The mind of an American specialist in nanotechnology

---

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. .

The word ÒnanogramÓ means one billionth of a gram. Nanotechnology penetrates within nanograms, and rearranges atoms. If the atoms in coal are rearranged, it becomes diamond (a mediaeval alchemist's dream). Such are its civilian uses. As for its military uses, Mark Gubrud of the University of Maryland has posted on a website his 18-page paper, ÒNanotechnology and International Security,Ó for the Fifth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology.

At the beginning of his paper (p. 2) Dr. Gubrud says: ÒIndeed, it is plausible that a nation which gained a sufficient lead in molecular nanotechnology would at some point be in a position to simply disarm any potential competitors.Ó

This is what I have been saying since Russia in 1972 and China in 1986 launched the development of post-nuclear superweapons except that I have been referring not to any specific post-nuclear superweapons such as those based on molecular nanotechnology, but a certain generalized Superweapon No. 3, since probably only the Òsupreme leader of ChinaÓ knows what specific superweapons China considers at the moment the most promising Òto simply disarmÓ the West, that is, to destroy its means of nuclear retaliation (Mutual Assured Destruction).

But when our associate (Isak Baldwin) prompted Dr. Gubrud to read those installments of my book that are already online, the scientist ranted in the spirit of those who believe that the criticism of a text is the negative political and psychiatric labeling of the author.

If Dr. Gubrud considered himself a rightwinger, he would have ranted: ÒMr. Navrozov's book is an insane liberal harangue in a 1930s pro-Soviet style.Ó But since Dr. Gubrud obviously considers himself and all sane and sensible people to be leftwing (and certainly never rightwing!), he ranted: ÒMr. Navrozov' book is a paranoid rightwing rant in a 1950s Cold War style.Ó

I wonder why Dr. Gubrud did not call me Òa raving fascistÓ or Òa schizophrenic reactionary.Ó Just as an uneducated Russian peasant, an American university professor may, alas, also believe that whoever disagrees with him is thereby a madman or a criminal or both by definition. Where did I disagree with Dr. Gubrud?

True enough, it is only our premises that coincide, whereupon Dr. Gubrud produces a long, verbose, convoluted, yet incredibly na•ve and parochial paper to prove that nanotechnology is to lead to Òan integrated international security systemÓ (p. 2).

Compared with Dr. Gubrud's fantastic political utopia, even Neville Chamberlain's Munich Agreement of 1938 seems sensible. Dr. Gubrud does not divide the countries into those that are or may be after world domination and those that defend themselves, as the United States defended itself against Hitler's Germany and Tojo's Japan, but did not use its monopoly on nuclear weapons between 1945 and 1949 to establish its world domination.

Imagine that monopoly in the hands of Hitler, Tojo, Stalin and his successors, Mao and today's rulers of China!

With a na•vetŽ far surpassing that of Chamberlain, Dr. Gubrud tutors at the end of his article (p. 16) all ÒnationsÓ Ñ China, Russia, the Islamic world, India, Pakistan:

ÒNations must learn to trust one another enough to live without massive arsenals, by surrendering some of the prerogatives of sovereignty so as to permit intrusive verification of arms control agreements, and by engaging in cooperative military arrangements. Ultimately, the only way to avoid nanotechnic confrontation and the next world war is by evolving an integrated international security system, in effect a single global regime.Ó

So, nanotechnology will not give China a chance to establish world domination. Oh, no! Read again Dr. Gubrud's idyll! A simple global regime!

Or here is a snippet from Isak Baldwin's e-mail interview of Dr. Gubrud on July 18, 2003:

Isak Baldwin: ÒSince 1986, through its 'Project 863,' China has been developing post-nuclear superweapons in 7 fields of research.Ó Dr. Gubrud: ÒI don't know if such a ÒprojectÓ exists, but even if it does, I'm not worried. There are a lot of military projects in the U.S. which make outlandish promises and are actually little more than hot air.Ó

So Dr. Gubrud does not know whether Project 863, which even the New York Times reported on Sept. 7, 2000, has existed since 1986. That is, he knows nothing about the development of post-nuclear weapons in China, which is to him just one of ÒnationsÓ to establish a Òsingle global regimeÓ and live in it happily ever after.

Project 863 was founded by Chinese scientists who are nationally known, while in the United States hardly anyone knows the name of any of them, and Dr. Gubrud suspects them, without knowing them or Project 863, of being charlatans producing Òlittle more than hot air.Ó

Incidentally, I checked the list of scientists who created in the 1960s and the 1970s the Chinese nuclear arsenal. They all have Chinese names. Is this arsenal also Òlittle more than hot airÓ?

Let us have a glimpse into the relations between the real United States and the real China, for both countries still exist as real countries, not yet as part of a Òsingle global regime.Ó

The People's Daily (Òthe organ of the Communist Party of the People's Republic of ChinaÓ) announced on November 21, 2002, that a Ònanotechnology centerÓ had been opened in Beijing by the U.S. Veeco Instruments Inc., a worldwide leader in the relevant fields, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

For historical parallel it can only be said that this is like establishment by U.S. nuclear scientists of a Ònuclear research centerÓ in Berlin would have been early in 1939, when Hitler was still regarded as a champion of peace. But if Dr. Gubrud represents the average mentality of U.S. nanoscientists and nanotechnologists, what is wrong for China to get ahead of the West in nanotechnology if China finally anyway becomes part of a Òsingle global regimeÓ?

Besides, the Veeco scientists may assure themselves and/or the public that if the Veeco transmits U.S. nanotechnology to China, the latter is behind the United States.

Actually, The People's Daily notes: ÒCAS [Chinese Academy of Sciences] statistics show that more than 300 enterprises are working on nanoscience in China, with some 7,000 scientists studying it.Ó Anyway, Veeco will bring to the new joint nanotechnology center in Beijing its Òatomic force microscope and scanning tunneling microscope.Ó Perhaps China did not yet (in 2002) produce such. As for the ÒChinese government,Ó it has budgeted about $240 million Òfor nanotech projects,Ó with at least as much Òdue from local governments.Ó

Under Chinese absolutism, the top ruling elite think about geostrategy, while the rest of the population need not bother about it. In a democracy, a voter must also think about geostrategy because he elects much of the ruling elite. But if the electorate is represented by nanoscientists like Dr. Gubrud and those of Veeco, the democracy becomes suicidal.