303.666.4133

Should Robots Have the Right to Defend Themselves?

by | Nov 14, 2024 | Artificial Intelligence

Futurist Speaker Thomas Frey Blog: Should Robots Have the Right to Defend Themselves?

To what extent do robots have the right to defend both themselves and the people they’re working for?

As we approach an era where humanoid robots are becoming an integral part of daily life—acting as caretakers, bodyguards, police officers, soldiers, and even family guardians—the question of their rights becomes inevitable. Unlike today’s machines, future robots will possess advanced artificial intelligence, enabling them to perform highly complex tasks, analyze their environments, and make split-second decisions. These capabilities will inevitably bring up ethical and practical dilemmas about their autonomy, safety, and rights. One of the most pressing concerns is whether robots should have the right to defend themselves.

This question is not merely hypothetical. Robots will be placed in situations where they may be harmed—physically or otherwise—while performing duties designed to safeguard human well-being. Yet, in protecting humans, they may encounter situations where their own preservation comes into conflict with their programmed responsibilities. Can we expect them to sacrifice their integrity for humans without limits? And if so, what does that mean for the future of robots as more than just tools, but entities operating independently of direct human control?

To grapple with this, let’s explore several scenarios that present a crossroads of ethical and legal implications.

Futurist Speaker Thomas Frey Blog: Humanoid Robot Tasked With Caring for an Elderly Individual

Guardian robot protecting a child.

Scenario 1: The Caretaker

Imagine a humanoid robot tasked with caring for an elderly individual. This robot is equipped with everything needed to assist with mobility, administer medication, and ensure the health and safety of its charge. It functions smoothly, managing daily activities, but what happens when the human it cares for lashes out? Consider the situation where the elderly person, possibly confused or frustrated, strikes the robot. Should the robot be allowed to defend itself? The instinctive answer for many might be “no.” After all, the robot is there to serve a vulnerable human being, and any form of retaliation—physical or otherwise—could escalate the situation, potentially putting the person at greater risk. In such a scenario, the robot’s priority would remain to protect and care for the person, even at the expense of its own safety.

However, what if this kind of abuse continues over time? While it’s not uncommon for caregivers, human or robotic, to face frustration from those they care for, persistent physical damage to a robot caretaker could reduce its effectiveness. Should it have the right to remove itself from harm in these situations? Maybe it could simply step back or refuse to perform certain tasks until the danger passes. But what if, instead of passive avoidance, the robot could use non-harmful defensive measures—like gently restraining the person to prevent further abuse?

This scenario raises a critical ethical question: is it right to expect robots, especially those designed for continuous and demanding tasks, to withstand repeated harm without any capacity for self-preservation? Should they be allowed to prioritize their own functionality in situations where there is no immediate risk to human life?

By denying robots the right to self-preserve, we are effectively designing them to endure destruction for the sake of human comfort, regardless of the harm they face. This brings us into murky ethical territory, as robots would occupy a strange space—valuable for their roles yet treated as disposable in practice. Such a framework could set a troubling precedent as we continue to blend human life with autonomous technology.

The line between safeguarding human dignity and robot preservation becomes blurry, inviting deeper questions about whether self-defense rights should be applied to machines performing essential, empathetic roles in society.

Futurist Speaker Thomas Frey Blog: Robot Specifically Designed as a Bodyguard

A corporate executive shares a moment with his robotic bodyguard.

Scenario 2: The Bodyguard

Now, picture a different scenario—a robot specifically designed as a bodyguard. This robot’s function is to protect its client at all costs, acting as a barrier between them and any immediate threats. The robot might be equipped with defensive capabilities designed to neutralize attackers non-lethally while ensuring the client’s safety. But what happens when the robot itself is the target? Imagine an attacker who recognizes the robot as the primary obstacle between themselves and the person they intend to harm. The attacker’s goal is to disable or destroy the robot to gain access to its human client.

Should the robot have the right to defend itself in this situation?

