Enabling Battlespace Persistent Surveillance: The Form, Function and Future of Smart Dust - Military Warfare 2025 In Effect?

Enabling Battlespace Persistent Surveillance: The Form, Function, and Future of Smart Dust April 2007 Authors: Scott A. Dickson

I have the privilege to speak with many brilliant people who understand the current situation from different viewpoints. Next week I will be airing on my show a fantastic interview with weapons expert Mark Steele from the UK. I finally got to ask him so many questions I had for him regarding the metals in the C19 bioweapons and the polymers used for military purposes. This is what inspired me to post this substack article. From a military perspective, what we are seeing in the blood is right out of their textbook. Smart dust was predicted in 2007 to be the cornerstone of military battlefield by 2025, which is just around the corner. Many people understand that right now we are in World War 3. The weapons used are invisible self assembly nanotechnology that is injected through vaccines, sprayed on us via geoengineering, poisons our food and water supply. Smart dust is the same thing as nano robots and biosensors that I have been showing in the human blood and are used for intra body area network. We are the battlespace, and so is the environment. Via bidirectional telemetry, monitoring, assessing and modulating via frequencies, we are under surveillance and these weapons systems have mass casualties as a consequence, known as contributing to sudden vaccine deaths and increased mortality rates. With that in mind, read this document from 2007, discussing the warfare waged on us.

Would irregular warfare described below be warfare directed against the civilian population? You can see the work of Charles Lieber is quoted even then, a popular name now in relationship to the nanotechnology. This document also proves that WBAN did not come from the IEEE, but was developed by the military in their smart dust surveillance system that already discussed biological surveillance as well. Genetics, nanotechnology and robotics are the weapons implicated now.

In 2025, the military's need for persistent surveillance applications will extend beyond current airborne platforms such as Global Hawk and Predator. The future of 2025 contains potential enemies with a material and information focus capable of conducting regular and irregular warfare on foreign lands as well as the continental United States. The U.S. military must invest its energy and money today into researching enabling technologies such as nanotechnology, wireless networks, and micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS). Nanotechnology reduces today's technology to the molecular level. Wireless networks can link people, computers, and sensors beyond the borders of nations without the need for costly hardware-intensive infrastructure. Finally, MEMS have the capability to act as independent or networked sensors. Fused together, these technologies can produce a network of nanosized particles -- Smart Dust -- that can be distributed over the battlefield to measure, collect, and disseminate information, Smart Dust will transform persistent surveillance for the warfighter. The U.S. military should lead the research and development of these enabling technologies so that Smart Dust will be a viable application by 2025.

Throughout military operations, intelligence of the operational environment dictates the level of mission success or failure since it shapes the decision-making process of military leaders. “By ‘intelligence’, we mean every sort of information about the enemy and his country—the basis, in short, of our own plans and operations.”² According to joint doctrine, “…the fusion of all-source intelligence along with the integration of sensors, platforms, command organizations, and logistic support centers allows a greater number of operational tasks to be accomplished faster, and enhances awareness of the operational environment — a key component of information superiority.”³ Without doubt, future warfare requires information superiority.

Therefore, to develop, benefit, and prepare for uses of future intelligence technologies, United States military leaders must understand the contexts of current enabling technologies including their possible capabilities and their limitations. “The future GNR (Genetics, Nanotechnology, Robotics) age will come about not from the exponential explosion of computation alone but rather from the interplay and myriad synergies that will result from multiple intertwined technological advances.”⁴ In this complex system-of-systems world, combinations of enabling technologies produce powerful and effective technological applications. One application, from the fusion of nanotechnology, wireless sensor networks, and microelectronic mechanical systems (MEMS), is Smart Dust, networked molecular particles capable of measuring, collecting, and sending information remotely.

The combination of nanotechnology, wireless sensor networks, and MEMS forms a new meaning to network-centric warfare while creating a new application of persistent surveillance beyond current systems, such as Global Hawk and Predator. This combination, Smart Dust, creates a wireless network of nanoscaled sensors, called motes, across a battlespace, like dust on furniture, yielding real-time information about enemy or friendly movements, habits, and intentions.

