My name is Steve Allen. I am a doctoral candidate in Biodefense at George Mason University.

I am working on my dissertation, “Response and Nonresponse by U.S. Analysts, Policymakers, and Opinion Leaders to Soviet Violation of the Biological Weapons Convention.” The topic, in other words, is how the Soviets got away with conducting a biological weapons program comparable to the Manhattan Project, after agreeing to a ban on such weapons.

I am focusing on the period 1969-1991, covering the Nixon renunciation of biological weapons, the Biological Weapons Convention, the 1979 Sverdlovsk anthrax outbreak (which the Left attributed to tainted meat), and Yellow Rain (which the Left attributed to bee excrement). I am looking at the effort by some to expose Soviet activities in biological and toxic weapons, and the effort by others to downplay evidence of Soviet violation.

What roles were played by the intelligence community, the diplomatic community, the scientific community, the military, and advocates and critics of arms control policy? Why did so many Western leaders trust the Soviet Union? How did the Soviets’ deception succeed? In the future, how can we protect ourselves from becoming victims of such deception?

I was wondering if you had any ideas or information that might be helpful to my efforts. A copy of my original dissertation proposal is attached. Your assistance in this effort would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

— Steve Allen

It is also worthwhile to quote Steve Allen’s biographical sketch to see how intellectually alert and versatile he is:

He has been a newspaper reporter, radio news director, and newspaper columnist, and he was senior editor of “Conservative Digest” magazine. He served as press secretary to U.S. Senator Jeremiah Denton, who was chairman of the Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism. Steve also served as vice president of the Progress & Freedom Foundation, an information-technology think tank, founded by President Reagan’s science advisor. “The National Journal” called Steve a “digital revolutionary.”

He has been a Republican county chairman, state committee member, and three-time national convention delegate. He was an official U.S. observer of the 1984 presidential election in El Salvador during the terrorist attacks. In 1988, he was the Republican nominee for president of the Alabama Public Service Commission and received a then-record vote for a GOP candidate for that office.

Steve is a former vice president of the board of FCAC Channel 10 Public Access Television in Fairfax County, Virginia, and former membership officer (vice chairman) of the Washington, DC, chapter of Mensa. He served from 2002 to 2006 as chairman of the Family Advocacy Board at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. He is president of George Mason University’s Biodefense Student Association, representing more than 150 graduate students in Biodefense.

His wife, Debbie, is chief of personnel at the Defense Geospatial-Intelligence School.

Our subject is the defense of the West. First of all, it has become global. Second, there are two kinds of global defense: by protection and by retaliation. Protection was possible against conventional bombs. But only retaliation could be the defense of choice against nuclear weapons. Peace between the post-1945 United States, post-1949 Soviet Russia, and post-1964 China has been based on nuclear retaliation, known as Mutual Assured Destruction.

However, in both protection and retaliation, it was necessary for the United States to know that the potential enemy was up to circumventing Mutual Assured Destruction.

For the period of 1969-1991, on which Steven Allen is focusing, my answer was: the Soviet dictatorship was developing (forget international weapons conventions!) post-nuclear super weapons able to prevent the U.S. retaliation.

I left with my family the Soviet dictatorship at the close of the 1960s, and Ray Anderson, the Moscow correspondent of the New York Times, called his newspaper to recommend me. Responding to their question what I was going to write for them, I answered: “The Soviet dictators’ development of super weapons in order to circumvent Mutual Assured Destruction by developing post-nuclear super weapons able to find and destroy the U.S. repositories of nuclear retaliation.”

A senior CIA analyst, Dr. William C. West, and his two female assistants, came to talk with us in New York, and he believed me. But his CIA superiors did not, and when Ronald Reagan later met with me and made my “input” public, the CIA said that he (the U.S. president!) suffered from “evil-empirism” (the CIA joke, based on Reagan’s name for Soviet Russia: “evil empire”).

The New York Times reported the Soviet development of post-nuclear super weapons only after Yeltsin opened for international inspection in 1992 the Soviet archipelago of post-nuclear super weapons, that is, 20 years after the New York Times and the CIA had heard about them from me.

