Upload
david-koepsell
View
61
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Vermelding onderdeel organisatie
April 13, 2023
1
Nanotech, Innovation, and SecurityThe case for openness
SPT 2011, Denton, TX
David Koepsell, Kateřina Staňková
Delft University of Technology
April 13, 2023 2
Threats from emerging technologies
• States have sought to balance need for open inquiry with fears of proliferating “dual use” technologies
• Two underlying, uncontroversial assumptions:• Science requires openness, • but deadly technologies threaten peace and
must be contained
April 13, 2023 3
Threats from emerging technologies
• Science does require openness, but• do deadly technologies threaten peace and
must they be contained?• Must we accept the assumption that
containment is• Moral, and• Effective?
April 13, 2023 4
Threats from emerging technologies
• Current strategies of containment are built on cold-war reaction to spread of nuclear technologies
• The US, having perfected, used and then failing to contain the technology then seeks international sturctures to criminalize its materials and development by non-nuclear states
Containment is immoral
• States holding WMD demand other states comply with non-proliferation
• This is a form of blackmail, essentially, as the WMD possessors, while promising to reduce their weapons over time have never promised to eliminate their stores.
• Possessory states lack the moral authority to demand compliance with non-proliferation regimes
April 13, 2023 5
Containment is immoral
• Containment assumes that those in possession of weapons are ethically privileged
• Containment may also impede or hinder legitimate research by erecting barriers that make that research costly or impractical.
• Privileged nations holding potentially dangerous technology write the rules. This raises issues of distributive justice.
April 13, 2023 6
Containment is ineffective
• States seeking WMD do best to pursue their research in secret, and then emerge with a functioning program only to blackmail other nations on the promise of abandoning their weapons program in exchange for aid, or other reward
• New WMD will be even easier to conceal, and verification protocols and success will become even harder
April 13, 2023 7
April 13, 2023 8
Cold War MAD strategy
• Assumes: A first strike must not be capable of preventing a retaliatory second strike or else mutual destruction is not assured. In this case, a state would have nothing to lose with a first strike; or might try to preempt the development of an opponent's second-strike capability with a first strike (i.e., decapitation strike).
April 13, 2023 9
Cold War MAD strategy
• To avoid this, countries may design their nuclear forces to make decapitation strikes almost impossible, by dispersing launchers over wide areas and using a combination of sea-based, air-based, underground, and mobile land-based launchers.
• Also resulted in mixed strategy (destabilizing) like MIRVs and ABMs
April 13, 2023 10
Cold War MAD strategy
• This assumption leads to a bi-polar, multi-strategy arms race (in bi-polar world). This assumption also makes N-player (N>2) games more stable.
• Retaliatory strikes by N-players decrease potential for effective first strikes with dispersal of weapons among states.
• Nash equilibrium of cold-war (essentially 2-player) standoff is demonstrably less stable than N-player standoff
April 13, 2023 11
Containment is also risky…
• Isn’t it risky to allow proliferation beyond a few, responsible states?
• Game-theoretic approach to the problem.• Cold War strategies were devised through
applying game theory, but it was a two-player game
• N-person games show that 2-person game is more risky…
April 13, 2023 12
Game-theoretic formulation of the problem
• an N-person noncooperative game with countries as players, defined by: • set of players • decision variable for each player • represents “to not attack”• represents “to attack with full force”
• objective function for each player (to be maximized) , dependent on expected decisions of the others:
April 13, 2023 13
Game-theoretic formulation of the problem
• Structure of the objective function for player i :
• - profit from attacking• - costs to develop and use weapons• - costs that country
$i$ expects to pay for attacking ("punishment'')
April 13, 2023 14
Game-theoretic formulation of the problem
• profit from attacking
- increasing with- zero for - concave with (“risk
averse”)
- impact factor of the attack
April 13, 2023 15
Game-theoretic formulation of the problem
• costs to develop and use the weapons
- increasing with- zero for
- importance factor of the attack costs
April 13, 2023 16
Game-theoretic formulation of the problem
• “punishment”
- zero if no attack takes place, increasing with attack force - expected risk-aversion of other players
- expected strength of the punishment from j
April 13, 2023 17
Game-theoretic formulation of the problem
The profit for i is then
To simplify the analysis, we assume: Player i does not distinguish between other players. Therefore, the expected punishment actiondoes not differ for individual countries.
April 13, 2023 18
Game-theoretic formulation of the problem
Then it can be shown that if , (1)i.e., if the punishment strength is bigger than the surplus of player i from attacking (defined as a difference between impact factor of the attack minus costs of the attack),player i will choose , i.e. to not attack.
Normalized version of (1) with respect to the number of weapons is
April 13, 2023 19
Game-theoretic formulation of the problem
LemmaIf , resp. (normalized version) for each , then constitutes a Nash equilibrium of the game.
Please note that higher the number N is, higher chance that holds, as all other parameters are fixed a priori.
Game-theoretic formulation of the problem
• I f the red curve is above the green curve player i will attack
• Occurrence of such event decreases with increasing N, also for a nontrivial situation
conclusions
• It is in fact less risky to allow proliferation because the costs of a first strike increase monotonically with respect to the number of states with weapons.
• Multi-polar strategies become more limited. As opposed to cold-war stalemate,which actually resulted in arms-race and mixed-strategies, a free market in weapons, and unlimited number of states with weapons, results in greater stability.
conclusions
• This does nothing to prevent terrorism, but we assume that terrorism will occur anyway.
• Non-proliferation regimes apply mostly to states, as nothing except good intelligence work can locate and try to prevent terrorist use of WMD
• Free, open, and hopefully transparent work on development of next-generation WMD will be consistent with ethos of science, and ultimately less risky than attempts to stifle proliferation.