Where to Go to Learn About China

A public concern about the danger of China flickered in the United States in May of 2005. Before, I had been one of the few voices in the wilderness. In May and June the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and mass-circulation news magazines – oh, no, they did not speak of the development in China of post-nuclear superweapons, able to circumvent Mutual Assured destruction and thus annihilate the United States or the whole of the West – for the first time in the past five, if not 15 years, referred to China as a military "challenge," if not danger, and thus made my columns on the annihilation of the United States or the West as a whole worth reading for more Americans than ever before.

However, many new readers of my latest columns find them incomplete. They expect that I will say in every column everything on the subject. Imagine a political thinker expected in 1939 to describe, within four or five pages, nuclear weapons to readers, most of whom had never heard the word "nuclear," while President Eisenhower had heard of it only because in 1939 he had received a letter from Einstein, who conjectured that Hitler was developing such weapons.

Einstein could not explain in his letter to Eisenhower (to convince him that the danger was real) how nuclear weapons would work. First of all, to understand how nuclear weapons would work, Eisenhower would have to study nuclear physics, a totally new and unknown field in those days. Second, no explanation would have made nuclear weapons more plausible to him.

One nuclear physicist could pile his abstractions to show that nuclear weapons were possible within five years, while another nuclear physicist would declare that it was just a pile of abstractions within the brain of Einstein, whom some German physicists despised as a Jewish upstart.

Besides, in his letter Einstein himself said, "This new phenomenon [nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium] would also lead to the construction of bombs, and it is conceivable – though much less certain – that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed."

Today, nuclear physics is studied in school, but in 1939 Einstein could not explain it within his letter to Eisenhower. Similarly, it is useless, unnecessary and impossible to convert every column of mine into a lecture on molecular nanoweapons. On June 22, 2005, I received the following e-mail from Frank G. Logan:

Lev, I have been reading your column with interest for the last year [What about the previous years?], and I have been giving you the benefit of the doubt. As a former military officer and someone who spent the last week in Beijing learning about their economy and culture, I have trouble with your analysis – mostly because you lack specificity. For example, I don't think it will be acceptable to the leadership or the growing middle class of 100 million Chinese to have Beijing and Shanghai leveled. To avoid this, all U.S. nuclear subs would have to be "neutralized" in a "Chinese superweapon attack." I don't see how you would go about finding them all and neutralizing all of the MIRV'ed warheads that would be unleashed following an attack on the U.S. I wrote you once before, but you did not reply. I am a concerned citizen, and if you can shed some light on what I am missing in the questions above, I might become another voice taking up your warning. Absent that, I will just continue to read and watch and see if other detailed credible hints come out.

Well, in his book published by Random House in 1986, Eric Drexler, the Einstein of nanotechnology, included a chapter (Chapter 11) 30 pages long and headlined "Engines of Destruction." In my columns I quoted Drexler and his disciples, such as Chris Phoenix and Britt Gilett. The latter wrote an e-mail to me (which I published in my column) explaining how a torrent of billions of "engines of destruction," each nano size (one billionth of a meter) will find and destroy, for example, an enemy's submerged submarine intended as a means of retaliation in Mutual Assured Destruction, supposed to level Beijing and Shanghai if New York and Washington have been leveled.

However, I cannot publish in every four- or five-page column of mine Drexler's 30-page chapter as well as contributions from his disciples in the past 20 years.

Here is a significant detail. In China, Drexler's book and all the other molecular nano texts are on the Internet. So Frank Logan could read them as soon as I mentioned them in my column. But in the United States he has to drag himself to a library and perhaps he has to order all these texts from the Library of Congress to receive them in a couple of weeks.

