|
 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 rise of Parliament in medieval England, the "sovereign" allocated to anything military he fancied as much as he thought fit. But the people of England came to believe that it is THEIR money that he spent, and thus there grew up a "parliament" to "parler" (to speak about) the king's allocations in order to discard or endorse them.
In the 20th century, England gave up its other colonies, such as India, since the anti-British rebels would have been supplied by Soviet Russia with what ever they needed for their "wars of national liberation."
A dictator of today has even greater opportunities than did the "sovereign" under absolutism to allocate as much as he chose to anything military without any "parley," let alone any publicity or restrictions. Any traditional hereditary king or emperor could be envious, since a dictator has at his disposal today's media-a huge machine of persuasion that can mislead the public in his country and in the world at large about the dictator's military allocations-the media owned by a dictator can represent his country, maximizing its growth of aggressive military might, as a peaceful society seeking wealth and minimum defense.
Karl Haushoffer, who was a 51-year-old German general and "geopolitician" when Hitler began his political career in 1920, convinced Hitler that all empires of old finally collapsed because they were not world empires. Hitler was to conquer Russia and process her vast national resources into the world's most powerful armed forces, establishing his world dictatorship. When Hitler came to power in 1933, Germany was, under the Treaty of Versailles, virtually defenseless, but having become the dictator, Hitler, in the next five years invested into his war machine so much that it routed France, along with the British Expeditionary Force, within days, and was, within three months, near Moscow, and in the next summer, at the Volga. But neither the British, nor the French government had even surmised Hitler's allocations from 1933 to 1938 to create the world's most powerful war machine within five years virtually from scratch.
As for the United States, it was possible to launch the Manhattan Project in 1938. But the Project was in full swing only in 1942, after Hitler had declared war on the United States in 1941. Well, in a country in a state of war President Roosevelt could finance the Manhattan Project without "parley" in Congress.
The irony is that the war against Germany was won without nuclear weapons. In this sense, those members of Congress who would have argued that the investment in the Manhattan Project was unnecessary, since Germany (and Japan!) could be defeated without nuclear weapons, would have been right, and the investment in the Manhattan Project might have been rejected by Congress. But what if Hitler had not launched a conventional war in 1939, but channeled all his resources into his project of development of nuclear weapons?
The dictators of China have been secretly channeling, since at least 1986, all available resources into their development of post-nuclear superweapons in seven fields, such as molecular nanotechnology (MNT). In Chapter 11, "Engines of Destruction," of his book "Engines of Creation," Drexler explains how molecules can be converted into self-replicating "artificial viruses," molecular assemblers, supermicroscopic nano computers, and a torrent of billions of these supermicroscopic "engines of destruction" will be able to destroy enemy means of retaliation (such as submerged submarines with nuclear weapons aboard), which nuclear weapons cannot do. Mutual Assured Destruction on which world peace between the nuclear powers has rested will be thus circumvented, and the attacked country will be at the attacker's mercy.
It is interesting to see how the geostrategic situation of today is perceived not by the New York Times, but by average American voters. For example, WiseNano (wisenano.org/w/International) has posted an "International Research Efforts Comparison." Its one-paragraph "Introduction" says:
The comparison begins with the United States:
To begin with, "nanotechnology" is a field of many fields, most of them having nothing to do with anything military, and some of them are devoted to, for example, military tunics out of nano materials, etc., which has nothing to do with molecular nano weapons Drexler describes.
Second, Ralph Merkle is concerned with, for example, "medical applications of nanotechnology," and the late Richard Smalley had nothing to do with the military future of molecular nanotechnology, but on the contrary, cursed Drexler's description of it as quackery. It is Drexler who is the founder of nanotechnology and possibly the world's greatest molecular nanotechnologist , with a profound foresight of the military future of molecular nanotechnology.
"By most measures the U.S. outspends any of its competitors individually"? Well, the world's greatest nanotechnologist, with a profound foresight of military future of molecular nanotechnology, cofounded with his wife the Foresign Nanotech Institute in 1986. Until 2004 he had been the Chairman of the Institute he cofounded. But not today! Whatever has happened?
He and his Institute have not received a cent from the congressional nanotechnological allocations. Then the Institute decided to prove to the U.S. Congress that the Institute had nothing to do with Chapter 11, "Engines of Destruction," of Drexler's book "Engines of Creation." Drexler joined "Nanorex," which has been the greatest event in the existence of this firm. But so far the U.S. Congress has not relented.
What about the development of molecular nano weapons in the dictatorship of China? WiseNano knows nothing about it, which does not prevent it from writing as though it knows everything. First of all, it is always safe to present China as a developing country and its government as dedicated to advancing science (especially for military use, since surely China must take care of its defense against its numberless enemies!). What about molecular nano weapons? "China still has many problems to overcome. . . ." Surely the dictator of China will not invest $200 billion, or $20 billion, or even $2 billion a year into the development of luxuries like molecular nano weapons when China still has many problems to overcome! The whole WiseNano description of China is worth quoting in full as a sample of suicidal ignorance and parochial smugness:
The United States, in which public discourse reveals such total suicidal ignorance in combination with such assumed omniscience, can expect nothing, but annihilation by those post-nuclear superweapons the "funding or research" of which China "sees relatively little"-"in absolute comparison to the United States at this point." Remember Drexler? He and his Foresight Nanotech Institute have been lavished by the U.S. Congress with money!
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.
Thus, "British America" finally had its independence because the British Parliament considered the continuation of the war too costly. That was their money, the money of the English people, including themselves, who were mostly rich bourgeois, and they were loath to spend more money to prevent the independence of a wild land 3,000 miles away from England.
This article will attempt to provide a rough outline of the research capacities of various countries with an aim to developing probable relative timeline for the development of advanced molecular manufacturing. This kind of analysis is essential in making any kind of judgements about geostrategy in the time right before and after the advent of the first Drexlerian assembler, should such a device prove possible to build. In any case, these analyses will be useful as nanotechnology will proffer many changes, even short of fully advanced MNT as envisioned by K. Eric Drexler in Engines of Creation.
The United States is generally considered to be the world leader in nanotechnology research. The field's most prominent researchers, including K. Eric Drexler, Ralph Merkie, and Richard Smalley, are all Americans. By most measures the US outspends any of its competitors individually.
Often considered the main long term competitor to the United States in scientific research with its huge yearly crop of talented college graduates and a government dedicated to advancing science (especially for military uses), China still has many problems to overcome and sees relatively little funding or research in absolute comparison to the United States at this point.