On the one hand, allowing the robot to defend itself is a logical extension of its duty to protect its human charge. If the robot is incapacitated, the human becomes vulnerable to danger. In this sense, the robot’s preservation is tied directly to its function. However, allowing it to engage in self-defense introduces the potential for robots to make judgment calls about the severity of threats, especially when those threats may not involve harm to humans directly. For example, how does the robot decide between neutralizing an attacker with non-lethal force and avoiding harm to itself?

The argument here becomes one about proportionality and control. Should robots have autonomy over how they protect themselves, or should they operate strictly within predefined parameters? If a robot’s actions to protect itself escalate a situation, could it end up causing more harm than good? This scenario becomes even more challenging when we consider that future bodyguard robots might operate with such sophisticated AI that they can independently evaluate danger levels and act accordingly.

But if the robot is seen primarily as a tool of protection for humans, does it deserve protection itself? Could a robot designed to safeguard its own integrity become a liability, choosing to disengage from risky situations or prioritize its survival over the mission to protect human life? This concern could raise a number of legal and ethical questions, especially in cases where the robot’s defensive actions result in unintended harm to bystanders or the client it was meant to protect.

Moreover, in a world where robots are granted the right to self-defense, how do we ensure that they don’t misinterpret benign actions as hostile, leading to overreactions? What happens when the boundaries between robotic functionality and autonomous rights are blurred, and robots become actors capable of determining the level of force they can use to protect themselves?

In both scenarios—the caretaker and the bodyguard—we are confronted with a fundamental tension between the utility of robots and the preservation of their “life” or function. While many may still argue that robots should not have the right to defend themselves, these scenarios make it clear that our ethical frameworks may soon need to adapt to the evolving roles of robots in our society. When machines become capable of complex, independent thought and action, denying them the right to self-preserve could undermine not only their functionality but also the trust we place in them to operate safely within human environments.

Futurist Speaker Thomas Frey Blog: Humanoid Robot Acting as a Police Officer

Robot police officer helping a young child.

Scenario 3: The Police Officer

In this scenario, we imagine a humanoid robot acting as a police officer, a role that demands both authority and responsibility. This robot would be expected to patrol streets, respond to crime scenes, and engage with both criminals and civilians, often in high-pressure situations. If a criminal were to attack or attempt to destroy the robot, the question arises: should the robot be allowed to defend itself using force? If so, how much force would be considered appropriate?

A police robot’s self-defense right is a layered issue. On one hand, the robot could be seen as an extension of law enforcement—a tool used to maintain public safety. In this sense, it could be argued that it shouldn’t require the right to self-preservation because its purpose is to protect human lives, even if that means sacrificing its own functionality. However, a damaged robot could pose more danger than an effective one. If it malfunctions due to physical harm, it may misinterpret commands, act unpredictably, or even pose a threat to the very public it is meant to protect.

Allowing a robot police officer to defend itself introduces legal and ethical complexities. Robots are not humans, yet if they are given the right to defend themselves, they begin to occupy a position that resembles that of human law enforcement officers. Should they follow the same rules for a proportional response? Could they be held accountable for excessive use of force? In this world, would robots need built-in “responsibility” in their programming—algorithms that would calculate the proportionality of the threat and ensure the robot’s actions remain within ethical and legal bounds?

Additionally, if robots are capable of self-defense, they may begin to demand or imply other rights. If we afford them this basic form of autonomy, where do we draw the line? Would they then also need rights in terms of labor protections or fair treatment? This could fundamentally change how we perceive robots within the context of societal systems like law enforcement.

Futurist Speaker Thomas Frey Blog: Robot Employed as a Family Guardian

Guardian robot caring for the family its protecting.

Scenario 4: The Family Guardian

Now, picture a robot employed as a family guardian designed to protect homes, children, and personal property. These robots would be expected to act decisively in the event of a home invasion or any immediate threat to the family’s safety. Let’s say during such an invasion, the robot identifies the intruder and springs into action. The situation escalates, and the intruder, realizing the robot is a formidable obstacle, attempts to dismantle or destroy it. Should the robot be allowed to prioritize its self-preservation over the family’s safety?

