Tags: Responses | Latest | Columns | About | the | China | Threat

Responses to My Latest Columns About the China Threat

Thursday, 18 August 2005 12:00 AM

In his mind, once the United States developed nuclear weapons, which were superweapons in 1945, these superweapons of 1945 would remain superweapons in 2005 and forever. No outside civilization could develop superweapons today that would be as superior to the U.S. nuclear superweapons of 1945 as those weapons were to conventional bombs.

For half a century, from the 1950s to the 1990s, the U.S. media repeated daily the phrase "Mutual Assured Destruction." In the 2000s I have been repeating it in my NewsMax.com and WorldTribune.com weekly columns. David Newland seems never to have heard of this phrase. He begins his e-mail "If China launches anything at the U.S. from just offshore" and then describes how the United States would destroy China in retaliation.

Of course! But the inverse is also true! Yet David Newland never so much as hints that the hidden means of retaliation from Russia way back in the 1970s and China today could destroy the United States in Mutual Assured Destruction. In Newland's geostrategically illiterate megalomania, only other countries, but never the one in which he lives, can be destroyed in retaliation or in aggression.

He concludes:

To understand that a country retaliates if attacked, provided it has means of retaliation, it is not necessary to be smart. This is Mutual Assured Destruction, of which the Chinese military know because they are not geostrategically illiterate megalomaniacs like David Newland.

Indeed, the gist of Chinese geostrategy is to circumvent Mutual Assured Destruction by developing post-nuclear superweapons, able to destroy the enemy means of (nuclear) retaliation.

David Newland continues:

Let us suppose that in 1945 Japan had far surpassed the United States in all weapons except superweapons of the time – atom bombs and means of their delivery. The result? The unconditional surrender of Japan.

The dictators of China will not wage a conventional war or a nuclear war (which now has also become conventional and, indeed,

geostrategically obsolete as an aggressive war in the sixty years since 1945). They will be able to annihilate the West with post-nuclear superweapons they have been developing over the past thirty years – often at the expense of conventional weapons, which the Pentagon has been developing no one knows what for, for even in the small backward Iraq these developed conventional weapons are useless against Sunni guerrillas.

Of course, the United States can destroy Iraq with nuclear weapons without any fear of retaliation, but certainly the Iraqi oil will perish in this holocaust, and what will then be the goal of the war?

David Newland may laugh at the very word "superweapons" – "superwhat?" Japanese megalomaniacs could laugh at atom bombs before they fell on them, making irrelevant all Japanese conventional weapons and all conquests and all kamikaze attacks and the general ignorance in Japan of the U.S. development of atom bombs.

David Newland ends his e-mail as follows:

How could a Japanese have convinced his countrymen that the U.S. development of the atom bomb was "much more than a bluff, and a bluff of this magnitude is, well, very American"?

Speaking of the development of post-nuclear superweapons in China, I can at least quote sources like Major General Sun Bailin's article "Nanotech Weapons in Future Warfare" in National Defense of June 15, 1995. I do not know a single American officer who would have published – between the day Einstein wrote his famous letter to Roosevelt in 1939 and the day two atom bombs were dropped on Japan in 1945 – a similar article about nuclear weapons.

Nevertheless, documents like Sun Bailin's article can be declared by David Newland to be not facts, but only "assertions." The only way to convince a Japanese David Newland that the U.S. development of the atom bomb was a fact would have been to steal an almost-ready atom bomb and demonstrate to him how it worked.

The case of China is far more complex: Not one superweapon but at least a dozen post-nuclear superweapons at various stages of development would have to be stolen and brought to the United States and shown to David Newland and other such, since the U.S. government and U.S. Congress might refuse to attend the demonstration because this might damage Sino-American relations, including trade and economic cooperation.

Simultaneously, the top Chinese officials with the dictator at the head would be kidnapped and also brought to the United States to testify in an American court as witnesses under oath that the demonstrated post-nuclear superweapons are being developed not on Mars or in Iraq (by the Sunni), but in China.

Also on May 5, I received another noteworthy e-mail – from William C.H. Chao. Its "Subject" is "Question on the efficacy of molecular nanoweapons."

I have been writing about molecular nano superweapons not because they (and no other superweapons) are likely to be used by the dictatorship of China to annihilate the United States and the West as a whole or enforce their unconditional surrender, but because I have had the opportunity to compare the billions of dollars poured into their development in China with not a cent allocated by the U.S. Congress to the Foresight Nanotech Institute, co-founded by Eric Drexler. Drexler outlined nanotechnology's military applications in a thirty-page chapter ("Engines of Destruction") of his book, published in 1986, the year when the Chinese dictators founded Program 863 for the development of post-nuclear superweapons in seven fields.

But let us forget about all other fields in 1986 and thereafter and concentrate on molecular nanoweapons. William C.H. Chao says in his e-mail:


Regards ... William C.H. Chao

William C.H. Chao's "fundamental question" could be applied to the natives of those non-European countries upon hearing of powder basic to European firearms. An arrow is directed by a bowman to the target (a bad guy), but powder just explodes, hitting the good guys exploding it or standing nearby. Yet, amazingly enough, Europeans were able to direct a bullet or a cannon shell more accurately than a bowman his arrow.

Let us read what Major Sun Bailin of the Chinese Academy of Military Science wrote in his article in National Defense of June 15, 1996:

A nanoweapon can be directed or direct itself, just as large-scale weapons are directed or direct themselves, except that nanoweapons can number billions and trillions, since they replicate themselves. In his book of 1986 Eric Drexler calls them programmable, computer-controlled artificial "germs." On page 174 he said:

Well, if nano superweapons fail to be developed in China, there are other fields of post-nuclear superweaponry, such as ethnically targeted bioweapons, able to discriminate among ethnic groups, and in this way all non-Chinese (the bad guys) can be put to death by the good guys (Chinese).


© 2019 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

1Like our page
In his mind, once the United States developed nuclear weapons, which were superweapons in 1945, these superweapons of 1945 would remain superweapons in 2005 and forever. No outside civilization could develop superweapons today that would be as superior to the U.S. nuclear...
Thursday, 18 August 2005 12:00 AM
Newsmax Media, Inc.

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