Does the CIA know anything about China's weaponized nanotechnology?
Thursday, May 28, 2009 E-Mail this story Free Headline Alerts
Lev Navrozov emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1972. His columns are today read in both English and Russian. To learn more about Mr. Navrozov's work with the Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, click here.
On 5/12/2009, I received an e-mail from Dr. William Mcintosh, the assistant producer for WELE, a radio website in Florida: "Mr. Navrozov-can we interview you regarding the China threat and nanotechnology?"
I accept all interviews on my key subject: "The defense of the democracies against the "new slave societies" (such as "Soviet" Russia, "National-Socialist" Germany, and "Communist" China) provided I am interviewed over the telephone or the TV equipment is brought into one of my two studios.
The interview took place on May 14, and its host was Doug Kosarek, who has a strong mind and a very pleasant voice. Mr. Mcintosh had sent me their written permission to outline the interview in NewsMax.com and WorldTribune.com.
I wanted first of all to establish for our audience certain undeniable facts that former President George W. Bush, the CIA, the U.S. Defense Department, and even the major media have been avoiding.
Has the dictatorship of China been developing (molecular) nano weapons, as Eric Drexler, who introduced the words "nano" and "nanotechnology," described them in his book of 1986? Yes or no?
Here are the articles, written by Chinese military officers and collected by the American Sinologist Michael Pillsbury during his stay in China. The collection is entitled "Chinese Views of Future Warfare." The last article in the collection was written by Major General Sun Bailin of China's Academy of Military Science and published in the Chinese magazine "National Defense" on June 15, 1996. The article is entitled "Nano Weapons on Future Battlefields." I will quote the last sentence of this article: " 'Nanotechnology' will certainly become a crucial military technology of the 21st century!"
The host of the program, Doug Kosarek, asked me to describe nano weapons. I said that molecular nano weapons are molecules converted into microscopic flying battle vehicles, complete with computers and everything necessary to annihilate nuclear bombs, for example. Billions of such virus-like vehicles make a cloud, moving where ordered and destroying whatever ordered. This is like bacteriological war, except that bacteria can only infect and thus spread a disease, while the microscopic nano battle vehicles destroy anything they are programmed to destroy.
Here Doug Kosarek expressed his reassuring confidence that in the United States there is a similar development of nano weapons. Yes! But what are the comparative levels of this development in the United States and China?
Thus we arrived at one of the possible key causes of the possible defeat of the democracies. Their intelligence/espionage is a century behind the times. They could penetrate the old traditional societies, and they can penetrate each other. But they cannot penetrate the "new slave states." One example. In the United States, there are millions of "illegals," that is, millions of possible spies. Now, suppose a U.S. aircraft dropped a spy on the territory of the pre-1991 Russia. He had to live (and sleep!) in some dwelling, right? But that would require him to get registered in that dwelling, and that would require his "internal passport," which could not be forged, since a copy was always kept by the ubiquitous ordinary police (not the KGB), and a telephone call to the police would reveal that there had been no police copy of the "internal passport" in question, that is, the "internal passport" was a forgery.
A Chinese dissident living in the U.S.A. told me how a Chinese nano lab or a workshop is built inside a mountain rock so that neither its wall nor its floor nor its ceiling could be drilled to penetrate it. The CIA does not mention Chinese nano weapons, since it knows nothing of their development in China and hence wants everyone to forget about them. Yet the phenomenal growth of China's nanotechnology in general is a fact not to be ignored. The British Guardian, which circulates worldwide, that is, West-wide, carried on March 3 an article entitled "China's Giant Step Into Nanotech." It would be absurd to suppose that an even more giant step has not been taken in China's development of molecular nano weapons.
Well, the "new slave states" have other military advantages over the democracies, which follow from the socio-political differences between the two.
A "new slave state," in peace or at war, is an army at war. Its dictator(s) can (secretly) allocate all human and physical resources (except the maintenance of the minimum for the rank-and-file majority and surpluses for the chiefs) to prepare for an attack with post-nuclear weapons and to make all inhabitants express joy with respect to whatever is done by the dictator(s), that is, their owner(s).
In a democracy, a human being can live for himself or herself. His or her perception of the need for the defense against a "new slave state" may be vague, utopian, or nonexistent. He/She is free to oppose any war or to extol any "new slave state," no matter how dangerous, as well as to help it (under "globalization" for example) to develop the best nano weapons, to say nothing of its science and technology in general.
Any strategic advantages of the democracies? Just one-freedom! Freedom creates genius, and genius created what was fundamentally new, such as the atom bomb, which grew out of the atomic research that won the Curies the Nobel Prize in 1892. The democracies are able to use the creativity of genius in freedom to defend themselves. Actually, though the idea of molecular nano weapons originated between 1959 and 1986, when it was described by Drexler in his book he published that year, he was ridiculed by producers of commercial nano products until just a few years ago. Some of those businessmen feared that the Congress would direct its nano allocations to Drexler's research institute and not to them.
In conclusion of the interview, I said: "Well, as you see, it is impossible to cover all the ground in one interview, and I am not against its sequel. Meanwhile, let's thank our listeners for their attention."