|
 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. .
|
 |
In the 1960s the Soviet rulers achieved their nuclear parity with the United States, that is, secure peace, based on Mutual Assured Destruction. Both countries had means of nuclear retaliation (missiles deep underground, submarines deep underwater, bombers on duty high in the air), which no nuclear weapons could destroy. If the United States nuked Soviet Russia or vice versa, the indestructible means of nuclear retaliation of the attacked country would nuke the attacker.
Published in Denmark was the international magazine ÒNuclear Physics.Ó My wife was the editor of its Soviet branch at the Lebedev Institute of Physics, Moscow. Suddenly there was an Òinstruction from aboveÓ: no more research in nuclear physics. The Soviet rulers wanted post-nuclear research for post-nuclear superweapons.
Such as? Every Soviet nuclear physicist knew the name of Richard Feynman, an American nuclear physicist, and read whatever he published. In 1960 he published an article about nanotechnology. That was one of the post-nuclear fields that are now considered by many nanotechnologists the likeliest candidates for the development of post-nuclear superweapons capable of destroying enemy means of nuclear retaliation.
When we emigrated from Soviet Russia and came to New York in 1972, I told the editor of the ÒNew York Times MagazineÓ and the CIA that the Soviet rulers were developing post-nuclear superweapons. Twenty years later it became obvious that I had been right Ñ in 1992 Yeltsin opened to international inspection the Soviet development of bioweapons as contradicting the international convention of 1972.
The point is not how the Soviet rulers had planned to use these weapons. The point is that the Soviet rulers were striving beyond Mutual Assured Destruction and the peace it had mutually assured. That is, they were planning an aggressive war with post-nuclear superweapons, expected to destroy the Western means of nuclear retaliation.
Neither the New York Times nor the CIA believed me or anyone else, saying what became incontrovertible in 1992. So, in 1978, I convinced the following outstanding Westerners to become members of the Advisory Board of a not-for-profit corporation, ÒThe Center for the Survival of Western Democracies,Ó with myself as its president:
Though the event has been amply reflected in the Chinese press (as a measure to counter ÒAmerican imperialismÓ), few Americans have even heard of Project 863. The U.S. political establishment and the U.S. mainstream media have been keeping silence about the development of post-nuclear weapons in ChinaÑa silence more deafening than was the silence about this development of post-nuclear weapons in Soviet Russia until Yeltsin revealed in 1992 the Soviet bioweapons. In the 1970s and the 1980s, in the United States there were influential political forces, alert to the ÒSoviet threat.Ó In the past few years, Communist China has been represented to the general public in the United States only as a peaceful humane country, valued for its trade, cheap manpower, and American tourism, complete with Beijing duck.
Last May China and Russia announced their military partnership.
Obviously, CSWD, Inc., is now more vital for the survival of the democratic West than it was at its foundation a quarter of a century ago.
As we renew our Advisory Board, we are trying to attract scientists and technologists in the fields, such as nanotechnology, where post-nuclear superweapons are expected. We hope that with them we will maximize our efforts in the study of, for example, nanotechnology in China and in the education of the general public as to the danger of post-nuclear superweapons in that vast empire (now in military partnership with Russia), of which the Western political establishment has been so ominously silent.
On August 20, 2003, I received an e-mail from K. Eric Drexler, the ÒNewton of nanotechnology.Ó Sending his best wishes to the Center for the Survival of Western Democracies (the great scientist has read its Program), he writes that Òexamining molecular manufacturing technologies from a competitive military perspective has received too little attention.Ó
Ironically, the Chinese press and the Chinese Internet, reflecting much of it, contains a wealth of information of the development, in particular, of nanotechnology in China, and this information can be used for examining it Òfrom a competitive military perspective,Ó which Dr. Drexler points out in his e-mail.
Why was Soviet Russia so secretive about its post-nuclear weapons and China is not? The Chinese propaganda asserts that the United states is after world domination, and the Chinese post-nuclear weapons of defense against it are as legitimate, virtuous, and noble as any Western weapons, be it swords, firearms, or Ronal Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative of the 1980s to intercept nuclear missiles and thus to violate mutual assured destruction. Sadly, the invasion of Iraq is more grist for the Chinese propaganda mill.
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.