Another reader of mine, Jeffrey Merion, also expects all the information on the subject to be contained in that column of mine he happens to read. In his e-mail of June 22, 2005, he writes:

Dear Mr. Navrozov, I find your perspective unique and refreshing. I have 2 questions. What evidence is there that these weapons are operational [they are NOT operational as yet] (and are you certain that we have no countervailing defenses or offensive weapons)? Don't we have enough chemical and bio and space-based energy weapons to still assure M.A.D.? Believe me, I am no apologist for CCP. I lived in Taipei as a young man during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1970), and we regularly evacuated my high-school practicing for the unthinkable attack from our near west, Fugian province of the PRC.

I guess my overreaching question is what superweapon could cancel the power of our varied arsenal?

When (owing to my gifted reader John M. Franse) I was interviewed on June 15 on the "Retaking America" radio talk show by Kelly McGinley, both smart and knowledgeable, and then on June 26 by one of my brilliant Internet readers, Michael Holliday, who hosts his radio talk show in Phoenix (KFNX News Talk), I knew that we could not send our listeners to the Library of Congress prior to our radio program.

We had to construct a radio interview in a way that showed that what I said is important enough for our listeners to look for further information in my previous columns they can click from the Archives of NewsMax.com and WorldTribune.com as well as in Chapter 11 of Eric Drexler's book of 1986 and his disciples' articles up to this day.

When I quoted the article "Nanotech Weapons in Future Warfare" by Major General Sun Bailin of the Chinese Academy of Military Science in its journal "National Defense" of June 15, 1996, Kelly McGinley of "Retaking America" very pertinently asked, "But how can we be sure that the real goal of the article is not to intimidate the United States by China's nonexistent sophistication in nanoweapons already in 1996

Well, even if I had presented the most secret document from the Chinese dictator's most secret safe, the same question could be asked.

Only common sense can indicate whether the information is authentic or is disinformation. On page 174 of his book of 1986, Drexler said that "military funds already support research" (in molecular nanotechnology). Surely Chinese scientists read Drexler's book (which was later on their Internet), and surely the dictators of China allocated military funds to support research in molecular nanotechnology, that is, the development of nano "engines of destruction." Major General Sun Bailin wrote in his article of 1996:

As early as the beginning of 1970s, exploratory research into nanoscale electromechanical systems had already begun, but this field saw substantial development only by the end of the mid-1980s. At that time, it was realized that by using advanced manufacturing technology for large-scale integrated circuits, one could develop nanoscale prototypes of large-scale mechanized systems. Hence, a "technological revolution" was initiated advancing toward nanoscale electromechanical systems.

You see? The "engines of destruction" are nanoscale (one-billionth of a meter) computerized ("artificially intelligent") weapons which manufacture themselves into billions of tiny attackers, able to reduce any target to atoms. In 1996, Major General Sun Bailin knew well Drexler's book of 1986 (of "the end of the mid-1980s").

Let's have a bit of common sense. Why should the dictators of China and their subordinates like Major General Sun Bailin frighten the United States with their development of post-nuclear superweapons? On the contrary, their obvious geostrategy is to keep the United States and the West in general in the same blissful state of appeasement until such post-nuclear weapons, able to circumvent Mutual Assured Destruction, are operational, that is, ready to annihilate the United States or the West as a whole.

On the other hand, would the Chinese dictators frighten the United States because they are afraid of its conquest of China? The conjecture is ridiculous. The United States and its allies have been unable to suppress the 7 million Sunni of Iraq, and here they will conquer China, with its 1.3 billion people.

In 1986, when Drexler published his book, the Chinese dictators founded Project 863, developing post-nuclear superweapons in seven fields.

In his letter to Roosevelt of 1939, Einstein spoke of a possibility of nuclear weapons. Though it was a conjecture, Germany declared war (how geostrategically stupid!) on the United States in 1941, and the U.S. government set up the huge Manhattan Project to be on the safe side in case nuclear weapons were possible and Nazi Germany developed them successfully.

Project 863 is seven Manhattan Projects. If nanoweapons prove impossible, then ethnically targeted bioweapons and tectonic weapons may do the job of annihilation or neutralization of the U.S. or Western means of retaliation.

