|
 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.
|
 |
Why from China? an indignant reader may ask. Surely all hot news has been coming from Iraq ever since its invasion. Well, before the invasion, I wrote in my NewsMax column that the United States is like a person who has put his head into the maw of a tiger for his own benefit and pleasure (it is so warm and ticklish!) and fights a bedbug with might and main as threatening his life unless turned into a butterfly. The CIA and hence the U.S. political establishment pictured Saddam Hussein as an omnipotent dictator, in charge of the guerrilla war against the Coalition, but the alleged omnipotent dictator was found last December in a tomb-like pit like a living corpse, while the guerrilla war continued exactly as before. The whole picture of Hussein had been a figment of the CIA's imagination. So, while Iraq is, geostrategically, a bedbug, its conversion into a geostrategic butterfly is more problematic in 2004 than it was a year ago.
Hence I yield to my reader Daryl Gerstenberger, who understands that geostrategically China is a tiger even if it is so warm and ticklish in its maw, while the omnipotent dictator of the geostrategic bedbug of Iraq had been a living corpse since no one in the CIA knows when. Says my reader in his e-mail to me that my NewsMax and WorldTrib columns about China are quickly becoming the only articles worth reading.
Do you know what the Chinese were made to celebrate at Christmas and thereafter? The 110th birthday of Mao Zedong, who, apart from his Stalinism in the domestic mass destruction of civilians, was a Marxist-Leninist geostrategically, and both Marx and Lenin believed that Communism had to be global. Lenin invaded Poland to invade Germany and thus to begin the establishment of world Communism. That is, he was acting like Hitler from the east, except that Lenin's Red Army was stopped at Warsaw (with the help of the French) and Lenin soon became incapacitated by sickness and died in 1924.
Of course, Lenin lived in the age of extensive, not intensive warfare. That is, the world could be conquered only by conquering country after country. In 1945 came intensive warfare. Given a sufficient number of nuclear bombs, the United States could make the entire world surrender unconditionally as did Japan. Stalin's Russia did not have nuclear weapons until 1949. Ironically, the United States, having developed the atom bomb, did not notice that the war became intensive, while the Soviet rulers in the early 1970s and their Chinese followers in 1986 began their quest for weapons that would be as geostrategically superior to nuclear weapons as nuclear weapons were in 1945 superior to firearms.
In extensive warfare the world is conquered or destroyed not by marching armies of Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Lenin, or Hitler, but by someone whose superweapons can destroy an enemy means of nuclear retaliation and hence to destroy the enemy country with impunity or make it surrender unconditionally.
On the eve of Christmas, I received a page-long e-mail from Rafael Chan, who reproaches me for ignoring what is truly remarkable in China today: growing prosperity. Well, all dictatorships of the past one hundred years contained much that was truly remarkable: free university education, free medical care, and low rent in Soviet Russia, or new excellent highways and cars financially accessible to all in Nazi Germany.
At the same time we observe in all big dictatorships their rulers' quest for world domination to suppress subversion of their power. China is the biggest dictatorship in history, and predictably its rulers want to suppress all subversion not only within (such as the Tiananmen movement in 1989), but also without, for what is the West or what is Taiwan, but Tiananmen gatherings, only bigger than that on Tiananmen Square in Beijing in 1989?
One of the most promising candidates for the next superweapon seems to be molecular nano assemblers (see my column of Dec. 19, Will Eric Drexler Save the West from Nano Annihilation?). The Washington Times is quite pro-defense. Nor does it share (see the articles of Bill Gertz and his book, The China Threat) the general love for the dictatorship of China. Yet its editorial on Dec. 9 on nano technology does not even mention the development of nano weapons in China. It solemnly proclaims that an act that passed both Chambers of Congress earlier this year and has been signed at last authorizes $3.7 billion in spending on nano technology over the next four years, that is, $925 million a year. At the same time, China is reportedly [!] spending between $300 and $400 million on it each year.
First, the word reportedly is alarming. Without any Chambers of Congress, the rulers of China can authorize $3.7 billion a year (not over the next four years) on nano technology as quickly as it takes to say: $3.7 billion. Remember those more than $100 billion a year as their surplus in the Sino-American trade?
Second, a Chinese worker receives two or three cents an hour for the work for which a U.S. worker makes $8. Therefore, $400 million in China may be equivalent of billions or dozens of billions of dollars in the United States.
Third, none of the U.S. $3.7 billion allocation for nano technology may go into the development of molecular nano weapons (see my column of Dec. 19), while the reported Chinese $300 to $400 million a year on nanotechnology may combine around the development of molecular nano weapons as the pivot, goal, raison d'tre of the entire spending.
Fourth, it is instructive to compare $925 million a year, allocated in the United States on nanotechnology with astronomical billions of dollars that have been and will be spent on the war with the geostrategic bedbug called Iraq. To say nothing of Coalition soldiers killed daily in the guerrilla war conducted by whom? The CIA does not know. But certainly not by Hussein, the original target of the war, the villain of the piece, and the source of all evils and dangers to the United States.
The Chinese rulers' development of molecular nano weapons also sucks in whatever can be gained for free from the West, and the West is eager to accelerate in this way its nano annihilation.
On Dec. 23, our Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc., received an interesting document of the Project 863 web site. Project 863 was founded in 1986 for the development of post-nuclear superweapons in eight fields such as genetic engineering. The document we received is a two-page form to be filled in to go to a nano science and technology seminar, sponsored by the rulers of China and by the European Union.
Let all outstanding nano scientists and technologists of Europe come to the seminar at Xiyuan Hotel in Beijing and share what they know with Chinese nano scientists and technologists. Of course, American nano scientists and technologists are also welcome. Though they are not the sponsors of the seminar, they can contribute, with their latest research, done on those $3.7 billion dollars over the next four years, to the Chinese rulers' development of molecular nano weapons.
The most outstanding Western nano scientists and nano technologists in the fields useful for molecular nano weapons can well expect to be invited for work in China with generous salaries (not two or three cents an hour!) and social benefits plus an excellent research and living environment.
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.