Let me note, however, that despite the fact that the U.S. Manhattan Project, which developed nuclear weapons, had about 200,000 employees and spread all over the USA, it proved to be a total secret in 1945 to Japan, a highly militarized country with a powerful military intelligence, until two U.S. nuclear bombs were dropped on Japanese cities. Why then should Westerners have to see a Chinese nano weapon to believe that the dictatorship of China has Manhattan projects developing post-nuclear super weapons?
Incidentally, when I pulled up on my computer The Epoch Times (a Chinese dissident newspaper), I saw that Point 19 referred to a “secret nano project, analogous to the Manhattan Project, which produced in 1945 nuclear weapons.”
According to the BBC News as of March 2004, 71 percent of the English people had never heard of nano technology. In China, the magazine “National Defense” carried on June 15, 1996, the article “Nanotech Weapons in Future Warfare” by Major General Sun Bailin, while in 2000 the mass newspaper “Beijing Evening” of 11/13 carried an entertaining article “for the masses”: “The Little Nano Devil Catches the Huge Evil Spirit.” However, the text of the article was quite serious and scientific.
A book, written by two officers of the “Chinese Liberation Army” and published by its publishing house in February 1999, suggested by its very title, “Unrestricted War,” that no weapons, such as “chemical” and “biological” weapons, which were excluded from WW2 (even Hitler forbade their development), should be excluded from the “unrestricted war.” The two Chinese officers wrote (p. 224): “Regardless of whether we are talking about Hitler, Mussolini, Truman, Johnson, or Saddam, none of them have mastered war.”
From its section “About us” we learn that “Nano China” is “supported and endorsed” by the Institute of Nanotechnology in Britain. As is clear from its title, the ultimate goal of “Co-Lab International” is to convert all laboratories (including those of China, of course!) into a single “world lab.” The article “China” of “Co-Lab International” occupies in Yahoo! 28 pages and begins as follows:
On the 23rd of March 1987, a Scientific Co-operation agreement was signed between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of the People’s Republic of China. The agreement encouraged the exchange of research ideas, equipment and people between our two countries.
The reference to “people” is significant. Suppose in New Zealand there has appeared a nano scientist or technologist of genius. In China, the dictatorship establishes arbitrarily high salaries for those important for the development of new promising super weapons, such as nano super weapons. So the dictatorship of China receives a nano scientist-technologist of genius by way of the exchange of people “between our two countries.” Thus, the dictatorship of China can gather the Western creative genius in the field apart from its own native genius.
The section of “Co-Lab International,” entitled “Nanotechnology,” numbers in Yahoo! 44 pages! The first one-quarter of a page of these 44 pages, describing “international cooperation in nano research” reads as follows:
Nanotechnologies and nanosciences:
(a) long-term interdisciplinary research into understanding phenomena, mastering processes and developing research tools;
(b) supramolecular architectures and macromolecules;
(d) nanometer-scale engineering techniques to create materials and components;
(e) development of handling and control devices and instruments;
(f) applications in areas such as health, chemistry, energy, and environment.
Politically, the authors of this “international co-lab” activity are at the level of preschool children. They do not seem to realize that dictatorship does exist, and in particular it exists in China, with its population of 1.3 billion people. Nor do these politically preschool children seem to realize that “unrestricted war” is planned by the Chinese military, to include post-nuclear weapons, such as nano super weapons, able to destroy the West at a blow (shashou jian, as Sun Tzu would have put it in Chinese).