|
 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.
|
 |
Before the successful development in the United States of nuclear weapons by 1945, war had been a struggle for territory, whether by means of swords or of firearms. The development of nuclear weapons in the United States and in Hitler's Germany was the Ònew war,Ó which the United States won, and dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan in 1945, whereupon the latter surrendered unconditionally, as Germany would have done, too, had it not been defeated in the Òold war.Ó
The Ònew warÓ is a war between labs, not between armies. In the Ònew warÓ there is no Òcampaign,Ó a connected series of military operations. Instead, the labs are developing a new superweapon, and when it is ready, the Òtarget countryÓ is annihilated or surrenders unconditionally.
In 1938 Hitler was perceived by the democratic West as a champion of peace. If he had not started a conventional war (Òold warÓ) in 1939, but put all the resources into the development of nuclear weapons, the democratic West would have continued to perceive him as a champion of peace, the U.S. Manhattan Project would never even have started, and then suddenly the United States would have been in the position of Japan in 1945: surrender unconditionally or else. The Ònew warÓ: the secret research and then the annihilation of the enemy or its unconditional surrender.
As it happened, in 1939 Hitler started an Òold war,Ó and the attitude of the democratic West toward him changed overnight Ñ now he was an aggressor seeking to impose his dictatorship on the entire world, and everything ought to be done to develop nuclear weapons ahead of him.
Stalin and his successors never repeated Hitler's mistake, though in 1941 Stalin had no worse chances to conquer Germany than Hitler to conquer Russia. Instead, in the 1970s Stalin's successors began the development of post-nuclear superweapons, which would be able to force the West to surrender unconditionally just as Japan surrendered in 1945 when confronted by nuclear weapons. That is, it was in the 1970s and the 1980s that the dictators of Russia were at war with the West, but it was the Ònew war,Ó and the West did not notice it, while Gorbachev, the last Soviet dictator, who paid special attention to the development of post-nuclear superweapons, became even a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Mao and his successors have never tried to repeat Hitler's mistake. In 1986 they began the development of post-nuclear weapons in seven fields. So, since 1986 they have been at war with the West, but this is a Ònew war,Ó which can be waged with all attributes of peace, including cordial smiles exchanged with the Western heads of state and of government. Of course, the new superweapons should be different from nuclear and thermonuclear bombs, which have been useless as offensive weapons due to Mutual Assured Destruction, with its nuclear retaliation. The new superweapons should be able to destroy the enemy means of nuclear retaliation, and molecular nano weapons are expected to do the job.
Meanwhile the dictators of China incur no risk whatsoever. The Ònew warÓ is called peace, in contrast to the Òold warÓ with its bombs, artillery, and everything else creating so much deafening noise and such giant flashes of fire, to say nothing of horrible deaths, that it is clear that this is war as war Ñ Òold war.Ó Attacks and retreats, guerrillas, seizures by storm, downed aircraft, sunken ships, prisoners of war! Nothing like that in the Ònew war.Ó Scientists with their instruments in the quiet well-lit and well-ventilated labs. But they are preparing annihilation compared with which the Òold warÓ is a brawl.
Yes, unashamedly the Chinese media described the foundation in 1986 of Project 863, developing post-nuclear superweapons in seven fields. So what? Is to kill by nuclear bombs good, and by molecular nano weapons evil? Is to attack a country with bombs and heavy artillery in order to impose Òbourgeois democracyÓ on it good, and to compel a country to surrender unconditionally in order to impose on it Òtrue democracyÓ or Òsocialist democracyÓ evil?
The Ònew warÓ is not a gamble, a game of chance, as the Òold warÓ often was Ñ for example, for Hitler, who lost it after five years of playing it, with millions of casualties. The Ònew warÓ is as scientific, aseptic, and peaceful as the preparation of a medicine killing a certain kind of microbes. ÒPolitburo? Project 863 reporting. The 'medicine' is ready.Ó The Ònew warÓ is safely won. Now the unconditional surrender of the West, also a safe operation (not a single samurai and not a single kamikaze in Japan made much trouble when Japan surrendered unconditionally).
