|
 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.
|
 |
A reader of mine, a highly intelligent, knowledgeable, and experienced editor, sent me an interesting e-mail worth public attention. He says:
ÒI agree with you on the unnatural obsession with Iraq by the West. I also agree that there is no evidence Iraq under Saddam Hussein had significant unconventional weapons.Ó
Whereupon the e-mail recalls the Israeli air raid in 1981 on an Iraqi nuclear reactor. So Iraq could have nuclear weapons in 1981!
ÒMore recently, World Tribune.com and the newsletter, Geostrategy-Direct.com exclusively reported truck convoys out of Iraq in the months before the war. The convoys were spotted initially by Israeli intelligence. The final destination was the Bakka Valley in Lebanon.
See: http://216.26.163.62/2003/ss_iraq_08_25.html .
This article created a sensation on the Internet and was sited on Fox News and talk radio. It threatened the growing anti-Bush consensus . . . "
Yes, France had been building in Iraq the Osirak reactor, which Israel bombed out of existence, and France declared that the reactor was not intended for the production of nuclear bombs. Indeed, France was leading a world campaign against the Israeli raid. Who was right?
About a quarter of a century has passed, but the Israeli war against terrorism has not been crowned with a brilliant victory. So Israeli strategic decisions cannot be taken as axiomatic truths versus French decisions. The Israeli military were sure that the reactor that France had been building in Iraq was intended to produce nuclear bombs to be dropped on Israel. Is this an axiomatic truth?
Stalin acquired nuclear weapons in 1949 and died in 1953. Neither he nor his successors used even a single nuclear bomb or warhead. The same applies to Mao, who obtained nuclear weapons in 1963. As a matter of fact, after two nuclear bombs had been dropped by the U.S.A. in Japan, not a single country has ever used a single nuclear bomb or warhead in the past sixty years. Why?
Fear of retaliation. Let us begin with Stalin. We have been seeing and hearing in the past few years that Òsuicidal terrorists readily sacrifice their lives,Ó and Òsuicidal terrorists are villains.Ó The false conclusion: Òvillains readily sacrifice their lives.Ó Yet the ruling passion of the post-1917 Stalin was not the overpowering wish to sacrifice his life for a cause, but on the contrary the paranoic fear of losing it. He killed not out of suicidal bloodthirsty fearlessness, but out of the paranoic fear that Trotsky or Bukharin would take over his post and kill HIM, or that rich farmers would stage a revolt or that Òenemies of the peopleÓ would enable Nazi Germany or the United States to take over Soviet Russia and kill HIM.
To use nuclear weapons against the United States? Even if he or his successors could annihilate the entire United States, the latter had submarines deep underwater, bombers on duty high in the air and other means of nuclear retaliation that nuclear bombs or warheads cannot destroy, and these U.S. nuclear means of retaliation would destroy Soviet Russia and kill ME, Stalin! Or ME, Brezhnev! ME!
When Hitler had attacked Soviet Russia, Stalin collapsed and took to bed. But then he recovered Ñ after all, the Nazi troops seized only the border areas, while the vast country, whose population exceeded that of Nazi Germany several times, was intact behind Stalin, and the Nazi troops approached Moscow in only four months, and failed to take it.
Hitler understood in the winter of 1941-1942 that he had lost the war. But he fought for his life desperately for another three and a half years, and committed suicide only when the alternative was obvious (hanging), and his capture was a matter of days, if not hours.
When in 2003 the Coalition invaded Iraq, Hussein collapsed Ñ and never recovered. He became a living corpse, found in a tomb-like pit. The guerrilla war that began after the Coalition's ÒvictoryÓ has had nothing to do with him.
Is it likely that Hussein, who killed his rivals out of paranoic fear, would have used a nuclear reactor built by France in order to obtain a nuclear bomb or warhead and drop it on Israel out of his thirst for Israeli blood? The United States could nuke Iraq to a desert within minutes. Can anyone imagine that Hussein would not mind the U.S. or Israeli (nuclear) retaliation, and his last feeling would be the elation of a suicidal terrorist burning on a pyre of his own making?
Hussein has been demonized after the Iran-Iraq war, in which the United States supported him as against Iran's Ayatollah Khoumeini. Hence Hussein became in many Western eyes the Devil or a suicidal terrorist, in contrast to Stalin and his successors, Mao and his successors, Hitler and all the other villains, who, actually, paid enormous attention to their self-preservation. As the Devil or a suicidal terrorist, Hussein allegedly had no fear or the instinct for self-preservation but, on the contrary, strove only to do harm to his enemies at the expense of his own life.
What has been said about nuclear weapons applies even more to the so-called Òweapons of mass destruction,Ó which were allegedly dispatched by Hussein to Lebanon.
I put the phrase Òweapons of mass destructionÓ in quotes because the phrase is strategically illiterate. Well, Hussein's nuclear bomb could have destroyed a city in Israel if Hussein had been willing to sacrifice his own life under U.S. (or Israeli) (nuclear) bombs. But mentioned among Hussein's Òweapons of mass destructionÓ was mustard gas. It was used in WWI, yet abandoned because heavy artillery and, later, bombers proved to be far more effective than mustard gas. The protection against mustard or another poisonous gas is simple and cheap: a gas mask. Yet we are to believe that Hussein would have used mustard gas today as a weapon against the countries that have gas masks and sophisticated medicine, and would have been destroyed by U.S. nuclear weapons, as the United States had warned him.
Can anyone compare, geostrategically, mustard gas with molecular nano weapons and six other superweapons on which the Chinese scientists have been working since 1986 and which are expected to be able to destroy the Western means of nuclear retaliation and hence annihilate the West with total impunity? The population of China exceeds that of Iraq 52 times, and its military technology is as developed with respect to the world of 2004 as that of Nazi Germany was developed with respect to the world of 1941.
Now we learn that Hussein did not destroy mustard gas and other Òweapons of mass destructionÓ he had used against Iran and the uprising of the Kurds, who had never seen a gas mask, but sent them to Lebanon. What for? To use them (after his death) in a war in heaven or hell? For surely he knew that the war against the Coalition would be his last war on earth and this is why he collapsed as the invasion began and has never recovered.
As for the guerrilla war after his collapse, the guerrillas use fire-arms and explosives, not mustard gas and other Òweapons of mass destructionÓ to risk the U.S. retaliation with nuclear weapons. ÒWeapons of mass destructionÓ can strike only human beings. But in war, and especially in guerrilla war, it is often necessary to strike field fortifications, buildings, infrastructures, vehicles. Hence explosives are needed, as well as firearms, such as sniper rifles to hit individual human targets. Osama bin Laden used to be, or pretended to be, a guerrilla in Afghanistan in the 1980s. For a long time after the anti-Soviet guerrilla war in Afghanistan was over, he posed before television cameras with a Kalashnikov assault submachine gun. Not with any vials or cylinders of Òweapons of mass destruction,Ó able to kill many people if they let these weapons be used against them in an open field, but useless for assault on any structures and requiring the absence of the enemy gas masks and sophisticated medical care.
Anyway, the worldwide terrorist and guerrilla war has been on for years, but its weapons included even four hijacked and rammed airliners, but not any Òweapons of mass destruction.Ó
As for post-nuclear superweapons, such as molecular nano weapons, expected to come into the hands of the Òsupreme leadersÓ of China, their goal is to circumvent Mutual Assured Destruction, that is, to enable the Òsupreme leadersÓ of China to annihilate the West or enforce its unconditional surrender Ñ and to live happily ever after.
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.