World Tribune.com


Peaceful, prosperous China and Project 863


See the Lev Navrozov Archive

By Lev Navrozov
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM

Lev Navrozov emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1972 He settled in New York City where he quickly learned that there was no market for his eloquent and powerful English language attacks on the Soviet Union. To this day, he writes without fear or favor or the conventions of polite society. He chaired the "Alternative to the New York Times Committee" in 1980, challenged the editors of the New York Times to a debate (which they declined) and became a columnist for the New York City Tribune. His columns are today read in both English and Russian.
Lev Navrozov

July 5, 2004

Let me assume that China is exactly what the U.S. political establishment, including mainstream media, has been representing it to be in the past decade or so: a peaceful society, moving to democracy and dedicated to a growth of prosperity. Still, there is no one who would deny that China has armed forces, and these are still called the ÒPeople's Liberation [!] Army.Ó Nor can anyone deny the foundation in China in 1986 of Project 863 and its goals, since it has been said in the Chinese press available to any Western tourist in China and on the Internet available to any Western computer owner or user that Project 863 has been developing Òdefensive and [!] offensiveÓ post-nuclear superweapons in seven fields.

Indeed, on Oct. 7, 2000, the New York Times (by no means a secret Chinese source) praised China for its world leadership in Ògenetically modified cropsÓ and explained that China owed this achievement to its praiseworthy progress of military genetic engineering, one of the seven post-nuclear military fields of Project 863. Why was this progress in military genetic engineering also praiseworthy? In 1984 President Reagan proposed a plan whereby nuclear-warhead-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles, in particular those launched by China in retaliation in case of a U.S. nuclear attack on China, would be intercepted by U.S. missiles and destroyed. No retaliation on the part of China! No Mutual Assured Destruction, on which the peace between nuclear powers rests! Surely President Reagan's plan (which has not been realized as of 2004) was aggressive! Hence Project 863. President Reagan intended to intercept the Chinese nuclear missiles of retaliation, and here he was to face Chinese post-nuclear superweapons in seven fields!

But what if the People's Liberation Army launches these post-nuclear superweapons not in retaliation for a U.S. nuclear attack on China, but as an act of people's liberation of the West from its present Òruling classÓ? The alternative: annihilation or unconditional surrender!

This can be regarded as an offensive, not defensive war. But who will bring to justice the Òsupreme leadersÓ of China? The New York Times?

In other words, with all due love and respect for the Òsupreme leadersÓ of China, and their impeccable self-control in matters of world peace and international justice, their development of post-nuclear superweapons since 1986 ought to be watched or (if the word ÒwatchedÓ is too unfriendly) observed by the CIA, the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and all China watchers, to testify in Congress.

There are also U.S. universities whose professors of Chinese studies can read and watch the Chinese media, including the Internet, dealing with military issues, weapons, and geostrategy.

Recently, the research team headed by Isak Baldwin, the manager of our Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, has found studies carried out by Chinese military men with whom U.S. military men cooperated. The studies were published in 1996. One section of them numbered 100 pages and was entitled Ò technological Weapons of Future Warfare.Ó In 1996! The Chinese military had begun to be interested in the development of molecular nano weapons in the 1970s!

The U.S. military who cooperated in the research viewed their cooperation very positively. The Chinese science of war becomes more and more Òtransparent.Ó Instead of making a top secret of it, the Chinese military publish their views, and the U.S. military who cooperate with them become privy to them.

Some of these U.S. military men possibly hope that finally the Chinese and U.S. armed forces will know everything about each other. All that will be necessary for world peace is to rename the U.S. armed forces the ÒPeople's Liberation Army.Ó The Sino-American People's Liberation Army could have liberated Iraq!

It is true that in contrast to the Western medieval Inquisition, Stalin's Russia, or Hitler's Germany, the rulers of China have permitted free expression throughout the millennia of its history provided this free expression did not aim at limiting their absolute power. From the free expression of the China military there evolves a military policy that the Òsupreme leadersÓ of China accept and pour billions of dollars on the research required by this military policy. In the United States, several military officers helped the Chinese in their research. So what? The military policy that followed from the Sino-American research did not become in 1996 (or in 2004!) the military policy of the U.S. government.

