|
 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.
|
 |
On October 15, I received a 16-page e-mail (including 2 links) from Leonardo Winner, an MCI integration engineer. The e-mail begins:
ÒI love your articles and am fascinated at the foresight and detail you use to back these issues up. I just finished reading your article on China's Geostrategy and how our government seems to have taken their eye off the real threat of China. China is becoming an economic behemoth and with the manpower and resources that they already had, money is all that remains for them to fill the gap between the two countries.Ó
How to counter China's possible molecular nano weapons I have been writing and speaking about?
Leonardo refers to the Òantimatter bomb,Ó being developed by the U.S. Air Force and NSA at the Eglin Air Force Base, and supplies 2 links. Could the U.S. antimatter bomb counter the Chinese molecular nano weapons? This is what Leonardo requests me to answer.
One of his links is Keay Davison's article in the ÒSan Francisco ChronicleÓ of Oct. 4: ÒAir Force Pursuing Antimatter Weapons Ñ Program Was Tested Publicly, Then Came Official Gag Order.Ó
The 5-page article is followed by 11 pages of the readers' e-mail comments.
First of all, when discussing a contemplated superweapon it is necessary to define its geostrategic goal. The goal of nuclear superweapons was to destroy with one bomb or one warhead far more than with a NTT (trinitrotoluene) bomb. When I was still in Soviet Russia (before 1971) I learned that there was a proposal to Brezhnev to build 3 thermonuclear bombs or warheads, able to destroy all cities of the United States. The proposal was turned down as totally useless, for both the United States and Soviet Russia (later China as well) had means of nuclear retaliation, such as submarines deep under water with nuclear weapons aboard. No thermonuclear bomb or warhead could destroy the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans or find these submarines in their depths in order to destroy them. This is Mutual Assured Destruction, on which world peace has rested.
From Davison's article I have mentioned above and the comments to it, it is clear that the advantage of the future antimatter bomb will be its larger scale of destruction, compared with its nuclear counterpart, given the same weight. What is the gain? Saving on the jet fuel for bombers and having smaller missiles?
If the U.S. Air Force has been engaged in the development of the antimatter bomb whose only advantage is being smaller than the thermonuclear bomb of the same destructive power, then the Air Force has been wasting money, since the development of superweapons without knowing geostrategy is a waste of money.
There is another problem. Hitler's Germany had not produced nuclear weapons by 1945, nor had any other country except the United States. Why? The U.S. government investment into, and hence the U.S. scale, of nuclear research were unique. Germany and Russia were both engaged in a life-or-death conventional war that absorbed all their resources.
There were other factors making the U.S. Manhattan Project unique. Hitler declared war on the United States. What if he defeated Russia and obtained its natural resources to transform them into the world's most powerful naval and air forces? The final outcome of the war seemed in 1941 and 1942 uncertain. In the United States, Stalin's Russia was assumed to be left-wing (which was absurd) and Hitler's Germany right-wing (equally absurd). Roosevelt was sympathetic to Stalin's Russia (the First Lady visited Stalin's Russia and wrote a Stalinist book), and hostile to Hitler's Germany. The emigre nuclear physicists from Hitler's Germany, including Einstein, declared that the Òatom bombÓ was possible, and Hitler's Germany might obtain it ahead of the United States.
Today China is not at war with the United States: on the contrary, the Western political establishment is in unrequited love with the dictators of China, the mainstay of U.S. business. The creeping dictatorship in Russia and its Òstrategic partnershipÓ with China is likewise ignored. So why develop post-nuclear weapons?
Davison's article I have mentioned above begins: ÒThe U.S. Air Force is quietly spending millions of dollars investigating ways to use a radical power source Ñ antimatter, the eerie ÒmirrorÓ of ordinary matter Ñ in future weapons.Ó
ÒSpending millions of dollarsÓ! The dictators of China receive more than $100 billion dollars a year as its Sino-American trade surplus and they can plungeÑno, not millions of dollars, but dozens of billions of dollars into the development of post-nuclear superweapons, able to destroy or neutralize the Western means of retaliation, that is, circumvent Mutual Assured Destruction, and thus have the West at their mercy.
Congress has refused to give any allocations to the Foresight Institute of Eric Drexler, the founder of nanotechnology. On November 18 I received the Institute's e-mail plea for a $45 donation. It was timed with Thanksgiving Day. But I do believe that there is a group Òspending millions of dollars,Ó which seems to Davison, the author of the above article, a young fortune, but which is comically small by the standards of such research in the United States in 1942 or in China in 2004.
In his e-mail (see above) Leonardo says that Òmoney is all that remains for them ['the supreme leaders' of China] to fill the gap between our two countries.Ó Well, everything depends on how money is spent. In China, Eric Drexler is worshiped, and billions of dollars are lavished on the development of molecular nano weapons, and in the United States his Foresight Institute collects $45 donations on Thanksgiving Day.
According to Davison's article, the U.S. Air Force antimatter bomb research was, until recently, reported by the media. So the relevant Chinese knew about it. Should the Òsupreme leaders of ChinaÓ consider the antimatter weapons geostrategically useful, they would invest into the antimatter weapons research not millions, but billions, or, if necessary, dozens or hundreds of billions of dollars.
Until and unless the U.S. government, the U.S. Congress, the Pentagon, and the mainstream media stop being willfully blind to the geostrategy of today, the United States will be lagging in the development of post-nuclear superweapons more and more behind China in its Òstrategic partnershipÓ with Putin's Russia.
On July 12, 2001, when it was still Òpolitically correctÓ for Republicans to see Òthe China threat,Ó since Bill Clinton, a Democrat, could still be blamed for the Western willful blindness to the mortal danger of China's development of post-nuclear superweapons, ÒAsia Times OnlineÓ reported from the Congress that Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (a California Republican) said, introducing a bill to take away China's Òtrade status,Ó owing to which China's Òtrade status,Ó owing to which China's Sino-American trade surplus soon exceeded $100 billion:
ÒCommunist China is a monstrous threat. It is America's most dangerous potential adversary. We all know that.Ó
I especially appreciated: ÒWe all know that.Ó The truth about China is like the truth that the Emperor has no clothes, which a boy shouts as all Òpolitically correctÓ adults pretend that the naked Emperor is wearing the most beautiful royal attire imaginable.
To those who say that my China threat message has been ignored by the Western political establishment because I do not have irrefutable evidence, I reply that the boy in Andersen's tale had no irrefutable evidence that the Emperor had no clothes, but all knew that.
The ÒAsia Times OnlineÓ report continued:
Ò'What are they [the Òsupreme leaders of ChinaÓ] doing with their surplus?' asked Rohrbacher. 'They're beefing up their military.' He compares China's leaders to Adolph Hitler and the Nazis, saying that 'we made some very serious errors in dealing with tyrannies in the 1930s and we're making the same errors with China today.'Ó
What was the reaction of Congress? In Andersen's tale, the boy's shout that the Emperor was naked broke down the wall of Òpolitical correctness.Ó Not in Congress!
ÒThat drew a rejoinder from Representative Earl Blumenauer, an Oregon Democrat. 'China, with all due respect, is not Nazi Germany,' he said.Ó
How politically correct! For example, Hitler killed 12 million civilians, committed suicide, and has been condemned by Germany, while 50 million victims have been ascribed (outside China!) to Mao, who died in 1976 at the age of 83 at the prime of his power, and whose 110th birth anniversary was celebrated in China last year with his portraits and eulogies everywhere.
* * * * *
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 Ònano Manhattan Project,Ó 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.