At first glance, it may seem logical to prioritize the protection of the family, even if it means the robot sacrifices itself. However, if the robot is disabled, the family is left defenseless, so allowing the robot to protect itself might, in fact, be in the best interest of the family. This dilemma brings up a deeper philosophical issue—are robots merely tools, or are they entities worth protecting in their own right?

Granting robots the right to defend themselves in this scenario shifts the narrative of their existence. These machines, once thought of as mere servants to human needs, start to take on characteristics of entities with intrinsic worth. We begin to edge closer to viewing robots as beings that have rights, including the right to preserve their own “life,” even if they are not sentient in the same way humans are.

This scenario also forces us to confront the idea of robot sentience and rights more broadly. If we grant robots this fundamental right, does it open the door to treating them more like sentient beings, with legal recognition and individual protections? And if so, how far are we willing to go in affording rights to machines that we’ve created, knowing that this decision could change the balance of our own moral and legal systems?

In both the police officer and family guardian scenarios, we see a gradual shift from viewing robots as mere tools to seeing them as autonomous agents. This transition forces us to rethink the boundaries of their rights and responsibilities. As robots become more integrated into our lives, it may be necessary to redefine how we interact with them and whether we can continue to treat them as machines when they display behaviors more akin to living beings.

Futurist Speaker Thomas Frey Blog: The Deployment of Robotic Soldiers

How does our thinking about robots change when they are on the battlefield?

Scenario 5: The Robotic Soldier

The deployment of robotic soldiers presents one of the most complex and controversial aspects of the debate around robot rights and self-defense. On the battlefield, robotic soldiers would be designed to engage in combat, assess threats, and neutralize enemy forces with precision. Their primary role would be to replace human soldiers in dangerous environments, reducing human casualties while maintaining military effectiveness. In this context, the question of whether robots should be allowed to defend themselves seems straightforward. They are tools of war designed for combat so that self-defense would be a natural part of their programming. They would be expected to protect themselves from enemy attacks just as a human soldier would.

But what happens when these same robotic soldiers are deployed in civilian life? Imagine robotic soldiers being used in peacekeeping missions, disaster response, or even crowd control during protests. Here, the situation becomes much more complicated. In a civilian context, the rules of engagement are vastly different. The goal is not to engage in combat but to de-escalate situations, protect civilians, and maintain peace. If a robotic soldier, designed for war, were to be attacked or threatened in a civilian setting, should it be allowed to respond with the same force it would use on the battlefield? What measures should be in place to ensure that a robotic soldier can distinguish between a real threat and a non-lethal situation?

In civilian life, the stakes are higher because any misjudgment by a robotic soldier could lead to unnecessary violence or casualties. For example, if a robotic soldier perceived an unarmed protester as a threat and used force to protect itself, the consequences could be devastating. How do we ensure that robotic soldiers deployed in civilian life are able to adjust their behavior to meet the drastically different expectations of peacekeeping versus combat?

The ethical question becomes one of proportionality and adaptation. Should robotic soldiers be programmed with different rules of engagement for civilian and military environments? How do we balance their ability to protect themselves with the need to prioritize civilian safety?

This scenario also raises the broader issue of robot accountability in diverse roles. In wartime, the use of lethal force is accepted under certain conditions, but in civilian contexts, the rules are much stricter. If robotic soldiers are given the right to defend themselves in war, how do we recalibrate their autonomy for peaceful, civilian applications? And if they malfunction or make errors in judgment, who is held responsible—the designers, the operators, or the robots themselves?

Ultimately, the role of robotic soldiers in both military and civilian life forces us to consider how adaptable these machines can be. Will they be able to switch between roles effectively, or will the risk of inappropriate use of force outweigh their utility? This is a critical consideration as we explore the boundaries of robot rights, especially when their presence spans both war zones and public spaces.

Futurist Speaker Thomas Frey Blog: Ethical Concerns About the Growing Capabilities of AI

How would people view robots differently if they were granted the right to defend themselves?

