Implanted Microscopic Chip
Source: Air Force 2025
August 1996
The IIC is a constellation of integration or "smart"
satellites that receives all-source information. Within the IIC,
resident intelligent software will run decision support tools,
correlate and fuse data into useful information, identify
inconsistencies and information gaps, and task collectors to seek data
to fill information gaps.
The implanted microscopic brain chip performs two
functions. First, it links the individual to the IIC, creating a
seamless interface between the user and the information resources
(in-time collection data and archival databases). In essence, the chip
relays the processed information from the IIC to the user. Second, the
chip creates a computer-generated mental visualization based upon the
user's request. The visualization encompasses the individual and
allows the user to
place himself into the selected battlespace.
Why the Implanted Microscopic Chip? While other methods
such as specially configured rooms, special helmets, or sunglasses may
be used to interface the user with the IIC, the microscopic chip is
the most viable. Two real operational concerns support the use of
implanted chips and argue against larger "physical" entities to access
the Cyber Situation.
First, future operations will demand a highly flexible
and mobile force that is ready at moment's notice to employ aerospace
power. The chip will give these forces the ability to communicate,
visualize, and prosecute military operations. Having to manage and
deploy a "physical" platform or room hampers mobility and delays
time-sensitive operations. US aerospace forces must be prepared to
fight or to conduct mobility or special operations anywhere in the
world on extremely short notice although some of these operations may
be staged directly from the continental United States.
Second, a physical entity creates a target vulnerable to
enemy attack or sabotage. A highly mobile information operations
center created with the chip-IIC interface makes it much more elusive
to enemy attack. These reasons argue against a larger physical entity
for the Cyber Situation.
While this is a reasonable portability rationale for the
use of chip, some may wonder, "Why not use special sunglasses or
helmets?" The answer is simple. An implanted microscopic chip does not
require security measures to verify whether the right person is
connected to the IIC, whereas a room, helmet, or sunglasses requires
additional time-consuming access control mechanisms to verify an
individual's identity and level of control within the Cyber Situation.
Further, survey any group of commanders, decision
makers, or other military personnel if they enjoy carrying a beeper or
"brick" at all times. Likely, few like to carry a piece of equipment.
Now, imagine having to maintain a critical instrument that allows an
individual to access the Cyber Situation, and thus control the US
military forces. Clearly, this is not an enviable position, since the
individual may
misplace or lose the helmet or sunglasses, or worse yet, the enemy may
steal or destroy it. These are unnecessary burdens.
Ethical and Public Relations Issues. Implanting "things"
in people raises ethical and public relations issues. While these
concerns may be founded on today's thinking, in 2025 they may not be
as alarming. We already are evolving toward technology implanting. For
example, the military currently requires its members to receive
mandatory injections of biological organisms (i.e., the flu shot). In
the civilian world, people receive mechanical hearts and other organs.
Society has come to accept most of these implants as a fact of life.
By 2025 it is possible medical technology will have nerve chips that
allow amputees to control artificial limbs or eye chips that allow the
blind to see. The civilian populace will likely accept an implanted
microscopic chips that allow military members to defend vital national
interests. Further, the US military will continue to be a volunteer
force that will freely accept the chip because it is a tool to control
technology and not as a tool to control the human.
byLTC William B. Osborne (USA)
Maj Scott A. Bethel
Maj Nolen R. Chew
Maj Philip M. Nostrand
Maj YuLin G. Whitehead
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c2/v3c2-1.htm