http://www.dana.org/news/danapressbo...l.aspx?id=3272

go to link to read entire subjects: the book is called - BRAIN WARS...

On the Strategic Advantages of Enhancing the Brain and Nervous System

In a sense, all warfare ultimately happens between our ears. If opponents believe they have been defeated, then that becomes the reality, hence the military’s investment in psychological operations, such as propaganda leaflets and disinformation, despite their uncertain payoffs. But if targeted interventions are made possible by the greatly enhanced knowledge of the brain and nervous system now being generated at a feverish pace in our top neuroscience labs, complemented by ingenious new engineering and pharmacologic products, the battle of the brain will have truly begun.

The powers that can claim the advantage and establish a ‘neurotechnology gap’ between themselves and their adversaries will establish both tactical and strategic advantages that can render them dominant in the twenty-first century.



On the Conflict Between Objective Scientific Research, Government Aims, and Highly Classified Conditions

The relationship between science and the national security state in the context of a war on terror is still unfolding. Unlike the post-World War II era, when scientists who had eagerly joined the war effort saw military-related funding as a continuation of their previous employment, today significant distance lies between much of the scientific establishment and defense organizations. First, science has many other funding sources, including venture capital, that were not important players in the 1950s. Second, cultural differences between scientists and military officials bring with them a degree of mutual skepticism, if not outright suspicion, that was not the case fifty years ago, before Vietnam and Watergate. Third, unlike the experience of physics with the atomic and hydrogen bomb projects, the life sciences have not had much experience with operating under highly classified conditions. Many important researchers and their institutions chafe under security constraints, including not only sequestering their data but also tightening rules on the handling of pathogens in their labs and limiting visas for graduate students from abroad.



Robots as Soldiers: Science Fiction or the Reality of the Future?

Here’s a science fiction scenario: an army of robots capable of movement nearly as precise as that of a human soldier, each controlled by an individual hundreds or even thousands of miles away. These automata could undertake actions that would be foolhardy for human beings but worth the tactical risk for machines; because they are controlled by people, they would have the benefit of creativity that might limit even the most advanced android. But the old-fashioned remote control scenario would have the operator pushing buttons or moving levers while seeing on a monitor what the robot is seeing, a method that would be far too clumsy for the instantaneous reactions often required in combat. What is wanted is a technology that would allow the robot to respond as soon as the distant operator does. . . . Ultimately, decades from now, human abilities could be augmented so that combat soldiers could have vastly more powerful and faster robotic arms and legs, and pilots could control vehicles through intentional thought alone. Warfighters, intelligence offers, medics, and rescuers could wirelessly manage legions of robots through direct communication between the human brains and on-board artificial brains.



On Creating the Perfect Soldier: The 21st-century Warfighter

“The human being is the oldest instrument of warfare and also its weakest link. Although astonishing and terrifying “improvements” have been made in the devices of conflict over the millennia, soldiers are still basically the same. They must eat, sleep, detect danger, discern friend from foe, heal when wounded, and so forth. The first state (or nonstate actor) able to build better soldiers using medical enhancement technologies will have taken an enormous leap in the arms race. The concept of “an army of one” and the recent shift from soldier to “warfighter” in the military lexicon . . . are tied into the goal of building a more self-sufficient individual warrior. However better soldiers are built – and there’s good reason to believe that the warfighter of the late twenty-first century will be enhanced – the fighter’s brain will have been the object of great interest...

Should we build better soldiers through ‘artificial’ enhancements? Is there even a valid distinction to be drawn between artificial and ‘natural’ enhancements such as exercise and discipline? Aren’t we just trying to gain whatever advantages we can as nations have always tried to do, or are these techniques cheating nature? Can we manage the consequences, or are the risks for the individual and for our society too great?



Forgive and Forget?: On Increasing the Brain’s Capacity to Remember

The introduction of a new memory storage system and bypassing our evolutionarily developed hippocampus raise the question whether our usual ability to slough off unneeded memories will be threatened, resulting in a cacophony of useless data that could drive one to distraction. Forgetting is often annoying but mostly adaptive, even a great relief. In the film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, ex-lovers undergo a high-tech brain-erasing procedure to forget about the pain of their breakup. In a literally touching moment in Star Trek, Mr. Spock engages in an (unconsented) Vulcan mind-meld with Captain Kirk to help him forget a tragic love affair. Less romantically, undercover agents would benefit from the ability to lose their memories upon capture. Neuropsychologists have already found that deliberate memory loss among victims of parental abuse is both a demonstrable phenomenon (they are not “lying” when they say they don’t recall) and a very effective defense mechanism. As the philosopher Bernard Williams has put it, “Forgetting is the most beneficial process we possess.”



On Disarming Opponents Through Disruption of the Human Brain

Proponents of “nonlethal” weapons (NLWs) claim that they will obviate the need to kill or maim. These weapons are actively being sought by all branches of the U.S. military and come in a dazzling variety of forms: calmatives or “incapacitants” – chemicals that put people to sleep; acoustic and light-pulsing devices that disrupt cognitive and neural processes; odors so disgusting they sicken; sudden colored fog that creates panic; optical equipment that causes temporary blindness; and mechanisms that stimulate nerve endings as though they are fire, among dozens of others. A striking fact about this list is that all are related to the human brain and nervous system.... Growing concerns about terrorism have fed interest in NLWs. Contemporary arms and stockpiles have typically been designed for fighting between nation-states. The use of conventional nonnuclear and nuclear weapons in the places terrorists like to operate would result in high levels of noncombatant casualties that may be politically as well as morally unacceptable