The Ethical Quandary

The scenarios of caretaker robots, bodyguards, police officers, and family guardians all lead us to one fundamental question: at what point do we allow machines to act in their own interest? This question touches on deep ethical concerns about the growing capabilities of AI and how far their autonomy should extend. As robots evolve from simple, pre-programmed machines to sophisticated learning systems, they may one day reach a point where they can make decisions that go beyond their initial programming. The leap from task-specific automation to genuine autonomy is a profound one, and it brings with it a host of philosophical and practical implications.

If robots become advanced enough to operate with a degree of independent judgment, should they have the same rights to self-preservation that humans enjoy? For instance, in scenarios where their own survival is at stake, would it be ethical to deny them the right to defend themselves, especially when their functionality is crucial for human safety? These questions are no longer science fiction—they are becoming real challenges as AI develops, inching closer to human-like decision-making processes.

Moreover, granting robots self-defense rights could blur the boundaries between human and machine. This is not just a legal dilemma; it’s a societal one. How would people view robots if they were granted such fundamental rights? This could dramatically reshape our relationship with machines. We’ve always treated machines as tools—valued for their utility but disposable. However, if robots are granted the right to self-preserve, we begin treating them more like autonomous beings with a stake in their own existence.

The question then becomes: should robots be held accountable for their actions in the same way humans are? If a robot kills in the act of protecting itself, should it face legal consequences as a human would? This could mean a legal system where robots are tried for crimes, albeit with a different standard of judgment. For instance, would a robot’s defensive actions be judged based on its programming, its capacity to learn and adapt, or a more human-like moral framework? These questions could redefine our legal system as it stands today, extending the concept of justice to machines.

Final Thoughts: A New Legal Frontier

As robots become more integrated into our lives, the question of whether they have the right to defend themselves forces us to re-examine our understanding of rights, ethics, and the law. It challenges our existing assumptions about sentience and autonomy. Today’s robots are built to follow commands and safeguard their human counterparts. However, tomorrow’s robots may face dilemmas of their own, where their survival comes into question. How should they respond when their very existence is under threat? Should they prioritize human well-being over their own, or will we allow them the basic right of self-preservation?This issue extends beyond just robots—it forces us to rethink our relationship with machines. The decisions we make today about robot rights could have far-reaching implications for the future. Will we continue to treat robots as advanced tools, or will we eventually extend to them the rights we reserve for ourselves? The latter could mean reshaping not just human-robot interaction but also the societal frameworks we rely on to maintain order, ethics, and justice.

In many ways, this discussion is not just about whether robots can or should defend themselves—it’s about how humanity will adapt to a future where machines are not merely tools but intelligent systems with the ability to act in their own interest. The decision won’t be easy, but it will play a pivotal role in shaping the ethical and legal landscape of tomorrow.

Translate This Page

Should Robots Have the Right to Defend Themselves?

by | Nov 14, 2024 | Artificial Intelligence

Futurist Speaker Thomas Frey Blog: The Canyon Ferry Disaster

Built in 1954, the Canyon Ferry Dam has stood as an engineering marvel, powering over 100,000 homes.

Modern civilization is built on precision, innovation, and control—but when one failure occurs in an interconnected system, the consequences can be unstoppable. The Canyon Ferry Disaster is more than a catastrophe; it is a cautionary tale of how a single breach can unravel decades of progress, setting off a chain reaction of destruction that no one can stop.
What began as a fracture in one dam quickly escalated into the largest infrastructure collapse in American history. One after another, dams crumbled, rivers swelled beyond control, and cities vanished beneath an unrelenting flood. The Missouri River, once a lifeline for millions, became a weapon of mass destruction, leaving entire states submerged and the nation in chaos.

This is not just the story of a disaster—it is the story of how fragile our modern world truly is. This account will trace the slow-motion nightmare that unfolded over twelve days, the desperate evacuations, and the lessons we must learn to ensure this never happens again. Because if history has taught us anything, it is this: when the first dam breaks, the clock starts ticking.

