Tags: u.s. | is | omnipotent

E-mail: U.S. Is Omnipotent

By Lev Navrozov   |   Thursday, 04 Oct 2007 02:59 PM

On Aug. 26, I received an e-mail from Mark Wilkins, a reader of mine, and presumably an American voter. He believes in the military omnipotence of the United States.

Well, I am sure that some Chinese are not less self-congratulatory about the military omnipotence of China, and some Russians had believed before Hitler came to power that the West was about to establish socialism similar to Soviet socialism, and thus they would become one global country now and anon. But such self-congratulatory “patriots” were and are not voters — they were and are just cogs of a totalitarian machine run by its owners.

On the other hand, in the last analysis, the American electorate determines the geostrategic behavior of the United States, and hence of the free West in general. Yet this is what voter Wilkins writes to me, the subject line of his e-mail being “The China Threat”: “Do you think that China can compete with America militarily?”

Well, war is not a business-like competition. Four years ago Mr. Wilkins could ask no less triumphantly: “Do you think that Iraq (that is, its Sunni) can compete with America (population 300 million) militarily?” In 1945, the U.S. did not defeat Japan in a competition: in 1945, the U.S. had a super weapon (the atom bomb) while Japan had not even started its development. If Hitler had concentrated (instead of having been engaged in conventional war) on the development of nuclear weapons and were ahead of the United States, the latter would have surrendered unconditionally as did Japan.

What if China is developing a post-nuclear super weapon, such as a nano super weapon? The U.S. electorate believes like Wilkins that nuclear weapons are the first and the last weapons which can “obliterate” a country “in less than an hour,” as he puts it (see below).

Wilkins continues his march of victory on the assumption that only the U.S. and its allies have in 2007 nuclear weapons as the U.S. did in 1945, while Russia or China trembles at the mere mention of them in 2007: “I’m not trying to seem angry or anything like that, but do you think that it’s possible for a nation such as China or Russia, to militarily invade the United States? What would keep us from obliterating them with nuclear weapons, in less than an hour?”

Obviously, the voter Wilkins visualizes China’s or Russia’s invasion of the United States as Hitler’s invasions of World War II. But what if it is an invasion with nano weapons, which will reduce all U.S. nuclear weapons to cosmic dust in less than half an hour?

But apart from the innocence of the voter Wilkins concerning post-nuclear weapons, even with respect to nuclear weapons, he seems never to have heard of Mutual Assured Destruction, though several years ago the phrase was repeated daily. A nuclear power, be it the U.S., Russia, or China, hides (in a submerged submarine, for example) a nuclear arsenal, and when the cities of the attacked country have been annihilated, its hidden submarine arsenal annihilates the attacking country.

The voter Wilkins assumes that just as in 1945, in 2007 there exist and can exist only nuclear weapons, and they can be possessed only by the United States and its allies.

The end of the Wilkins statement is also triumphant: “Keep in mind that Bush gave India nuke fuel and technology that allows them to produce 50 to 75 modern nuclear weapons a year, and the European Union has between 800 and 1,000 warheads, if you believe the news stories following the Bush/Singh accords, and the estimates of EU nukes in the news.”

Alas, just as a drop of water reflects the world around it, the voter Wilkins reflects what a considerable part of the electorate voted and will vote for in 2008.

The voter Wilkins sounds like the current U.S. president or the presidential candidates. The problem has been to defeat the Sunni of Iraq or withdraw from Iraq. On the other hand, China is perceived as a safe haven, without even nuclear weapons of 1945, which the U.S. and its allies have and India will soon have, while China or Russia will not — never ever!

As for post-nuclear super weapons, such have never existed or can exist, for they would introduce a false note into the triumphant march of the voter Wilkins.

Lt. Col. Thomas E. Bearden (U.S. Army, retired) called his 367-page book about post-nuclear weapons “Oblivion: America at the Brink.”

No, according to the voter Wilkins, post-nuclear weapons do not even exist. Nothing has appeared in the world of weapons after nuclear weapons.

Lt. Col. Bearden ought to have entitled his book “No Oblivion: America and Its Allies at the Permanent Highest Peak of Military Power.” Or “Oblivion: China at the Brink.”

But not even once have I seen Lt. Col. Thomas E. Bearden on television. His book was sent to me as a present by his publishers. So what do you expect to hear from the voter Wilkins? He repeats what he has seen and heard on television — a march of victory at the level of a 6-year-old, and this is how he will vote!

* * *

You can e-mail me at navlev@clou9.net.

© 2015 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

1Like our page
On Aug. 26, I received an e-mail from Mark Wilkins, a reader of mine, and presumably an American voter. He believes in the military omnipotence of the United States. Well, I am sure that some Chinese are not less self-congratulatory about the military omnipotence of China,...

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.

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