Historically, the US deployed this concept in Vietnam using 1960-era technology under the auspices of Igloo White as part of the informal McNamara barrier.⁵ In January 1968, the sensors contributed to the defense of the Marines at Khe Sanh; “the sensors were very effective in tracking the enemy at Khe Sanh—even the Marines said so—but, when the siege lifted in April, work on the barrier did not resume.”⁶ Later, used to support interdiction of the Ho Chi Minh Trail, “the sensors—a network of some 20,000 of them—were planted mostly by Navy and Air Force airplanes, although some of them were placed by special operations ground forces.”⁷ While Igloo White’s impact is debatable, the Air Force reported Igloo White had a contributory effect on interdiction operations.

Today’s technology makes this concept even more effective. The Smart Dust project at the University of California-Berkeley created a mote measuring the size of a grain of rice.⁸ Earthscope, a $200 million project sponsored by the National Science Foundation, deposited 400 mobile devices designed to “move east in a wave from California across the nation over the course of a decade.”⁹ Additionally, as part of a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) information sensor technology demonstration called SensIT, the University of

Berkeley and the United States Marines deployed six motes from an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) which formed a wireless network, sensed a moving vehicle, and reported its data to the orbiting UAV.¹⁰

Militarily, leaders demand this capability. Michael W. Wynne, Secretary of the Air Force, calls its spherical situational awareness, “a new habit of thought and joint and coalition operational capabilities--a comprehensive view, at once vertical and horizontal, real-time and predictive, penetrating and defended in the cyber-realm.”¹¹ According to the United States Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR), General Deptula, “the biggest challenge facing Air Force intelligence today is similar to that of the rest of the intelligence community—understanding the intent, strategy and plans of a potential adversary.”¹² From this guidance, the Air Force Research Laboratory declared unprecedented proactive reconnaissance and surveillance as an Air Force-focused long-term challenge.¹³ In regards to the future, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen Hugh Shelton said, “…future trends — such as the weaponization of information technologies or the increased probability of combat operations in urban terrain — foreshadow a dramatic growth in requirements for the fine- grained, time sensitive intelligence collection and analysis.”¹⁴ Network-centric persistent surveillance applications, such as Smart Dust, aim to deliver contextual information on the adversary more completely, quickly, and reliably than other ISR methods.

Strategically, Smart Dust has strong application to the arenas of battlespace awareness, homeland security, and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) identification. The 2004 National Military Strategy outlines decision superiority through enhanced battlespace awareness and states, “Developing the intelligence products to support this level of awareness requires collection systems and assured access to air, land, sea, and space-based sensors.”¹⁵ Smart Dust is a tailorable collection system supporting battlefield awareness. Furthermore, the 2005 Strategy

for Homeland Defense and Civil Support describes an active layered defense relying “on early warning of an emerging threat in order to quickly deploy and execute a decisive response.”¹⁶ Smart Dust could provide this early warning. Additionally, the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review highlighted the capability for “persistent surveillance over wide areas to located WMD capabilities or hostile forces.”¹⁷ Configured with the correct sensors, Smart Dust provides a localized WMD detection layer supplementing US global detection equipment.¹⁸ While future scenarios will change the most appropriate use of Smart Dust, the applicability of Smart Dust to current and long-lasting challenges is undeniable.

Doctrinally, Smart Dust offers the advantages of ubiquity, flexibility, timeliness, and persistence of intelligence to military leaders, planners, and operators. The molecular size of motes minimizes their noticeable footprint providing access to locations normally unavailable to traditional persistent surveillance applications while still covering a large area at reasonable cost. Information delivered on demand at the speed of electronic communication to the strategic, operational, and tactical levels of warfare turns planning and execution unknowns into reliable facts.¹⁹ Furthermore, equipping each mote with different types of sensors offers instantaneous information flexibility for analysis conducted by soldiers in the field or analysts via reachback.

Eric J. Drexler, a renown proponent of nanotechnology, envisioned a world where nanoscaled robots, commonly called ‘nanites’, manipulated and controlled matter similar to living cells. “...Having gained control of the cell’s molecular machinery, one could use it the same way that engineers did normal-size machines: making materials, structures, tools, and more machines.”²² From his 1987 book Engines of Creation, this concept of self-replicating nanites became the cornerstone of nanotechnology and grant money surged. While his vision drove the popularity of nanotechnology, some scientists believed his concept was too grandiose and without immediate practical application.

For Smart Dust, most of nanotechnology’s limitations revolve around the scaling of objects to the nano level since this type of surveillance technology already exists at the micro level. Specifically, these limitations include reducing power supplies, assembly apparatus, and sensors. To address energy concerns, scientists have reduced the size of power supplies while increasing available power density.                 “For example, researchers at Cornell University have created a cubic-millimeter-sized battery that can supply power for decades by drawing energy from radioactive isotopes, such as nickel-63.”²⁴       The Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) Micro Power Sources program explores new battery architectures, the use of new materials and their corresponding chemistries, and the incorporation of energy harvesting to maintain energy densities in substantially smaller volumes.²⁵ While reducing batteries to the nano  level  is  achievable,  the  amount  of  available  energy  limits  the  utility  of  some nanotechnology applications, such as persistent surveillance.

To overcome the power output limitation, engineers currently offer three possibilities: miniaturized motors, protein engines, or imperceptible vibrations.  Since scaling laws prohibit

the use of magnetic forces, some scientists are tapping electrostatic forces to power these miniature motors.²⁶In 2003, physicists at the University of California at Berkeley successfully created the first electrostatic nanomotor utilizing carbon nanotubes and a gold rotor.

The motor was about 200 nanometers across or, compared to something tangible, 300 times smaller than the diameter of a human hair.²⁷ This achievement demonstrated the feasibility of using nanotubes as bearings, a necessary step in the creation of electrostatic engines. Groups of scientists, led by Carlo Montenagno of Cornell University and Viola Vogel of the University of Washington, reported the ability to harness the power from protein motors in living cells to twirl microscopic plastic beads.²⁸ Finally, “Paul Wright of UC Berkeley and his doctoral student Shad Roundy have developed tiny devices that can generate up to 200 microwatts from low-level vibrations that are commonplace in buildings, pumps, air-conditioning ducts, and even microwave ovens.”²⁹ To develop Smart Dust, military leaders should support and fund research in nanoscaled power supplies.

While no one has announced the creation of an electrostatic or biological nanoengine, the success of the nanomotor highlighted another nanotechnology limitation--assembly. To produce higher order devices, manufacturers need measuring and assembly equipment capable of manipulating nanoscaled objects. In the Berkeley motor demonstration, the physicists quantified the frequency of the motor at 30 times per second because the scanning electronic microscope was unable to capture pictures any faster. The full capability of the motor was probably faster, but without appropriate measuring equipment, verification is not possible. In addition, the assembly techniques and equipment used by Berkeley physicists do not support mass production of nanomotors. Although mass production techniques exist to produce large quantities of carbon nanotubes, scientists need to develop assembly capabilities and equipment to produce large quantities of nanoscaled objects cheaply and efficiently. Military support and funding should include research into nanotechnology measurement and manufacturing.

Another challenge involves reducing sensors to the nano scale while not adversely influencing their frequency, sensitivity, or resolution. In the Berkeley example, the SEM was unable to capture images at a faster frequency. However, Charles M. Lieber of the Air Force Research Laboratory created an Integrated Nanoscale Nanowire Correlated Electronic Technology (INNOCENT) system with the sensitivity of detecting chemical or biological threats at concentrations of only 100 parts per billion. It seems only a matter of time before scientists reduce workable micro-sensors to the nano level. To further development, the military should continue funding research and manufacture of nanoscaled sensors.

WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS

Enabled by nanotechnology, wireless sensor networks form the ubiquitous backbone to each Smart Dust mote. Simply defined, wireless sensor networks are “groups of devices that send data from sensors to a central application using wireless protocols.”³⁰  These protocols allow two-way communication to collect and disseminate information via data packets between motes. The motes of a wireless sensor network (Fig 1) include a transmitter/receiver, a central processor, coordination software, sensors, and a power supply.     Depending on the application, the transmitter/receiver can send and receive data via radio frequencies, modulated light, MEMS movement, physical orientation, or color shifts. At the heart, coordination software utilizes the hardware of the central processor to process the data, route communications, or reconfigure the

network. The MEMS sensors, discussed further later, are capable of capturing temperature, pressure, vibration, acceleration, light, magnetic, or acoustical data. Finally, the power supply energizes all of these components.

In addition to the physical devices of a wireless network, the topology of the network (Fig 2) affects the network’s effectiveness. The most common topologies are the hub-and-spoke and the mesh. In a hub-and-spoke model, one of the motes acts as a clearinghouse for all of the data of the network. In a mesh arrangement, each mote acts as an independent agent: gathering its own data, passing or storing data of its neighbors, or reporting all of its stored data when polled.

Depending  on  the  application,  engineers tailor the topology and different sections of the mote to overcome any technological limitations.

For example, power availability, as mentioned earlier, limits the effectiveness of the wireless sensor network in a Smart Dust application. To this end, scientists have developed coordination software protocols to minimize energy consumption. One protocol, called sleep-awake, utilizes some motes in the network as sentries and activates the rest of the network if the sentries detect a sudden change in the data.³¹ The sentry wakes up once a second, spending about .05 of a millisecond collecting data from its sensors and another 10 milliseconds exchanging data with neighboring motes.³² In the remainder of each second, the mote consumes no power. During one experiment with 5% of deployed motes serving as sentries and the non-sentries operating at a 4% duty cycle, the algorithm extended the lifetime of a sensor network up to 900%.³³ In another possible protocol, motes, using their location from a GPS, relay data to the mote closest to the final destination. This relay minimizes the transmission distance of each mote conserving a mote’s limited power supply for the benefit of the entire network.

Despite these advances in energy conservation, technological challenges remain for wireless networks. Fortunately, within the context of Smart Dust, scientists must solve only a subset of these limitations. Specifically, the requirements for coordination of a large quantity of motes over varied terrain highlight the limitations of transmission reliability, race conditions, and false alarm handling.

The usefulness of a network depends on the reliability of the delivered information, commonly called transmission reliability, despite interference from the operational environment. Current studies show up to a 20% loss in delivery of transmission packets due to all types of interference. Just as aircraft reliability improved from the days of the Wright Brothers to today, the reliability of wireless network equipment will improve with popularity, development, and time. However, to ensure reliable operation independent of the operating environment, scientists are experimenting with the coordination software of the motes. “There is no such thing as a reliable network, unless you do very aggressive network management.”³⁴ One solution relies on motes repeatedly broadcasting their reception or equipment status. In this manner, other motes can isolate the unreliable mote until its reliability improves. To develop Smart Dust, the military should research alternative methods of increasing transmission reliability of wireless networks.

ETHICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND BIOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

With any technology, the rigor of science demands an examination of the ethical, environmental, and biological impacts to society. Unfortunately, profit or ignorance occasionally hinders this review and betrays American’s high degree of confidence in science.⁴⁸ In the case of enabling technologies looking to revolutionize the way Americans live, curtailing this examination could prove fatal to the development of the technology, our environment, or our society.

As one of the largest ethical roadblocks, the use of large-scale aggregate surveillance data to infringe on an individual’s privacy threatens the development of persistent surveillance applications. The intense fervor generated from the introduction of the US Patriot Act and Privacy Act demonstrates the high level of governmental and public interest regarding privacy.

Persistent surveillance for the public good… without your knowing of course, by them spraying smart dust via geoengineering and putting it into vaccines.

As Mr. Chaudhari of IBM Watson Center said best, “In the United States, for example, the right to privacy is protected by the law (the law of torts), enshrined in the constitution (first, fourth and fifth amendments), and underpinned by a philosophy (Adam Smith) generally embraced by the people.”⁴⁹ Although the issue of privacy is complex, the US military should ensure the use of persistent surveillance data is for the public good, i.e. preventing another 9/11, rather than its detriment.

Current societal research in the US and the UK validates this concern. When presented with five potential nanotechnology risks, 32 percent of respondents chose “losing personal privacy to tiny new surveillance devices” as the most important risk in a 2004 US survey.⁵⁰ In a 2004 UK study, negative reactions to nanotechnology also included concerns for privacy, especially “nanotechnology enabled surveillance equipment to be made that was invisible to the naked eye.”⁵¹

While past governmental invasions of privacy adversely affect perceptions, future positive actions and education prevent the buildup of negative perceptions. A decade ago, Britain installed sixty remote controlled video cameras in high crime areas within the city of King’s Lynn reducing crime to 1.4 percent of previous levels. “Today, over 250,000 cameras are in place throughout the United Kingdom, transmitting round-the-clock images to a hundred constabularies, all of them reporting decreases in public misconduct.”⁵² While these cameras observed public places, mobile nanoscaled cameras or sensors risk invading private places. Fifty-five percent of Americans surveyed in a 2005 nanotechnology survey felt government regulation beyond voluntary safety regulations would be necessary to control the risks associated with nanotechnology.⁵³  While some privacy legislation exists, the military should advocate refining privacy legislation on the monitoring of individuals, especially within private places. Additionally, the Department of Defense must examine laws of armed conflict and other regulations regarding the monitoring of individuals to determine Smart Dust’s potential impact on them, especially in the wake of human rights concerns at Abu Grahib. Furthermore, since the acceptance of privacy-reducing technology depends on the public’s perception of its benefit, the US government should measure public reaction to these technologies, especially nanotechnology, through sponsored surveys every five years to redirect research and public educational efforts.

In addition to ethical concerns, the environmental effects of nanotechnology could limit the development of persistent surveillance applications. The dispersal of non-biodegradable nanoscaled particles throughout an environment potentially alters the soil content, water sources, plants, and animal food pyramids. Additionally, depending on the coalescing characteristics of the particles, negative impacts to water treatment plants and other infrastructure will require repair during stability operations. If determined to alter nature’s food chain, the long-term effects on the environment are disastrous.

The lack of current knowledge on the environmental consequences drives this fear. “There remains virtually no data on the potential negative impacts of nanomaterials on the environment. Research into the ecotoxicology is urgently required.”⁵⁴ Of the ten billion dollars spent on nanotechnology research in 2005, the United States and European Union spent only 39 million dollars on issues effecting the environment and health.⁵⁵      According to the United Nations Environment Programme, “…it is impossible to say with any certainty whether nanomaterials, which can be constructed from virtually any chemical structure, are similar to natural nanoparticles (which are mostly neutral or mildly toxic) or vastly different and therefore cause for concern.”⁵⁶

With humans at the top of the food chain, the risk of ingesting nanosized particles, through consumption, inhalation, or skin absorbtion, concerns health professionals. When the US chooses to deploy weapons, it accepts the legal and economic responsibility for the unintended side effects of those weapons on both enemy and friendly forces. For example, the repercussions caused by the release of Agent Orange in Vietnam are a case in point. While the scientific consensus today dispels veteran’s claims, comprehensive initial research by military or private companies may have prevented or mitigated the liability.⁵⁷

They certainly already knew way back when about adverse health effects - especially lungs and brain.

