Emerging biotechnology marks a turning point in U.S. security policy thinking. It foreshadows the emergence of a new geopolitical race, where it is no longer just about missiles, chips or artificial intelligence, but about biotechnology as a strategic tool of power. At the same time, in the wrong hands, biotechnology can become a weapon, but if handled in the right way, it can provide economic and military superiority.
For the first time in recent history, the United States is competing with a rival for a new form of technology that creates enormous wealth but can also be used to develop powerful weapons. This applies primarily to China, which is repeatedly seen as a specific challenger. Particularly explosive is the “genetically enhanced soldiers” scenario, which was previously reserved for science fiction but now appears as a real opportunity for strategic planning.
Protection, health, agriculture, energy, production – biotechnology can have an impact. This can be used to stabilize and destabilize entire economies and societies. This is called dual-use capability, i.e. technology that can serve both civilian and military purposes.
It is precisely this aspect that could raise ethical and political questions. However, the emphasis is clearly on maintaining American dominance: whoever wins the “innovation race wins the actual wars”.
This technocratic view leaves little room for debates about self-determination, privacy, or control. It is also unclear how this thinking is compatible with international norms and human rights. Securing the leading role in biotechnology requires close cooperation between the government, the military and the private sector.
Conclusion: Biotechnology as the new frontline geopolitical dominance
The procedure reveals a fundamental change in the United States’ security policy thinking. Biotechnology is treated not only as a scientific or economic issue, but as a key technology for maintaining global power relations. The tone is clear: if you fall behind in biotechnology, you lose geopolitically.
This attitude raises worrying questions. The debate within the U.S. emphasizes the dangers of authoritarian states like China, but it still fails to answer the question of what limits democratic states want to impose on themselves when they enter the same competition. Without widespread social debate, biotechnology threatens to become the next stage of technocratically legitimized control society and has disastrous consequences for the freedom, dignity, and security of the individual.