Tags: The | Continuting | Threat | From | China's | Nano | Superweapons

The Continuting Threat From China's Nano Superweapons

Friday, 23 September 2005 12:00 AM

Out of numerous recent e-responses to my China-threat columns, two are worth publication and discussion. One of them, signed "Shirley," begins:

I've been reading your columns and with each reading I am overcome by feelings of dread and doom. How can our government be allowing this to happen?!

Then Shirley speaks of my column about Western business in China: "The heads of these corporations are so greedy that they have prostituted themselves and committed treason."

Finally, she says:

In a dictatorship the dictator virtually owns his country, just as in the United States one owns his house or oil shares. Hence the dictator takes great care to preserve or expand his property. In 1939 Stalin received a letter from a concerned citizen who said that there was friendship with Germany now, but should Hitler attack (which he did in 1941), he would seize Leningrad out of Finland, whose Karelian Isthmus extended up to Leningrad.

What did Stalin do? First, he tried to convince Finland to give him the Isthmus in exchange for a larger territory in Karelia. But Finland would not agree. So on Nov. 30, 1939, he began, notwithstanding the public outcry of the democratic West, a hard winter war with Finland and forced her by March 1940 to cede 16,173 square miles of her territory north of Leningrad. Thus, Hitler did not take the country's second-largest city – and lost the war.

Should I or anyone else have written in the past fifteen years a letter to a U.S. president, be he a Democrat or a Republican, about the mortal danger of the dictatorship of China, he would have ignored it. The United States is not his property. Thank God! How lucky we are! But the fact is that as a result, he is only a temporary official. The U.S. presidents have ignored the China threat, no matter how it has been growing, and a letter would not have stirred any one of them.

Among U.S. presidents within the past quarter of a century, I have to make one exception – which did not help! When I emigrated with my family and came to New York in 1972, neither the New York Times nor the CIA, wanted to believe me that the Soviet dictators were developing post-nuclear superweapons. But the presidential candidate Ronald Reagan met with me, and when he became president he made a statement on the basis of my "input."

The result? The CIA declared that he (the U.S. president!) was suffering from "evil-empirism," and the CIA was believed!

In 1986 the Chinese dictators founded Program 863 to develop post-nuclear superweapons in seven fields. China became the main geostrategic aspirant to world domination, with Putin's Russia as its ally in 2005.

Property/ownership in the United States? Over forty members of the U.S. administration have oil shares, and the struggle for Iraqi oil has been going on since 1990, that is, for fifteen years.

In a democracy, the real decision makers, concerned with the security of the country, are people to whom the country (and not just houses or oil shares) belongs, and who elect the presidents.

The people would be able to decide if major TV networks held a dozen or so TV programs on the China threat. In particular, book publishers might get interested enough to publish my book, based on my Internet columns. Who may arrange such TV programs? A top-notch publicist, who charges $10,000 for four months. Another $10,000 would be necessary for travel and other expenses.

But none of my Internet readers has been rich enough to fork out $20,000.

Never mind! In 1978 I founded the tax-exempt Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc. (CSWD), with an Advisory Board including a dozen or so world-known individuals such as Saul Bellow. Under its auspices, millions of dollars can be collected in grants and donations, deductible from taxes.

Not so long ago a reader of mine, a corporation employee in charge of corporate finances, asked what he could do to save the West, and I told him to take charge in his spare time of collecting grants and donations under the auspices of the CSWD, Inc. I reminded him that the collector is entitled to a percentage of the money collected.

We exchanged e-mails, and then he vanished without any explanation or good-bye.

A couple of weeks later another reader of mine volunteered to save the West in the same way – and vanished in the same manner.

Are we at the point of no return? No one can determine that.

Such is my answer to the e-mail of Shirley.

The other equally interesting e-response I received on Sept. 10 from Michael Tompkins of Miami, Florida. He begins:

Until 2002 Michael Tompkins worked for Lucent Technologies. He writes:

For Google, I used:

1) "darpa (defense advanced research projects agency) nanotechnology military applications" and got 72,400 related items

2) "darpa cornell university nanotechnology military applications" and got 26,100 items

3) "darpa nanotechnology nuclear applications" and got 48,100 items

For Yahoo, I used the same three combinations of keywords and got

1) 90,800

2) 20,400

3) 75,800

Now, I need not be persuaded that the dictators of China have the USA in their sights, and when the time is right, they won't hesitate for a nanosecond to pull the trigger. You have convinced me to the marrow that this is the case. I believe I've read almost every single article you're published over the last five years or so, and I even purchased a copy of "The Education of Lev Navrozov," though I have yet to finish the book.

What I would like to know is if you have anything to say about DARPA and its role in formulating post-nuclear superweapons qua nanotechnologies.

Thank you kindly.

My answer is that neither DARPA nor any other U.S. institution has anything to do with post-nuclear nano or any other superweapons and never uses this term, since the United States is in the mental state of Japan from 1938 to 1945, which was developing her weapons without suspecting that one fine day enemy superweapons would force her to surrender unconditionally.

The obvious difference is that from 1938 to 1945 and up to the 1960s the superweapons were nuclear weapons, but in the early 1970s the Soviet dictators launched the development of post-nuclear superweapons, and in 1986 the Chinese dictators followed suit.

What do the "related items" of Google and Yahoo! mean?

Nanotechnology is used more and more for commercial civilian purposes. DARPA and the Pentagon and the U.S. government and Congress visualize war as war without superweapons. Such war needs, to begin with, whatever civilian life needs. Second, conventional weapons (and not only superweapons!) involve nanotechnology. Hence all those "related items" of Google and Yahoo!

The Chinese dictators and their geostrategists believe that war should be waged as the United States did in 1945 against Japan: The United States had developed by 1945 superweapons ("atom bombs") and suddenly struck Japan. True, Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941. But this is an irrelevant moral nicety for the Chinese dictators (

Let us put for the Yahoo! search the following request: "darpa development of molecular nano superweapons." Yahoo yields four (not 90,800) "search results." Of these, three results are identical. I found in them one mention of DARPA: "DARPA Works to Replace Soldiers, Police with Robots" – "US Army speeds fielding of armed robots to Iraq." Armed robots in Iraq will dramatically decrease human losses in Iraq, but will increase the costs of the war astronomically, since Sunni guerrillas will learn how to knock out more robots than they killed human soldiers.

But in any case, this has nothing to do with superweapons.

So, only one "search result" remains. This is my NewsMax.com/WorldTribune.com article of July 2004, entitled "U.S. Losing Nanoweapons [that is "Molecular Nano Superweapons] Race" and posted in freerepublic.com in July several days later.

It has to be said in conclusion that the Chinese dictators are not fixated on molecular nano superweapons. There are other ways for superweaponry, such as ethnically targeted superweapons, able to destroy all non-Chinese, or artificial calamity superweapons, able to cause artificial earthquakes, hurricanes and floods.

You can e-mail me at

The link to my book online is www.levnavrozov.com.

104-104-104

© 2019 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

   
1Like our page
2Share
Pre-2008
Out of numerous recent e-responses to my China-threat columns, two are worth publication and discussion.One of them, signed "Shirley," begins: I've been reading your columns and with each reading I am overcome by feelings of dread and doom.How can our government be...
The,Continuting,Threat,From,China's,Nano,Superweapons
1378
2005-00-23
Friday, 23 September 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.

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