Current research regarding the toxicity of nanoparticles suggests caution despite inconclusive results. Increased since 2004, toxicity research exposes microbes, fish, and rats to fullerenes and other nanoparticles. All of the current research shows some effect, such as damaged brain cells or adverse reactions within the lungs.⁵⁸ “Research indicated a plethora of problems associated with inhalation of ultra-fine and nanosized particles, including fibrosis or scarring, the abnormal thickening of brachioles, the presence of neutrofils (inflammatory cells), dead macrophages, and some chemical hitchhiking (metals and hydrocarbons).”⁵⁹ However, conclusions on the effects to humans were inconclusive because of exposure method, instillation rather than inhalation, or using uncommon nanoparticles.⁶⁰ In some cases, chemical means of altering the surface of nanoparticles reduced toxicity levels.⁶¹

For these reasons, the military should fund or conduct more ingestion experiments to confirm, deny, or alleviate the toxic effects of nanotechnology. Unfortunately, the results of some research are not available to the public, “either for competitive reasons or because of the costs of preparing the data for publication in scientific journals.”⁶² Despite the possible consequences, corporations and government agencies need to release their independent research. According to the president of Japan’s National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), “…we can no longer limit the execution and evaluation of our research to a closed community of researchers but must open it up to society as a whole.”⁶³ This type of open- source environment could foster collaborative research into potential solutions to ingestion problems. Furthermore, US agencies need to adopt regulations concerning the handling of nanoscaled particles, especially in manufacturing, until proven completely safe. While the National Science Foundation’s FY 2008 budget request included 62.92 million to research environmental and social dimensions of nanotechnology, this amount only represents a 6% increase from FY 2007.⁶⁴ To realize Smart Dust, military leaders should support continued research into the societal consequences of these enabling technologies.

FUTURE FORECASTING

Along with the current state of nanotechnology, wireless sensor networks, and MEMS, military leaders must also understand the future and its influence on fusing these technologies into Smart Dust. According to a RAND futures study, “Various technologies—including biotechnology, nanotechnology (broadly defined), materials technology, and information technology—have the potential for significant and dominant global impacts by 2020.”⁶⁵ To realize these impacts and the possibility of Smart Dust in 2025, each technology must mature and overcome its limitations.

One method of exploratory forecasting is scenario building, which provides the futurist a potential range of future scenarios to explore. “The purpose of scenarios is to systematically explore, create, and test both possible and desirable future conditions. Exploratory or descriptive scenarios describe events and trends as they could evolve based on alternative assumptions on how these events and trends may influence the future.”⁶⁸ The key to successful scenario building is identification of the driving factors encompassing the uncertainty of the future in 2025.

In earlier Blue Horizons research, Myers and Luker presented eight possible future scenarios for 2025 involving state and non-state actors.Analysis of the future concerning state actors highlighted type of warfare and technology focus as key driving factors.Combinations of these factors yielded four state actor scenarios: David & Goliath, The Phantom Menace, Wishful Thinking, and Information Immobilization (Fig 5).⁶⁹

According to Myers’ analysis, a state actor’s preference for conflict location and technological nature shapes the future threat environment with the United States. Examining these scenarios highlights the use, development, and limitations on the employment of Smart Dust against state actors.

In an Information Immobilization future, the information dominance of the opponent mandates US’ development and use of persistent surveillance technology like Smart Dust to negate their potential asymmetric advantage. Smart Dust allows US strategists to leverage a near-instantaneous regional common operating picture (COP) to direct attacks or counter actions faster or at the same speed of the enemy. Additionally, a localized COP supports regular warfare with a complete intelligence picture of friendly, enemy, and civilian personnel and ground equipment. Smart Dust, coupled with the future precision of US combined arms, minimizes collateral damage to both personnel and buildings.

This seemed to be the scenario we find ourselves in:

In the David and Goliath scenario, US Smart Dust employment will center on monitoring an adversary’s assets to determine the direction and type of irregular warfare, such as cyber, space, insurgent, or terrorist attacks. Depending on the type of embedded sensors, dispersal of Smart Dust over known enemy locations will aid in collecting visual, measurement, or signal intelligence to determine enemy intentions. In 2003, Dr Akos Ledeczi of Vanderbilt University, with funding from DARPA, successfully used over 200 MICA2 motes (Fig 6) in an urban

environment to locate the position of a gun shot within two seconds with an average accuracy of one meter.⁷² As opposed to observing nuclear, biological, or chemical testing from space, Smart Dust supports a lower level of granularity of information regarding readiness levels of adversaries.  This improved data will enhance US military officials’ decision-making process and offers an earlier decision opportunity to conduct prevention or preemption efforts against irregular warfare attacks.