Now, what if the Soviet dictatorship had not collapsed in 1991 and Yeltsin had not opened the development of post-nuclear super weapons to international inspection?

How could the West defend itself by protection or by retaliation if the West did not know what the West should protect itself against?

In 1986, the dictatorship of China founded Program 863 for the development of post nuclear (such as biological) super weapons, and in the 2000s the dictatorship of China began to cooperate with Putin’s Russia, with its experience in super weapons. But few in the West even noticed the advent of Program 863.

On July 15, 1996, China’s Academy of Military Science published an article by Major General Sun Bailin entitled “Nanotech Weapons in Future Warfare.” On 11/13/2000, the tabloid “Beijing Evening” carried an article entitled “The Little Nano Devil Catches the Huge Evil Spirit.” Molecular nano weapons as mass tabloid humor. In 2000!

Early in 2007, I ordered from The Research Libraries Online Catalog, possibly tper weapons,” and “scalar weapons.” The response to all thre West, the following subjects “molecular nano weapons,” “China’s super weapons,” and “scalar weapons.” The response to all three subjects was “No entries found” (in the “Entire Collection,” in “any language”).

In its ignorance of post-nuclear super weapons, the United States resembles an early medieval village whose inhabitants know about the invention of gun powder, but not of any weapons that came later.

On the other hand, in China a Western spy who did miracles in Kipling’s time cannot ferret out secret specific military information. There is only military propaganda except in sources unavailable to a spy today.

In Stalin’s Russia, the goal of military propaganda was to appear as powerful as possible. What spectacular parades were organized with Stalin personally present! Stalin thus intended to dissuade Hitler from a surprise invasion of Soviet Russia. China does not fear a Western surprise invasion. So the goal of Chinese propaganda (“information”) is to show that China will be a more and more prosperous society, but “the China threat” is “a vicious invention of China haters.” The West should stay in its present blissful innocence until the dictatorship of China has an “assassin’s mace,” that is, super weapons that will make the United States (or the West in general) surrender unconditionally to China, as Japan surrendered to the United States in 1945, when the United States enacted, owing to accidental circumstances, what ancient Chinese strategists advised.

To demonstrate that Program 863 was not a military threat, the Chinese power holders explained that the Program had been created in response to Ronald Reagan’s intention (which he never realized) to create a system of destroying enemy missiles in flight and thus circumvent Mutual Assured Destruction. So Program 863 is concentrating on the development of “genetically modified crops,” in which China was (in 2000) ahead of the United States. But it can be guessed that as a side-line, Program 863 has been developing biological genetically selective super weapons, able to destroy mankind except for the Chinese (genetic selection).

The “China threat” should be deduced from the entire political system of China.

The intelligence/espionage, used before the advent of totalitarian societies in 1917, could not be used within totalitarian societies. The word “totalitarian” appeared in the English language only in 1926. Legalism in China (Han Fei, probably the best known Legalist, died in 233 B.C.) aimed not at laws protecting individuals against tyranny, but at laws protecting a prison state that Western tyranny or totalitarianism never attained. Thus, the Chinese were divided by the Legalists into groups of fives or tens. Those who failed to inform against the alleged disloyalty of one of their fives or tens were to “be cut in half at the waist” (Shi ji, Ch. 68).

At the same time, the audacity of propaganda in post-1917 totalitarian societies should be taken into account. Stalin held general elections, and it was said that they were more democratic than those in the United States, where the bedridden voters could not vote. Where was universal suffrage? In Stalin’s Russia a ballot-box was brought to every bedridden voter. Universal suffrage!

The “China threat” should be deduced not from intelligence/espionage as it had existed in the West before 1917, but from the social nature of the Chinese “prison state” and its present quest for world domination since it cannot coexist with Western constitutionalism within today’s world of global communication, as has been demonstrated by Tiananmen of 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet dictatorship in 1991.

Just as the “China threat” should not be split into a variety of autonomous military threats, so, too, the Western defense, whether protective or retaliatory, should be an integral system, ensuring a full-scale retaliation to the “China threat” of annihilation of the West as the source of involuntary yet fatal subversion of China’s dictatorship.

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.