|
 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.
|
 |
Every Russian of my generation remembers the Voice of America radio station. In Soviet Russia, we were listening to it in Russian, and when its programs in Russian began to be jammed, in English. The Voice still sounds in my head: “Prague. Two Catholic priests were arrested today on charge of espionage.”
A couple of months ago, Inna Dubinskaya, the host of the Voice of America live call-in show, broadcasting to Russia and all Russian-speaking wherever they are, sent me an e-mail, saying that she'd been reading my Internet columns about molecular nano weapons and was inviting me to speak on her program of January 18 “Nanotechnology — Perspectives and Threats,” along with nanotechnologists, who work in the United States, but are “of Russian extraction” and hence speak Russian as their mother tongue.
The first speaker was a Russian-American professor of nanotechnology who said that he “did not expect any serious dangers” from nanotechnology.
Well, as Inna informed us, 150 nano conferences were held in 2004, and I felt as though I were at one of them. Nanotechnology is a field of many fields, and nanotechnologists working in one of them, as peaceful as the growth of flowers, usually do not (want to) know what Eric Drexler, the founder or “father” of nanotechnology, wrote in 1986 about trillions of supermicroscopic molecular nano “machines,” able to replicate and destroy the enemy means of nuclear retaliation and thus circumvent Mutual Assured Destruction, on which peace has rested in our age of nuclear weapons.
Let us imagine that nuclear weapons were not developed in 1945, and a nuclear scientist working on the generation of electricity with the help of nuclear fuel, would be asked whether he expected any dangers from nuclear power. “Dangers? What nonsense! Nuclear physics is the most peaceful field you can imagine! I am a nuclear physicist!”
I was the second to speak. I said that in 1986, the Chinese supreme leaders founded Project 863 for the development of post-nuclear weapons in seven fields. Molecular nanotechnology is only one of such fields. On the other hand, the U.S. Congress has not allocated a cent to Eric Drexler's Foresight Institute. Of course! What are molecular nano weapons for — or the defenses against them, if China, the biggest dictatorship in recorded history, is, in the perception of the Western political establishment, the most peaceful society conceivable?
My thunderbolt did not produce much impression. First of all, I am a (socio-political) thinker (if such a word still exists), and my only academic “degree” is an Albert Einstein Prize “for outstanding intellectual achievements,” as Inna kindly announced. One of the nanotechnologists present responded to my thunderbolt with a general remark that China “has not been very successful in nanotechnology” (not in certain fields, but in nanotechnology in general).
Another nano-technologist began to explain what is nanotechnology, and a caller from Novosibirsk, Russia, named Mikhail, suggested the presentation of “the physical basis” of nanotechnology.
In his letter to President Roosevelt, Einstein did not explain what is nuclear physics and did not present “the physical basis” of nuclear weapons. In the past half century, nuclear physics has been studied at school, but in 1939 to 1945 no one except nuclear physicists could tell a proton from an electron. Nor did Einstein say, from the height of his greatness, that Germany had not been very successful in nuclear physics. Quite the contrary, he warned that Germany might develop nuclear weapons ahead of the United States. Hence the Manhattan Project went into full swing in 1942, that is, four years after the possibility of nuclear weapons was expressed in 1939. The United States was at war with Germany. Otherwise the Manhattan Project would not have been founded at all, and the United States would have surrendered unconditionally after Germany dropped a couple of nuclear bombs on American cities.
All statements about China (after I introduced it into the discussion) were about how far behind China is in nanotechnology (in general!).
“I think that Europe is far ahead of China” (in nanotechnology).
“China is far behind the USA and Russia” (in nanotechnology).
“Consumer goods from China are trash.”
Perhaps they are trash compared with Russian consumer goods? But not compared with American consumer goods, though they cost a fraction of the relevant U.S. consumer goods. Besides, while Soviet consumer goods about sixty years ago were often trashy, the tanks, earth-to-earth missiles, or assault rifles were the world's best or at least superior to those of Nazi Germany and contributed to its defeat.
Indeed, one of the nanotechnologists on this Voice of America radio program said that the United States should not try to advance too much in military nanotechnology. If the U.S. nanotechnologists do, China will steal what they have achieved.
“It is wrong to get too far ahead. Why do it? This is what I don't understand!”
You see? There is no danger of being behind China in molecular nano weapons. The danger is to be ahead of China!
These Russians or Americans of Russian extraction do not seem to understand that while they work in the United States, many of the most gifted Americans work in China. One of the Russian Americans on the radio program said that Shanghai is more impressive and beautiful than New York.
The Sino-American trade surplus of China has long passed the $100 billion mark, and so “the supreme leaders” of China can well pay an especially gifted American nanotechnologist a far higher salary in Shanghai than he would get in New York — if he is invaluable in molecular nano research, crucial for the development of molecular nano superweapons.
On the other hand, let me repeat that the U.S. Congress has not allocated a cent on the development at Drexler's Foresight Institute or elsewhere of molecular nano superweapons (do not confuse these geostrategic superweapons with nano uniforms, protecting soldiers against bullets and other “tactical defense” applications of nanotechnology).
A radio listener from Kazan (Russia) proclaimed at the end of the program: “We should not be naïve!”
Oho! The mortal danger of nano and other post-nuclear superweapons exists!
What is the solution or rescue?
It came from Kazan, but I have heard of it dozens of times in New York, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C.
“A system of international inspection”!
Imagine Chamberlain coming to Hitler in 1938 and saying: “Look, Adolph! Stop haggling about Czechoslovakia! Nuclear bombs can be developed. The United States may drop them on Germany or Japan. Why risk it? Let us have a system of international inspection! Inspectors will watch the military production in Germany and all other countries. Agreed? Good for you!”
I forgot to mention an argument on the program. One nanotechnologist argued that one electron can exist in 100 rooms simultaneously, while another opposed. I hope that the argument will be resolved before the molecular nano annihilation of the West or its unconditional surrender and its conversion into a Chinese colony.
* * * * *
For more information about Drexler's Foresight Institute and its lobbying in Congress, see www.foresight.org
To learn more about the Chris Phoenix report, suggesting a “nano Manhattan Project,” go to crnano.org.
For information about the Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc., including how you can help, please e-mail me at navlev@cloud9.net.
The link to my book online is www.levnavrozov.com. You can also request our webmaster@levnavrozov.com to send you by e-mail my outline of my book.
It is my pleasant duty to express gratitude to the Rev. Alan Freed, a Lutheran pastor by occupation before his retirement and a thinker by vocation, for his help in the writing of this column.
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.