If Roosevelt had to learn one new field – nuclear physics – the Western statesmen of today have to learn at least seven new fields of science and technology if they do not wish to accept conjectures of scientists and technologists the way Roosevelt accepted Einstein's conjectures concerning nuclear weapons.

I have taken as an example molecular nanoweapons because it is clear that billions of dollars are lavished by the dictators of China on their development, while in the United States it would be expedient to finance Drexler's Foresight Nanotech Institute as the Manhattan Project of molecular nano research, but so far I have personally witnessed how Drexler's Foresight Nanotech Institute has not received a cent from the U.S. government and the U.S. Congress.

Of course not! Why on earth does the United States need nuclear nanoweapons? Surely the post-nuclear superweapons, such as molecular nanoweapons, have not been necessary to wage war in Iraq under Hussein and after him. Even nuclear weapons have been useless, for they would have killed all Sunni (and Shia), but they would also have made the oil extraction impossible, and what would be the goal of the war in Iraq if its oilfields are radioactive?

The U.S. development of nuclear weapons was successful because only the U.S. government could and would lavish such enormous resources on this development, and would do so because Hitler's Germany declared war on the United States in 1941.

In particular, the U.S. government's Manhattan Project could pay top salaries to nuclear physicists from Europe. The knowledge, talent and genius in nuclear physics were available in Britain, Germany and Russia, but all countries except the United States were so deeply entangled in the conventional war (and France was simply routed) that they could not allocate sufficient resources into the development of nuclear weapons.

If the United States and the West as a whole stay asleep, they will be annihilated by Chinese post-nuclear superweapons (unless the West surrenders unconditionally) because the dictatorship of China acts as a single war machine waging "peaceful war" (that is, engaged in the development of post-nuclear superweapons in peacetime), while the United States is waging war for oil in Iraq, to enrich "the oilmen" among members of the U.S. political establishment.

All public attention has been concentrated on Iraq as though its population were 1.3 billion and as though Iraq had founded in 1986 Project 863 for the development of post-nuclear superweapons in seven fields. If Iraq does not attract enough national attention, there are Iran and North Korea, and you know the good news? China, which successfully tested its first nuclear weapons in 1964, and in 1986 began the development of post-nuclear superweapons, may persuade North Korea to forgo the production of a couple of atom bombs and thus save mankind!

On the really bright side, I have been receiving more e-mails than ever before from amazingly intelligent and knowledgeable Westerners, and especially Americans. I am no longer a voice in the wilderness. We are a chorus, which, I hope, will be internationally audible enough to wake up the Western political establishment from its sleep of appeasement.

Anyone see the movie, "Hero"?

Change the phrase, 'Our Land' to 'Our World' and it might explain the political/social philosophy that drives Chinese ambitions towards world conquest, if that is indeed their plan using nano-weapons (the arrows in the movie.)

"Let's have a bit of common sense. Why should the dictators of China and their subordinates like Major General Sun Bailin frighten the United States with their development of post-nuclear superweapons? On the contrary, their obvious geostrategy is to keep the United States and the West in general in the same blissful state of appeasement until such post-nuclear weapons, able to circumvent Mutual Assured Destruction, are operational, that is, ready to annihilate the United States or the West as a whole."

Is that a hint that the only way to avoid that is to pre-empt China before their nano weapons are operational? What's the chances that pre-emption would succeed, and at what cost and consequence? What if the nano-weapon theory was phony? Would pre-emption be justified if we didn't know that?

Probably so, as much as a cop would be justified in shooting a suspect that was aiming a phony pistol at him, but with M.A.D., are we ready to set the world on fire in the process?

Troubling times, troubling questions. But I think it's too late to play catch-up with China on nano-weapon development, unless there is time to put in place another M.A.D. program, destroying the choice of using offensive nano-weapons if would transform the earth into just another piece of charcoal floating through space.

Sorry. Can't think of any answers to this one. Having a hard enough time coming up with any solutions for eliminating muzzie terrorism without eliminating the muzzies.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.