Stopping those who would use technology for world domination: Ever hear of democracy?

---

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. .

My column ÒChina vs. the West: Geostrategy vs. Amnesia,Ó evoked many e-mails.

However, one e-mail Ñ from William Stroupe (Subject: ÒSuperweapon No. 3Ó) Ñ deserves a special comment, apart from advising Mr. Stroupe to read my book on the subject.

Mr. Stroupe explains how difficult it is to destroy or neutralize the Western means of nuclear retaliation, that is, to overcome Mutual Assured Destruction. ÒThis is a very great technological hurdle to overcome, not impossible, but extremely difficult.Ó His e-mail ends as follows:

Now the technological hurdle is immense, is it not? What real proof exists that Russia and her partner China have, or nearly have, such a weapon? It does intrigue me that if one could possibly down all the crucial technological assets of the West in one fell swoop, without the use of nuclear weapons, then world domination on the part of the attacker would surely result. But how could this possibly be done, from a technological standpoint?

Well, the development of the Òatom bombÓ was also a very great (and some believed impossible) hurdle. Yet Nazi Germany began developing it before the United States did, but since 1939 its resources were tied up in the conventional war for world domination, while the United States had sufficient resources to clear this hurdle and obtain the Òatom bomb.Ó

So the problem is the will to world domination or the prevention of enemy world domination. Hitler was able to strive for world domination. Why? Because Nazi Germany was not a democracy.

Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others. To discuss world domination beyond good and evil, let us suppose, just for he sake of argument, that democracy is the worst form of government. Period. It is worse even than absolutism, such as Hitler's dictatorship.

The German people voted for Hitler in 1932 as for their defender against Stalin's invasion of Germany, which was virtually defenseless under the Treaty of Versailles. But Hitler was preparing and then waging a war for world domination, for which most of his voters had not voted in 1932.

He wanted world domination because it would have prevented any subversion of his power by the Òbacillus of BolshevismÓ and the Òbacillus of democracy.Ó World domination would have given him unlimited world power, greatness, and grandeur unprecedented in history.

Daryl Gerstenberger writes to me in a long, warm, and stimulating e-mail of June 18 that China called itself Jung Gua, Central Empire. In the 15th century, China could conquer Europe and the rest of the Òoutskirts of the world,Ó but the Central Empire considered these outskirts not worth conquering. Yet today these outskirts threaten the multimillennial absolutism of the Central Empire. Remember the Tiananmen Square movement for democracy in China in 1989?

Let us now imagine that Germany of the 1930s (or China today) were a democracy. For Hitler his war for world domination was a breathtaking global game of self-aggrandizement. The entire world learned his nameÑhe became as famous as Alexander the Great or Napoleon. Throughout the war he was safe and comfortable in his bomb shelters. He lost his global game and committed suicide as often does a loser at cards or in business. But the German people? Their homes were bombed for five years, they as well as their near and dear were killed, or died of wounds. Given a democracy, many Germans would have said publicly that Hitler was an egomaniac, playing with millions of German lives, and his war would end in the occupation of Germany by foreign troops, including Stalin's, to prevent whose invasion Hitler had been elected. Silent secret preparations for global offensive war are impossible in a democracy for better or worse. Just start secretly in the United States what China has been doing since 1986Ñthe development of post-nuclear weaponsÑand the secret will be out if only because a participant of this secret project will declare on a TV program that the United States has been violating the international agreements to which it is signatory.

The Vietnam war was possible for the United States as long as the U.S. losses were insignificant. But when the number of U.S. casualties was approaching 50,000, the protesters became numberless. They carried the poster: ÒNothing is worth dying for!Ó Indeed, the U.S. presidents and many VIPs who had planned the war did not die in Vietnam: they lived safely and comfortably. ÒWhy should we, who have not been planning the war, die for whatever they have told us to?Ó Inversely, since China is not a democracy, the preparations for world domination are not publicly condemned or thwarted. Project 863 for the development of post-nuclear superweapons in seven fields (including genetic engineering) was founded in 1986, and has been general knowledge in the Chinese media. But in the seventeen years since then, there has been not a single protest in China audible or visible enough to be reported by the Western correspondents in China. As for the West, the New York Times reported Project 863 (in a couple of paragraphs) on October 7, 2000, and that has been the only mention of it I know of in the Western media since 1986.

In conclusion, William Stroupe asks me: ÒBut how could this [the destruction or neutralization of all Western means of nuclear retaliation] possibly be done from a technological standpoint?Ó

In my school essay shortly before the explosion of two U.S. nuclear bombs in Japan, I wrote about the advent of a superweapon, to be expected owing to an even quicker pace of development of science and technology. Nor was I original. Published in many countries in the 1930s and the first half of the 1940s, were books with titles like ÒWeapons of the Future Wars,Ó and as a schoolboy I had been reading them.

But if these authors or I had been asked: ÒBut how could this possibly be done from a technological standpint?Ó none of us could say anything because no book published before 1945 even hinted at nuclear weapons as Òweapons of the future wars.Ó

Suppose a participant in the Manhattan Project had explained in 1942 to us, contrary to his secrecy pledge, that the production of heat, light, and radiation, in the sun, can be put into a bomb or a missile, which will then act as a slice of a sun on earth, burning and melting a large city with all its inhabitants. The authors of those books about the weapons of the future wars would not have believed that such a slice-of-a-sun-on-the-earth would even be created, and they would have decided that it was certainly more improbably and impossible than all of the weapons of the future wars they had described in their books.

Some Americans believe that everything science and technology will create tomorrow, in a week, or in three years, can be described now and as simply as Òhow to lose weight without dieting.Ó