World Tribune.com


Iraq, China, USA in geostrategic comparison


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.
Lev Navrozov

May 23, 2004

Territory and population:
Even without Hong Kong, the territory of China exceeds that of the United States. The population of China exceeds that of the United States more than four times and that of Iraq 52 times.

Education:
Four times more scientists and engineers graduate per year in China than in the United States. The number of graduates in every field depends in the United States on the personal wishes of the school leavers, whose parents are willing to pay the tuition fees, unless a scholarship is available.

In China, the number is determined by Òthe supreme leaders,Ó who take into account the geostrategic importance of each field. Obviously, the number of graduates in genetic engineering or molecular nano technology in China may exceed that in the United States 4, 16, 32, etc., times.

Import of unique manpower:
It is equally obvious that the human reservoir on which Òthe supreme leadersÓ can draw is not only China but the world. A scientist or engineer of any country can be invited to work in China on terms better than anywhere else, and, since China has been represented in the West for many years as a peaceful and otherwise benign society, the invited scientist or engineer will have no moral grounds to resist the invitation.

Nuclear weapons:
For China, nuclear weapons are obsolete as offensive weapons and are good only as defensive weapons, based on the principle of Mutual Assured Destruction by means of nuclear retaliation. China tested its first nuclear bomb in 1963, and the nuclear arsenal of China, complete with means of global delivery, soon became ready to destroy the United States by way of nuclear retaliation under Mutually Assured Destruction.

Non-Nuclear weapons:
In the early 1990s Iraq had mustard gas, which had been used in WWI, and then abandoned.

Since 1986 China has been developing post-nuclear superweapons of global-scale destruction, such as molecular nano superweapons on which the U.S. government has allocated no funds.

It has been tacitly assumed by the Pentagon that the history of development of superweapons ended at the U.S. development of nuclear weapons in 1942 to 1945. What is necessary is to prevent small countries, called rogue countries Ñ in contrast to China, which will nano-annihilate the whole West (no roguery!) Ñ from acquiring nuclear weapons (which Russia acquired in 1949 and China in 1963).

Conventional army:
It did not virtually exist in Iraq as far as the invasion of 2003 was concerned. What appeared thereafter is guerrilla war, which is confined to Iraq and is not exportable. The Iraqi guerrillas are guerrillas, as were the Spaniards (hence the word) or the Russians fighting against Napoleon. Certainly Napoleon meant emancipation to the Russian ÒserfsÓ (actually slaves up to the 1840s): Yet Russian slaves were guerrillas fighting against Napoleon's invasion with pitchforks!

The conventional army of China could be ten times as large as it is today, considering the population of China, but the Òsupreme leadersÓ of China understand that the Ònew warÓ is a war of labs, not of armies.

Maximum possible danger to the outside world:
Without any navy, any aviation, any nuclear weapons, or any international terrorism, the danger of Iraq to the outside world was, as of 2002, zero. The danger of China as soon as it has molecular nano weapons is the nano annihilation of the West.

Before its troops invaded Iraq, the United States could ÒnukeÓ Iraq with total impunity. However, the United States is impotent with respect to nuclear powers like China. As for invasions, the United States has so far been unable to conquer even Iraq, whose population accounts for about 2 percent of the population of the Islamic world, and a fraction of 1 percent of mankind. The geopolitical role of the United States is close to zero, while that of Iraq has always been zero in modern history.

ÒIraq talkÓ:
The U.S. political establishment, including the mainstream media, has been talking Iraq from morn to eve every day for more than a year, so that the impression has been that Iraq is the mortally dangerous China and China is a peaceful Iraq. Another supposition: the U.S. political establishment and the mainstream media went insane, with Iraq as their common Òfixed idea,Ó according to which mankind is divided into two halves: the United States and Iraq. There are other countries, but they come into view only in connection with Iraq.

Those who watched the press and radio in the fall of 1941 tell me that the U.S. preoccupation with Iraq nearly matches its attention to Nazi Germany when it dominated continental Europe from the Bay of Biscay to the environs of Moscow and later to the Volga and was sinking U.S. ships across the Atlantic.

Global military power:
As soon as Òthe supreme leadersÓ of China have molecular nano weapons or other superweapons able to destroy the Western means of nuclear retaliation, they will establish world domination, with the annihilation of the West or its unconditional surrender.

It is ridiculous to refer to Iraq's global threat as had been done in the United States for years prior to the invasion of 2003 as well as thereafter.

Since the U.S. political establishment (including John Kerry) Òdoes not see the 'China threat,'Ó there is no need for the United States to develop molecular nano and other such superweapons. Surely such superweapons are not necessary for the struggle against the guerrilla war in Iraq. As a result, as soon as Òthe supreme leadersÓ of China obtain such superweapons, the United States will be as defenseless as Japan was in 1945. That is, the United States will be fit to wage war with countries like Iraq, but if China annihilates the United States or reduces it to its colony, the United States will be deprived of that luxury as well. Possibly, if the United States is permitted to exist as a Chinese colony, the Òsupreme leadersÓ of China will forbid all weapons in the United States, including daggers and hunting rifles.

Cruelty: Whenever Saddam Hussein has been mentioned in the U.S. ÒIraq talk,Ó a speaker would wince and explain that Hussein had been a monster of depravity whose equal mankind has not seen, in contrast to Òthe supreme leadersÓ of China, the dearest friends of Western statesmen.

Actually, Saddam Hussein and his regime were no more cruel or oppressive than dozens of rulers and their regimes in the Islamic world and elsewhere (the Tiananmen Massacre in China comes to mine). Since the Sunnis constitute a less fundamentalist and more pro-Western minority than the Shia majority, Saddam had to rule relying on a minority. As for the Kurds, they did not want to be part of Iraq. Saddam suppressed the strife, violence, and fundamentalist cruelty of an Islamic country with a secular fist. Saddam's military commanders have been put into its military service by the Coalition, and most likely the post-Saddam Iraq will be no better than Iraq under him, while it is possible that it will be far worse, combining his political oppression with the fundamentalism of the type of Ayatollah Khoumeini, who advised good Moslems not to marry girls younger than 9, but keep them as mistresses.

Those Americans who are implicated at whatever level in the Òprisoner abuseÓ in Iraq believed that such barbarous methods are necessary in the struggle against Iraqi or Islamic barbarity. This is what Hussein believed as he fought against the disintegration of Iraq and against the fundamentalism of the Shia majority. The Òprisoner abusesÓ and the Coalition's enlistment of Hussein's commanders have introduced nuances into the earlier black-and-white icon: Hussein the Devil and the hosts of Coalition angels, consigning him back to hell and met by both Sunnis and Shia with flowers, dances, and tears of joy.

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.

May 23, 2004

Print this Article Print this Article Email this article Email this article Subscribe to this Feature Free Headline Alerts


See current edition of

Return to World Tribune.com Front Cover
Your window on the world

Contact World Tribune.com at world@worldtribune.com