Engelbart and the Future of Nanotechnology

I have been reading "Overcoming Bias" (from the University of Oxford: Future of Humanity Institute) for a while now, but yesterday they had a very interesting post by Eliezer Yudkowsky called "Engelbart: Insufficiently Recursive".
.
So who is Engelbart?
.
Well Douglas Engelbart was a computer pioneer (best know for his invention of the computer mouse) and in the days when computers were just getting started, he had a "vision of using computers to systematically augment human intelligence".
.
In 1962 he wrote a paper for the Stanford Research Institute called "Augmenting Human Intelligence: A conceptual framework". I had a read of it last night - it is relatively easy (although it does get more difficult in sections).
.
He points out 4 different classes of ways to augment human intelligence:
.
1. Artifacts: physical objects that can manipulate things/materials or symbols
2. Language: meaning of symbols
3. Methodology: method for problem solving
4. Training: the conditioning needed by the human being to bring his skills in using artifacts, language and methodology to the point where they are operationally effective.
.
Anyway, when looking back on this paper we find that he was biased (hence the post on Overcoming Bias) and his conclusions were therefore incorrect. Yudkowsky suggests Engelbart was incorrect because:
.
1. He underestimated how much cognitive work gets done by hidden algorithms running beneath the surface of introspection, and overestimated what you can do by fiddling with the visible control levers (such as his later computer 'mouse' invention).
.
2. Engelbart anchored on the way that someone as intelligent as Engelbart would use computers, but there was only one of him - and due to point 1 above, he couldn't use computers to make other people as smart as him.
.
Anyway, today I had another look on the site (mainly to read the replies to the above post) and found that the follow-up post "Total Nano Domination" was on the subject of future nanotechnology and avoiding the same types of incorrect assumptions that were made by Engelbart when looking toward the future. I love this site !!
.
So the question they pose is this:
.
Will the development of nanotechnology go the same way as computers - a smooth, steady developmental curve spread across many countries, no one project taking into itself a substantial fraction of the world's whole progress? Will it be more like the Manhattan Project, one country gaining a (temporary?) huge advantage at huge cost?
.
Could one country or company get nanoweapons 'ready' that would give them the same advantage that the Atom Bomb gave the United States at the end of WWII?
.
What do you think??
.
UPDATE: I just saw Engelbart for the first time (being interview on TV about his mouse invention).