Who I Am and What I Write

"I had the privilege of reading a number of your columns over the past 18 months, and found each one utterly fascination. Perhaps another word to describe it would be ‘frightening,' but I surmise that it was in fact your intent to elicit that reaction from your readers." " Drexler's nano weapons I have been writing about? Vahe Pirjanian says that he "has a degree in applied chemistry" and he finds Drexler's nano assembler "implausible." What about my "level of understanding" in "the fields of engineering, physics, chemistry, biology, etc."?

A March 15 e-mail begins: "Being a rational [?] scientist (I played a role in the development of the B-2 bomber, several other still ‘blank projects,' Space Shuttle and International Space Station)," the author of the e-mail advises that "from time to time" I "should write an ab initio piece explaining the entire nature of the threat."

Many American scientists and engineers perceive "the threat" not as socio-political, but as technological-scientific, and I should be a technological-scientific school within one person, explaining all new dangerous enemy weapons and our technological-scientific drawbacks.

Still another e-mail, this one from March 16, says, "I am a degreed engineer with a military background" and suggests that I make my articles "more to the point"—for "a degreed engineer with a military background."

Though I did study engineering at the Moscow Institute of Energy, I refer those interested in the scientific-technological descriptions of new weapons to "Oblivion: America at the Brink," by Lt. Col. Thomas E. Bearden (U.S. Army, retired), which can be purchased at www.cheniere.org, and "Engines of Creation 2.0" by Eric Drexler (2007), which can be ordered electronically at wowio.com and received electronically (647 pages) free, without any charge.

I am not a multiple Manhattan Project able to development all post-nuclear super weapons. I am only a socio-political thinker. The fatal danger for the West is not the absence or inferiority of some super weapons, but the geostrategic absence of the U.S. government except in name.

The war against Iraq was launched, waged for four years, and lost not because of the U.S. technological and scientific inferiority to Iraq (a small and technologically and scientifically backward Third-World country), but because it was launched for their private purposes by private persons with top government and military as well as technological and scientific titles and degrees.

I often quote Churchill saying in parliament: "Democracy is the worst form of government — except all other forms." Imagine the United States as a dictatorship. How many Americans would have been sent to concentration camps to make the others glorify George W. Bush et al. as the greatest sages our planet had ever produced? As it is, I wrote publicly four years ago that Bush et al. are private persons using their official titles for their private goals (such as over 10 trillion dollars' worth of discoverable or expected to be discovered Iraqi oil).

About 400 federal officials are found to use their official positions for private purposes every year, with the only difference that they are convicted, while the U.S. president is outside the jurisdiction of the court of justice. And impeachment does not work, since two-thirds of the votes in the Senate are needed to impeach the U.S. president, and Democrats did not vote in the Senate to impeach the Democrat Clinton, and Republicans are even less likely to convict the Republican Bush.

So far, the "worst form of government" has survived owing to historical accidents.

Technology and science and hence advanced firearms developed in Western Europe from the Renaissance and through the Industrial Revolution up to the 20th century, when two new societies appeared: "totalitarian" Russia and "totalitarian" Germany.

Lenin wrote that having taken Warsaw, the Soviet army should march on to "liberate" Europe. But France reinforced the defenses of Warsaw, and the Soviet troops could not take it; while Lenin soon died, and Stalin began the all-out militarization of the backward country.

Hitler's Germany was the other "totalitarian" country. How did the United States meet its threat? With the Manhattan Project: a city of labs, developing "the atom bomb."

In his letter of August 2, 1939 to President Roosevelt, Einstein said that "it may become possible to set up a molecular chain reaction to a large mass of uranium" . . . "and it is conceivable — though much less certain — that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed."

Despite Einstein's uncertainties and reservations (compare those of development of Drexler's nanoweapons) the giant Manhattan Project was constructed and did produce "the atom bomb."

In 1938, Chamberlain, prime minister of Britain, signed with Hitler "peace in our time," and other heads of Western democratic governments were no less delighted. But Hitler invaded Poland with which Britain and France were linked by defense treaties, then France, and in 1941 he declared war on the United States! Imagine China invading Canada and declaring war on the United States! The U.S. government would have to come to life.

The war with Germany had been over in 1945, before the "atom bomb" was produced. So the giant investments were wasted. Yes, but the waste was better than Hitler's atom bombs.

Compared with the situation today, Hitler's Germany became, in 1939, the worst enemy for the U.S. government and for most Americans. Hitler was called by the German word "fuhrer," while the dictatorship of China is not even called "dictatorship," and Hu Jintao has been called "president."

Who can save the West?

The people, yes, "we, the people," should be made enlightened enough geostrategically and elect the geostrategically conscious executive and legislative branches of government. This is how Churchill's reservation "except all other forms" will be justified.

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

112-102