Re: Nanotechnology

At 10:47 PM 2/7/97 +0000, you wrote:
>
>I've just about finished reading a book called "NANO!" by Ed Regis,
>which is a fascinating book about nanotechnology(very basicaly, little
>robots building things atom by atom), and wondered if anyone has ever
>considered this as it relates to FT/DSII, or any other wargames.
>
>As far as I've thought about it at the moment, the main advantages it
>would give in FT are ship construction(program the robots to build a
>dirty great big Super Dreadnaught, go away and do something else, then
>come back when the're finished), and damage control (even MP's could be
>repaired, just build new bulkhead's, etc. out of whatever slag was left
>of the old one's).
>
>In the book "Until Releived" by Rick Shelly( ACE Science Fiction ISBN
0-
>441-00019-3, DSII players should read this one), nanotechnology was
used
>to remove all trace of the parasails(ie reduce to their component
atoms)
>used by Special Forces troops prior to a surface assault.
>
>Anybody else have any thoughts on the subject.  I'd be interested to
>know.
>
>-- 
>Thomas Heaney
>
Wired (I think) had an article a few months back about the US military
inviting a bunch of Nanotech guys out to a seminar to discuss the
practical
applications of Nanotechnology on the battlefield.  They came up with
nanos
that eat rubber (ever try to drive a jeep without wheels, or use a
computer
without insulated wires?), or turn gasoline into a useless, gelatanious
substance.  They talked about nanos that would guard soldiers from the
effects of biochem warfare, as well as speed healing them.  From what I
recall of the article, most of the scientists seemed a little bored with
the
seminar, since this kind of stuff is still quite far from being a
reality,
but the Defence Department seemed to love it.  My tax dollars at work, I
guess.
	As far as playing with nanotechnology, I personally tend to
dismiss
nanotechnology altogether.  It just seems just a little too much like
magic
to me (as sufficently advanced technologies are wont to do, according to
Clarke), and I haven't really seen much in terms of hard science to
successfully engage my suspension of disbelief.

That's my two cents,

Tre