Such is the diametrical difference between China and the United States. If a military policy is embraced in China by Òseveral peopleÓ who are the Òsupreme leadersÓ of China, that military policy will be the Ònational policyÓ of China. On the other hand, the fact that several U.S. officers cooperated in 1996 in the Chinese study ÒNanotechnological Weapons of Future WarfareÓ means nothing for the United States. The U.S. government could be as far away from this joint study of Ònanotechnological weaponsÓ in 1996 Ñ or in 2004!

Whether we like it or not, a military policy in a democracy has to be supported by a majority, not by just several military men who read a Chinese study in 1996 and even cooperated in the research.

The defense of the democratic West against Nazi Germany was impossible until the majority of the democratic West had realized in 1939 that Hitler had launched a recognizable conventional war of territorial expansion. If, instead, he had concentrated on the secret development of nuclear weapons, the democratic West would have surrendered unconditionally if Hitler had dropped a couple of nuclear bombs on its cities.

This is why the information spread in the United States by the mass information media and even more so by the Internet webs like Yahoo! is so important. A majority of the American people, not several military officers, must see what the Òsupreme leadersÓ of China are up to. Indeed, Yahoo! is a kind of daily electronic encyclopedia or directory, making it possible to judge what the general public knows.

So I have typed in Yahoo!: ÒMolecular nano weapons research in China.Ó The first 20 ÒresultsÓ of its ÒsearchÓ are assumed to be the most relevant, and their sequence is established by the number of ÒvisitorsÓ who have read each Òresult.Ó

Result 1 is very impressive:

Above Top [!] Secret ø Military [!] & Government [!] Projects ø Molecular Nano Weapons Research in China and Talk in the West. Conspiracy related discussion about Molecular Nano Weapons: Research in China and Talk in the West in the Above Top [!] Secret websites discussion forum. . . . Click the first line, and you will have on your screen what is Òabove top secret,Ó splashed over five pages.

There is an odd detail in this Òabove top secretÓ presentation. Its phrase (see above) ÒMolecular Nano Weapons: Research in China and Talk in the WestÓ is the title of my NewsMax.com column of 2/27/04.

Similarly, above top secret talk is embellished with two links to that same NewsMax.com column of mine.

If I had been the Director of Central Intelligence and had secretly been writing an article arguing that the CIA is a hoax (I published such an article in 1978) and/or that molecular nano weapons research is going on in China, while in the West it is just talk, Yahoo! would have announced my name. See? The information is above top secret! The article had been stolen from the CIA's top secret safe! But who is Navrozov? He has never held any official post in any country! He is Ñ oh my God! Ñ a writer! He says that he has refused as a matter of principle all offers to become a university professor. No, this is even funnier Ñ he says he is a thinker! Good heavens Ñ a thinker! He thinks, you see! But who doesn't?

If Yahoo! had reprinted my column, the latter would have made sense. But the Yahoo! sages did not understand my column. So they split it into a mosaic, with absurdities of their own Ñ Òabove top secret.Ó

The next Yahoo! result (No. 2) bears the title of the same column of mine. Four paragraphs of my column are quoted, with this remark at the end: Òmore at NewsMax.com.Ó

All or nearly all of the first 20 ÒresultsÓ of Yahoo! are composed in the same spirit around a couple of my columns. Only one result (No. 5) has my name before the title of my column, will reference to the WorldTribune.com.

Some of my readers will say I should rejoice Ñ according to the first 20 results of Yahoo! I am the world's only authority in the field. Thank you, Yahoo! Still, where are the CIA and DIA? Where are U.S. university professors of Chinese studies? Where are the Chinese media, including the Chinese Internet? Where are those U.S. officers who cooperated with the Chinese military in 1996 on ÒNanotechnological Weapons in Future WarfareÓ?

Finally, if I am the world's only authority in the field, why didn't those Yahoo! results just retell my columns instead of making kaleidoscopes out of them to create the impression that they are Òabove top secret.Ó

Lev Navrozov's (navlev@cloud9.net] new book is available on-line at www.levnavrozov.com. To request an outline of the book, send an e-mail to webmaster@levnavrozov.com.

July 5, 2004

Print this Article Print this Article Email this article Email this article Subscribe to this Feature Free Headline Alerts


See current edition of

Return to World Tribune.com Front Cover
Your window on the world

Contact World Tribune.com at world@worldtribune.com