They were concerned about American insurgency back then projected for 2025.

In the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, Donald Rumsfeld characterized the era of transformation as a shift in emphasis. “In this era, characterized by uncertainty and surprise, examples of this shift in emphasis include: from nation-state threats – to decentralized network threats from non-state enemies, from conducting war against nations – to conducting war in countries we are not at war with (safe havens), from an emphasis on ships, guns, tanks and planes – to focus on information, knowledge and timely, actionable intelligence.”⁷³ Myers translated Rumsfeld’s vision into warfare scenarios against non-state actors framed by geographic location and technological focus: Cyber 911, Blind Battlefield, American Insurgency, and Guerillas in the Mist. An examination of the use and growth of persistent surveillance applications such as Smart Dust within these scenarios highlights recommendations for senior leaders. In a Cyber 911 future, the United States will need ISR data on the non-state actor executing information-dominant warfare, such as cyber attacks, on our soil. Possible US applications of Smart Dust include tracking cyber insurgents, monitoring key infrastructure, and consequence management operations. Depending on the type of sensor employed, dispersal of a wireless sensor network on the actual bodies, vehicles, or computer equipment of cyber

insurgents could provide vital tactical information, such as location and numbers, to support counterinsurgency operations. These networks could protect key hardened information infrastructure by notifying homeland defense personnel of unauthorized entrance or access. While wireless sensor networks provide little protection regarding virtual aspects of a cyber attack, modification of the software aspects of the wireless network, specifically the coordination software, could coordinate and present virtual situational awareness about nodes in the US information network.

They were concerned that electromagnetic pulses would harm the smart dust motes:

Unless motes contain electromagnetic protection, electromagnetic pulses could destroy vast areas of the Smart Dust network. Additionally, once the United States utilizes Smart Dust, the cyber terrorist could undermine its use with an information operations campaign exploiting the public’s privacy concerns. To maintain Smart Dust’s asymmetric advantage, the United States needs to mount an effective information operations campaign now and in the future to educate the public on the benefits of Smart Dust to their way of life.

They certainly were planning to surveil the US population:

Smart Dust offers a low observable ISR asset providing detailed information on the insurgents and the US populace.

In similar fashion to American Insurgency, this scenario offers a low benefit of growth to Smart Dust but receives the greatest benefit from its existence. As evidenced from our lack of good human intelligence (HUMINT) in Iraq and Afghanistan, developing human relationships with non-state actors on foreign soil is difficult. Smart Dust, configured with relevant sensors, enhances the intelligence provided by HUMINT.

In conclusion, Smart Dust is achievable by 2025 based on the current state of the enabling technologies and the potential future scenarios for the United States. As a future persistent surveillance solution for battlespace awareness, homeland defense, and WMD identification, Smart Dust offers the intelligence advantages of ubiquity, flexibility, timeliness, and persistence to military leaders, planners, and operators. For the future, Smart Dust represents a revolutionary leap in persistent surveillance and produces an informational asymmetric   advantage   for   whomever,   friend   or   foe,   possesses   it.

Summary:

In 2007 the future of military warfare was based on using Smart dust sensors. This is the very thing that Klaus Schwab discussed, only inside of humanity. I am proposing that we are the friends or local foes that the military is surveilling and that this smart dust has evolved to nano and micro robots. This means that in a military sense, the smart dust is not just used for surveillance, but truly for dual use, as a weapon. This is corroborating what Mark Steele told me and you will hear more about next week. This is some evidentiary information to prepare yourself to be able to contemplate this military context of what I and others see in the human blood.