Tags: china | nanoweapons

No Freedom if China Develops Nanoweapons

By Lev Navrozov   |  

On March 8, 2009 I received an e-mail from J. Ladd Yost, who wrote as the subject, “China, nanoweapons and freedom.”

It read, “Your arguments are cogent.” He presented his 10 propositions, reading like theses for a doctorate. He summarized the situation as follows: “So, all I can say is keep sounding the alarm. And say more about what you’d like us to DO about it. Some are listening.”

The molecular nanoweapons seem to be the next superweapons. They are molecules converted by their own atoms and by atoms inserted into them into atomic systems, transforming molecules into tiny computers, racing through space like submicroscopic viruses, able to find enemy submarines and bombers carrying nuclear weapons and destroy them, preventing thereby Mutual Assured Destruction.

I implored those who wanted to know more about these weapons to read Eric Drexler’s “Engines of Creation” particularly a chapter entitled “Engines of Destruction.”

To evaluate the importance of nanoweapons in today’s warfare, let us turn to Abdul Kalam, the 11th president of India (2002 to 2007).

In his July 2004 speech to scientists at the Weapons and Electronic Systems Engineering Establishment, Kalam said that nanoweapons would “revolutionize warfare.”

Before his term as India’s president, Kalam had been known as the “missile man of India” for his work on development of ballistic missiles and space rocket technology.

Let us now see how nanoweapons have been treated in China.

On November 3, 2000, Beijing Evening carried an article entitled humorously (an evening newspaper!) “Tiny Devils of Nano Weapons Catch a Huge Evil Spirit.” The article said:

Against the background of rapid development of nano-technology, the Chinese Academy of Sciences has recently set up a scientific and technological nano centre. Opened is a scientific and technological nano network . . . The nano technology also involves nano weapons and a material base for scientific military research.

And so on — the article in its English translation takes up two pages in small type.

What about the free West?

On March 15, 2004, that is, more than four years and four months later, the BBC News reported that 71 percent of British adults had never heard of nanoweapons.

In the United States you will hear that Congress allocated money for nanotechnology in 2003. However, nanotechnology may include only the commercial production of peaceful nano commodities, and no nanoweapons.

The New York Times Almanac of 2007 is introduced on the front cover as “the world’s most comprehensive and authoritative Almanac,” and on the back cover it is added that the Almanac comes “from the unmatched resources of ‘The New York Times’.” But its 30-page Index does not contain the word “nano” in 2007!

The impression is that the 19th and 21st centuries exchanged places. Now China is a technologically advanced country, while Britain and the United States are Third-World outskirts.

In the 19th century, Britain won two wars with China to force China to buy opium. What would the war be like between the English-speaking and the dictatorship of China in the 21st century?

The classical Greek had these two words: demos, meaning “common (people)” and aristos, meaning “exclusive (wisdom).” Let us take music as an example of the spiritual field.

In Stalin’s Russia, all attempts in the early 1930s to make “the common people” listen, via the national monopoly radio station, to classical music failed (common radio listeners called it funereal) and “the pops” of “the common people” returned in the mid-1930s.

In the United States, as I found out, there is a similar precipice between aristos and demos in music.

What about geostrategy? The U.S. president is elected by the “majority of the people,” the demos — this is a democracy!

Actually, in the 21st century it is a matter of life and death to have in geostrategy aristos, and not a “pop” like an attempt for six years to conquer Iraq (a small “Third-world country of no global geostrategic importance) by replacing a Sunni ruler by a Shi’a one, while neglecting the mortal danger of China with its population of 1.3 billion.

Lt. Col. Thomas E. Bearden (U.S. Army) correctly entitled his book about post-nuclear superweapons: “Oblivion: America at the Brink.”

Not that I suggest to ignore “the demos.” We are going to make a film about a nano attack on the United States. Any American should realize how dangerous the world is in the 21st century and how important it is to pay attention to it instead of the current “oblivion” according to which only the United States exists, while the rest of the world hardly exists at all for weeks, months, or years.

Just as there are aristos media in music, there must be aristos media in geostrategy, and aristos must direct the geostrategy of the free West and supply advisers and subordinates to its leaders, elected by a majority of voters, especially if the leader is a U.S. president, elected directly by all adults, and not a British prime minister, elected through parliament. When the U.S. and other free countries were created and up to the emergence of superweapons (the first newcomers were nuclear weapons) they were defended by the Industrial Revolution, for the countries outside it, such as China, were behind technologically and hence militarily weak.

Besides, in the absence of superweapons, the U.S. was protected by its two oceans and the friendly democracy of Canada in the north, while in the south there was no great danger either.

Hence the “pop” in geostrategy was as safe as “pop” in music. Today it is suicidal.

You can e-mail me at navlev@cloud9.net.

© 2015 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

1Like our page
2Share
navrozov
On March 8, 2009 I received an e-mail from J. Ladd Yost, who wrote as the subject, “China, nanoweapons and freedom.” It read, “Your arguments are cogent.”He presented his 10 propositions, reading like theses for a doctorate.He summarized the situation as follows: “So, all I...
china,nanoweapons
 

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

 
NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
©  Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved