China's 'shashou jiang' ignores Western 'rules' of geostrategy

See the Lev Navrozov Archive

By Lev Navrozov

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

October 23, 2005

The phrase “assassin's mace” is the English translation of “shashou jiang,” a term of ancient Chinese strategy. Today's Chinese strategy has become the most advanced modern geostrategy, but some principles of ancient strategy apply.

In post-Roman Europe, wars were mass duels, and duels obeyed rules. A medieval knight challenged another medieval knight to a “single combat” and a 19th-century aristocrat challenged another aristocrat to a duel. Who of them was right and who wrong in their conflict was totally irrelevant. What mattered was the observance of the rules of a “single combat” or a duel. Similarly, in European wars it was important, for example, to declare war on the country attacked. When Hitler attacked Stalin's Russia, Hitler (a mega-criminal!) declared war through the German ambassador in Moscow, hearing which the Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs (Vyacheslav Molotov) ruefully exclaimed: “What have we done to deserve this?” He meant that all the Soviet raw materials Germany needed had been supplied punctually, while the Soviet government anti-Nazi propaganda had been suspended. Even Molotov (a mega-criminal!) believed that a war must have a cause, and not be just a sudden attack.

On the other hand, “shashou jian” was a club with which the “assassin” incapacitated his enemy — suddenly and totally, instead of fighting him according to “the rules,” which are strategically harmful Western nonsense, according to “Unrestricted Warfare,” a book published by two Chinese “senior colonels” in 1999 and passed by the Western mainstream media in total silence.

Let us imagine that the United States had nuclear weapons not in 1945, but already in 1941 when Japan attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor. Then U.S. aircraft would have dropped two “atom bombs” on Japan immediately thereafter, and Japan would have surrendered unconditionally. This is “shashou jian.” Of course, the Western “rules of war” began to demand in the second half of the 19th century that it is permissible to wage war on a country only if it has attacked first — as Japan did at Pearl Harbor in 1941. But surely this is also strategically harmful Western nonsense, according to “Unrestricted Warfare.” The effect of the two U.S. bombs dropped on Japan would have been even more certain if Japan had taken the United States, on the eve the “shashou jian,” for a peaceful country at peace — and here suddenly the “shashou jian”!

That is, the Chinese dictators' geostrategy stems from antiquity, but the history of the past seventy years or so gave it a new twist, which the Chinese geostrategists have embraced. Suddenness is achieved today owing to superweapons. If Hitler had not started a conventional war in 1939, but concentrated all resources on the “peaceful” development of the “shashou jian” (at that time, nuclear weapons), the West and Russia would have surrendered unconditionally to him as did Japan to the United States in 1945.

The Chinese dictators' development since 1986 of the “shashou jian” (today it is post-nuclear superweapons) is as simply obvious as 2x2=4, but the West does not want to understand 2x2=4, since to understand it is extremely unpleasant to many members of the U.S. government, U.S. Congress, the Pentagon, the mainstream media, or just “common people” preoccupied with their personal goals, cares, and troubles.

Once I brought, for offset printing, my description of the “China danger” to a one-man print shop in our neighborhood, and the owner saw the word “survival.” He was interested. “Whose survival do you mean?” he asked. “The survival of the United States,” I answered. He was deeply disappointed. “You should write a book about how enterprises like my print shop can survive!” he said didactically.

Those wishing to show how peaceful China is have been pointing out how tiny the People's Liberation Army is as against the population of China exceeding that of the United States four times. Today the plan is to reduce the Chinese army to 2.3 million. In 1990, that is, before the Soviet dictatorship collapsed in 1991, the U.S. military “on active duty” numbered over 2 million men. Now, according to my “Statistical Abstract,” the “military manpower fit for military service” amounted, as of 2003, to 206 million in China, and to 12.4 million in the United States. That is, the Chinese army could have exceeded the U.S. army 17 times! Instead, they are almost equal.

So the appeasers may conclude that China is the most peaceful society that has ever existed on earth while the United States is militaristic and militarized. But the proper conclusion is that the Pentagon is anachronistic and is dedicated to obsolete conventional war, while China is geostrategically modern and intends to defeat the West in the same way the United States forced Japan into unconditional surrender, except that the shashou jian of today is not nuclear weapons as in 1945, but post-nuclear superweapons, and the Chinese geostrategists have no need for a U.S. Pearl Harbor–like attack on China to use the shashou jian.

Compared with a (volunteer!) U.S. soldier, a Chinese soldier costs next to nothing. Yet the dictators of China have been reducing the number of the soldiers in order to channel the resources thus released into superweapons research, for the modern war is a war of laboratories, employing the world's best scientists and technologists in the respective fields, and not a war of soldiers, braving enemy bullets and terror bombs in Iraq, a tiny backward country, dominated by the fundamentalist Islamic Shia majority as against the better educated and more worldly Sunni minority.

Today's shashou jian will decide the destiny of the world, while the Pentagon's weapons (as has been used in Iraq) are fit only to be exhibits in a future museum of military history, to demonstrate the debacle of the democratic West unless these Pentagon's weapons are reduced to atoms by the nano superweapons.

Speaking of nano superweapons. Eric Drexler, the founder of nano technology, discussed them in the chapter “Engines of Destruction” of his book of 1986. Several years ago Drexler stopped discussing the destructive uses of nano-technology since the U.S. Congress would not give any allocations to him and his Foresight Institute because of such discussions of his.

However, on Oct. 10, I received an e-mail from my reader Paul Clark who e-mailed to me an article by Bill Joy, Chief Scientist for Sun Microsystems. The title is “Why the Future doesn't need us,” and under the title we read in boldface type: Our most powerful 21st-century technologies — robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotech — are threatening to make humans an endangered species.

The difference is that the American scientist speaks of all humans as of an endangered species, while the dictators of China have been working since 1986 to make the West (subverting their power by its very existence) a species so endangered that it will surrender unconditionally as did Japan in 1945, or will be annihilated. Shashou jian!

On Oct. 15, CNN gave an hour to a program called “Nanotechnology.” The program was a cornucopia of miraculous applications of nanotechnology — except for weapons. The new Industrial Revolution does not involve weapons! The name of Drexler, the founder of nanotechnology, was not even mentioned.

Lev Navrozov's (] new book is available on-line at To request an outline of the book, send an e-mail to

October 23, 2005

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 Front Cover
Your window on the world

Contact World at