1. Setting the Stage: A Calm Before the Chaos

The Missouri River glides silently beneath the warm glow of an early spring sunset, its surface undisturbed, almost tranquil. The vast Canyon Ferry Reservoir stretches to the horizon, a colossal body of water swollen to its limits by the seasonal snowmelt. Beneath its smooth facade, 134 billion cubic feet of water press against the towering Canyon Ferry Dam, a monolith of stone and steel standing guard over Montana’s rugged landscape.

Built in 1954, the dam is more than just an engineering marvel—it is a lifeline. Its hydroelectric turbines provide power to over 100,000 homes, its waters irrigate thousands of acres of farmland, and its reservoir draws boaters, anglers, and campers seeking escape into Montana’s wilderness. At 210 feet high and 3,280 feet long, it is a sentinel of progress, a testament to mankind’s ability to tame nature’s fury.

But below the surface, unseen and unforgiving forces are at play.

Downstream, the Missouri River winds its way through a chain of dams, each a critical link in the region’s infrastructure. The Hauser Dam, just 14 miles away, holds 5 billion cubic feet of water in check. Farther down, 30 miles from Canyon Ferry, the Holter Dam contains another 12 billion cubic feet. Together, these structures balance power and control, protecting Helena, Great Falls, and dozens of smaller communities nestled along the riverbanks.

Beyond them, the Missouri River Basin sprawls across the heartland, home to over 2.5 million people who depend on its waters for drinking, industry, and agriculture. While only a fraction of them live within the immediate floodplain, a catastrophic failure here would send shockwaves across the Midwest, disrupting power grids, supply chains, and entire economies.

Yet, on this serene evening, there are no warnings, no sirens—only a quiet, uneasy stillness. A handful of anglers cast their lines into the glassy waters, unaware that history is about to change.

Because at this very moment, a plan is in motion. A deliberate act of destruction has been set into place—one designed to exploit the river at its most vulnerable. The conspirators know the stakes. They understand the chain reaction that a single breach will unleash. And they know that within hours, this calm reservoir will become an unstoppable force of devastation.

For now, the only sounds are the splash of fish breaking the surface and the soft rustling of wind through the pines. The Canyon Ferry Dam stands, silent and unyielding.

But not for long.

Futurist Speaker Thomas Frey Blog: The Prelude to Destruction

The Canyon Ferry Reservoir has long been a hidden gem tucked into the mountains of Montana.

2. The Prelude to Destruction

Dressed in unremarkable fishing gear, two men unload a motorized raft on the quiet eastern edge of the Canyon Ferry Reservoir. To an untrained observer, they appear to be ordinary fishermen, blending seamlessly into the tranquil surroundings. But their actions—subtle, deliberate—betray their true intent. Weighted backpacks filled with explosives, carefully constructed to withstand the pressure and turbulence of deep water, are lowered into the raft. The payload, consisting of seven interconnected explosive packs, is designed to deliver a synchronized detonation capable of breaching even the most robust dam structures.

The dam's spillway—its Achilles' heel—is their target. The Canyon Ferry Dam, holding back 134 billion cubic feet of water, stands as a critical point in the Missouri River’s intricate hydrological system. A breach here would unleash catastrophic downstream consequences. The Hauser Dam, 14 miles downstream and containing 5 billion cubic feet of water, would likely fail within hours. Holter Dam, located 30 miles from Canyon Ferry and holding 12 billion cubic feet, would inevitably collapse under the combined pressure. Together, these three dams control the flow of water through a basin that directly supports over 300,000 residents in Montana while indirectly impacting millions across the Midwest.

Under the cover of nightfall, the perpetrators navigate their raft with care, steering away from any prying eyes or patrol boats. The reservoir, spanning 10 miles, offers them plenty of space to operate in relative isolation. As they approach the dam’s spillway—a point they meticulously identified as the structural weak spot—they move with precision.

Their explosives are tethered along a cable designed to span the height of the dam’s foundation. Each pack is carefully positioned at calculated depths to maximize the impact of the detonation, ensuring that the initial blast will penetrate the earth and concrete barrier holding back the massive reservoir. The tether is anchored securely to the spillway wall, and the waterproof timers are activated. The countdown begins, set to deliver devastation at precisely 12:02 a.m.