So the power-holders of China will be able to annihilate the West without any risk to themselves. Is it possible that when they are told by the scientists that the ÒmedicineÓ is ready, they will not administer it to force the West to surrender unconditionally?
Let us recall that they did not just surround Tiananmen Square in 1989 and thus made the gathering disperse for the lack of food and water. They literally crushed the gathering by armored vehicles. Why? To teach a lesson. The Tiananmen gathering aspired to limit or restrict their absolutism Ñ it was subversive. Two years later the Soviet dictatorship fell without much ado.
But surely the West is a global Tiananmen Square, which is infinitely more subversive and without which the Tiananmen movement would not have arisen. As an independent country, Taiwan would not have existed either. The West preaches and practices the restriction of the executive power by the legislature and the judiciary. Hence the Tiananmen movement, or Taiwan, flourishing without absolutism, autocracy, dictatorship, you name it. The power-holders' absolutism in China or their virtual ownership of the country will always be vulnerable as long as the West is subverting it by the very fact of its existence.
Centuries ago absolutism flourished in Europe and China, and they did not subvert each other at all! When Soviet absolutism originated late in 1917, Winston Churchill expressed his fear that it would subvert the form of government of Western Europe (recall the ÒRed TerrorÓ in Munich or Soviet Hungary). Churchill called for the invasion of Soviet Russia to annihilate the Bolshevism-bacillus infecting the West! But the tables were turned. In 1991 the Western democracy-bacillus felled the dictatorship of Soviet Russia, and two years earlier it had brought forth the Tiananmen movement.
The war in Iraq has suggested to the rulers of China that the United States is ready to impose Òbourgeois democracyÓ against the will of a considerable section of the population, engaged in a fierce guerrilla war. The solution? Nano-annihilate the West or force its unconditional surrender before the West interferes in China.
If the rulers of China believe that the United States will interfere only in small countries like Iraq, having no nuclear weapons, certainly the war in Iraq is priceless for the Chinese rulers' propaganda of Lenin's slogan: ÒEither we [destroy] them or they [will destroy] us.Ó
How long will it take the Chinese scientists to develop the molecular nano superweapon, that is, to win the Ònew warÓ?
The American molecular nanotechnologists Ñ few, deprived of all government funding, and scolded by nanotechnologists of Òpurely civilianÓ nano fields for their geostrategic warnings Ñ said in 2003 that the development of the Òatom bombÓ took only three years (1942 to 1945), but involved more new science and more development of new technologies and techniques than the molecular nano assembler program is expected to.
The only Western defense in China's Ònew warÓ could be the molecular nano Manhattan Project that would give the West the molecular nano weapons no later than the dictators of China will obtain them. The result will be the peace due to the principle of Mutual Assured Destruction, based not on nuclear, but on molecular nano retaliation.
However, the U.S. government does not finance any molecular nano Manhattan Project, as it would not have financed the nuclear Manhattan Project from 1942 to 1945 if the United States had not been Òat warÓ (Òold warÓ!) with Germany, complete with U.S. ships sunk by German submarines and everything else, befitting the Òold war,Ó that is, steel and fire, blood and death, hatred and cruelty.
Eric Drexler, the founder of nanotechnology, could be in charge of the molecular nano Manhattan Project. Instead, he is the epicenter of verbal abuse. In its Feb. 14, 2004, article, ÒNano Patterning,Ó by Gary Stix, ÒScientific American.comÓ confirms what Drexler wrote in 1981 and 1986 Ñ without mentioning his name. Well, if Hitler had not launched a war (Òold warÓ) in 1939, the United States would not even have started the (nuclear) Manhattan Project, and would have surrendered unconditionally to Hitler's nuclear weapons, despite Einstein and other brilliant European physicists in the United States, clamoring for the (nuclear) Manhattan Project. To stress the apocalyptic irony of this all, it can be recalled that while Einstein emigrated from Germany, Drexler is a born American. The Biblical sorrow is that a prophet is without honor in his own country. In this case, the Biblical sorrow is apocalyptic Ñ at least for Judeo-Christendom.
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.