencing scorching temperatures. Tomorrow, wherever you are, it may be your turn to experience a climatic disaster.

Fixing global warming first requires we recognize it is a reality and attributable to human activity. Although many fossil fuel phase-out initiatives are taking place at the state and local levels, in reality, we are a nation unprepared for the inevitable. Some nations, like Sweden, do have a plan to fade out fossil fuels. Most, though, ignore the risks. However, we all share the same planet. When the climate passes the tipping point, it will affect everyone. When air pollution becomes an even more potent killer, it will not discriminate. It will affect everyone.

This is not a political issue or a matter of opinion. It is a scientific issue and a matter of life and death.