The two men work in silence, their practiced efficiency reflecting months of planning. They know the stakes: a breach at Canyon Ferry will initiate a chain reaction, leading to the catastrophic failure of dams further downstream. As they finish their task, the duo vanishes into the surrounding wilderness, leaving no trace of their presence.
This single act sets the stage for a disaster that will reshape the lives of millions. Helena, the state capital located 23 miles from Canyon Ferry, is home to over 30,000 residents who rely on the dam for water, power, and flood control. Beyond Helena, the floodwaters will race toward Great Falls, a city of 58,000, and eventually to the broader Midwest, where the economic and human toll will be felt by millions.

By midnight, the tranquility of the Montana night will give way to an engineered catastrophe as the first moments of destruction begin to unfold.

Futurist Speaker Thomas Frey Blog: Emergency Crews Mobilize

At precisely 12:02 am, the stillness of the Montana night is shattered.

3.) The Midnight Call: Emergency Crews Mobilize

At precisely 12:02 a.m., the stillness of the Montana night is shattered. A deep, concussive explosion rips through the base of Canyon Ferry Dam, sending shockwaves through the massive concrete structure. The once-unyielding wall of reinforced concrete and earth buckles, and within seconds, a catastrophic breach opens.

The reservoir, swollen with 134 billion cubic feet of water, unleashes its fury, carving a violent new channel through the canyon walls. A roaring, frothing wave surges downstream at over 30 mph, erasing roads, bridges, and homes in its path.

The Midnight Alarm: Emergency Crews Awaken

Within minutes of the explosion, emergency dispatch centers across Montana light up with frantic calls.

  • Montana Highway Patrol officers jolt awake to the shrill ring of their radios, orders crackling through the speakers:
    “Evacuate all communities along the Missouri River. The dam is gone.”
  • Firehouses scramble to respond, their crews grabbing gear in a blur of movement as sirens scream through sleeping towns.
  • National Guard units, roused from their beds, are ordered to immediate deployment, their convoys speeding toward the rising disaster.

The news spreads in waves of disbelief and urgency.

  • Dispatchers struggle to relay information, overwhelmed by a flood of 911 calls from terrified residents.
  • Mayors and emergency coordinators in Helena, Great Falls, and beyond are jolted awake by emergency briefings—what they hear defies belief.
  • Hospitals activate mass casualty protocols, clearing emergency rooms for an influx of injured evacuees.

As the first reports filter in—Canyon Ferry is gone, Hauser is failing, Holter is next—one thing becomes clear: this is no localized disaster. This is a national catastrophe in motion.

The First Domino: Hauser and Holter Collapse

By 12:30 a.m., emergency responders in Townsend, East Helena, and Helena are already in the streets, pounding on doors, screaming at people to evacuate. But the flood moves faster than they can warn.

  • The Hauser Dam, just 14 miles downstream, is overwhelmed within 45 minutes. The 5 billion cubic feet of water behind it surges free, adding fuel to the already unstoppable wave.
  • By 2:00 a.m., Holter Dam (holding 12 billion cubic feet) collapses, its concrete walls buckling under the relentless force.

The Missouri River has now doubled in volume, multiplying its destructive power with each collapse.

A Night of Chaos: Emergency Crews Race Against Time

With every hour that passes, the flood picks up speed, debris, and lives.

  • State troopers in helicopters broadcast evacuation orders over loudspeakers, their voices barely audible over the roaring flood.
  • Firefighters and medics stage along higher ground, awaiting the injured—but knowing their numbers will quickly overwhelm resources.
  • National Guard engineers race to reinforce bridges and levees, but it’s already too late for many.

The entire state of Montana is now in a state of emergency.

Great Falls: The Next City in Line

Located 75 miles downstream, Great Falls (population 58,000) braces for the inevitable. The Missouri River is now a runaway force of destruction, fed by three dam failures.

  • At 4:30 a.m., city sirens wail, warning of the incoming wall of water.
  • Military helicopters circle above, lighting up the darkness with searchlights as they pull stranded residents from rooftops.
  • Highway patrol officers form human chains, dragging people from stalled vehicles on submerged highways.

The Missouri River is no longer a river—it is a weapon, carrying the flood toward even more densely populated regions.

Dawn Brings a Grim Reality

By 6:00 a.m., the rising sun reveals a transformed landscape. The waters now stretch for miles beyond the riverbanks, swallowing entire towns like an advancing ocean.

  • Over 500,000 residents across the Missouri River Basin are without power, clean water, or escape routes.
  • Railroads, highways, and supply chains are severed, cutting off vital aid to affected areas.
  • Rescue crews, exhausted and overwhelmed, begin marking buildings with spray paint, signaling where survivors have been found—and where bodies remain.

The nation wakes up to the biggest disaster in modern American history—and it is only just beginning.

Futurist Speaker Thomas Frey Blog: The Cascading Failure of Missouri River Dams

Over the coming days, over 300 bridges will be destroyed!.

4. The Domino Effect: From Montana to the Midwest

The Cascading Failure of Missouri River Dams

As the breach at Canyon Ferry Dam unleashes 134 billion cubic feet of water, a deadly chain reaction begins, overwhelming the Missouri River’s system of dams and reservoirs. The surging flood quickly overcomes the Hauser Dam (14 miles downstream, holding 5 billion cubic feet) and then slams into the Holter Dam (another 15 miles downstream, containing 12 billion cubic feet). Each failure amplifies the flood’s destructive force, accelerating its deadly march across Montana.

Yet, this is just the beginning. The water, now a roaring deluge of over 150 billion cubic feet, is propelled downstream by the Missouri River’s rapid elevation drop—a geographical feature that turns a disaster into a catastrophe.

From Canyon Ferry to Fort Peck Dam, the Missouri River plunges more than 1,000 feet in elevation over a 300-mile stretch. This steep decline transforms the flood into a fast-moving torrent, exponentially increasing its power. The river, normally controlled by a series of hydroelectric projects, is now an unchecked, relentless force.

The Final Stand: Fort Peck Dam

Located nearly 300 miles northeast of Canyon Ferry, Fort Peck Dam is the largest dam on the Missouri River and one of the most massive earthen dams in the world. Completed in 1940, it stands 250 feet high and 21,026 feet long, forming the Fort Peck Reservoir, which stretches 134 miles and holds an astonishing 19 million acre-feet (825 billion cubic feet) of water. This dam plays a critical role in regulating the Missouri River’s flow and preventing catastrophic floods.

But as the floodstorm barrels toward Fort Peck, engineers at the dam realize the terrifying reality: the dam’s current outflow system cannot release water fast enough to compensate for the incoming surge. Fort Peck is already at near-capacity from spring runoff, and with the combined floodwaters from Canyon Ferry, Hauser, and Holter, the reservoir’s levels begin to rise at a staggering rate.

At 10:45 a.m., the reservoir has exceeded emergency spillway levels. The earthen dam, never designed to withstand such an overwhelming surge, starts showing signs of structural failure. Engineers scramble to increase controlled releases, but it’s futile.

By 11:12 a.m., a massive section of Fort Peck’s earthen embankment gives way. Within minutes, the entire eastern section collapses, sending a 150-foot-high wall of water racing downstream at over 30 mph.

The Cataclysm Unleashed

With Fort Peck’s 825 billion cubic feet of water now joining the flood, the torrent has become an unstoppable inland tsunami, moving relentlessly toward Garrison Dam in North Dakota. The elevation drop between Fort Peck and Garrison spans over 300 feet, adding even more momentum to the water’s deadly charge.

By 3:30 p.m., the Garrison Dam, one of the largest hydroelectric facilities in the U.S., collapses under the onslaught. This final breach sends a surge of over 2.5 trillion cubic feet of water cascading down the Missouri River, obliterating towns, cities, and infrastructure across Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and the Midwest.

Futurist Speaker Thomas Frey Blog: The Slow March of Disaster

While most people have been warned to evacuate, the destruction of property is unfathomable.

5.) The Slow March of Disaster: A Nation Watches in Horror

By daylight, the unstoppable wall of water has already consumed much of Montana and North Dakota, and now it creeps—agonizingly slow yet inescapable—toward the heart of the Midwest. The disaster does not strike all at once. Instead, it unfolds in slow motion, a grinding inevitability that emergency crews and news helicopters track in real time, broadcasting the destruction hour by hour to a stunned nation.

Bismarck Overwhelmed: The Water Rises, and Hope Fades

From the air, Bismarck looks like a city under siege by nature itself. The once-mighty Missouri River has swollen to five times its normal width, and levees that held through the night are now visibly bulging, crumbling, then failing altogether.

Helicopters hover over the stranded residents, capturing footage of entire neighborhoods gradually vanishing beneath the encroaching flood. The footage is surreal—people wading through waist-deep water, clutching their children and whatever belongings they can carry.

On the ground, emergency responders battle exhaustion as they ferry stranded families to safety in boats. Some neighborhoods are completely cut off, leaving rescue crews to make impossible choices about who to evacuate first.

  • Bismarck’s flood stage is typically 16 feet, but by noon, the water has risen past 35 feet—and it keeps climbing.
  • Highway 83, the last major evacuation route, is swallowed in slow motion.
  • National Guard troops coordinate rooftop rescues while power stations spark and fail.

The collapse of Garrison Dam upstream means that Bismarck’s fate is sealed—the city will not be spared. Residents flee to higher ground, watching their homes become part of the ever-widening floodplain.

Oahe Dam Teeters on the Brink: The Clock Runs Out

Further downstream, Pierre, South Dakota, waits in agonizing silence. Residents have been watching the rising water for days, knowing the Oahe Dam stands between them and annihilation.

Live news feeds capture the moment the colossal structure gives way. At 9:40 a.m., an earthen section of the dam cracks, buckles, then collapses. The dam’s 102 billion cubic feet of water explode outward, sending a new tidal wave racing toward South Dakota’s capital.

From above, helicopters capture the moment the surge hits downtown Pierre. Streets become rivers, cars float like toys, and entire buildings dislodge and drift away. The bridge spanning the Missouri River collapses, cutting off all hope of escape for those still trapped on the wrong side.

  • Pierre’s population of 14,000 has less than 30 minutes before the entire city is underwater.
  • The flood, now carrying the force of three dam failures, picks up even more speed as it descends into South Dakota.
  • Livestock in nearby fields struggle in the churning water, helpless as their pastures become part of the widening disaster.

Sioux City: The Evacuation Race Against Time

As the water thunders southward, Sioux City, Iowa, watches and waits, its people glued to live updates of Pierre’s destruction. They know they are next.

The city’s levees, reinforced only hours earlier, are now visibly weakening. Military convoys rush thousands toward higher ground, but the roads are choked with traffic, a slow-moving panic.

By mid-afternoon, the inevitable happens—the Missouri River breaks through. The flood arrives not as a single towering wave, but as a relentless surge, rising inch by inch until the entire city is drowning.

  • Families abandon vehicles on flooded highways, scrambling for higher overpasses.
  • Shelters overflow as tens of thousands are displaced.
  • A power station explodes in a shower of sparks, plunging half the city into darkness.

Final Thoughts - A Pill for Humanity’s Future

The Canyon Ferry Disaster is more than a tragedy—it is a warning. A single point of failure unraveled the entire Missouri River Basin, leaving millions displaced and the heartland in ruins. The disaster underscores the fragility of our systems and the urgent need for innovation, resilience, and vigilance.

As communities embark on the long road to recovery, one truth is clear: we must redesign our world to prevent such catastrophic chain reactions from ever happening again. The lessons of this tragedy must shape the future, ensuring that our civilization does not crumble under the weight of its own complexity.

Translate This Page

Book Futurist Speaker Thomas Frey