|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
The Rationale of Post-Nuclear Superweapons Lev Navrozov Post-nuclear superweapons? It was only "germs" on which the United States had been working up to 1969, when President Nixon stopped the work and gave three years to destroy all offensive bioweapons so that by the time of the international convention of 1972 banning them, the United States was as guilt-free in this respect as a newborn baby. Was President Nixon right? Yes, in terms of Western strategy in the nuclear age. No one could explain to me why on earth the United States had needed such weapons before 1969 in the first place, if the U.S. nuclear weapons had been able to destroy the outside world many times over. Who has needed bioweapons? Those countries, such as Iraq or Iran, that are too small and/or technologically backward to develop nuclear weapons. The once-common saying, "Germs are a small country’s nukes," is correct, even if it is not used any more in the U.S. mainstream media since it justifies the bioweapons of such countries. Up to 1989 Iraq had been buying war germs from Type Culture Collection, a U.S. company. In 2002 this may seem odd, but Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in the U.S. official representation of 1988 had little to do with Iraq in the U.S. official representation of 2002. During the war between Iraq and Iran, which is officially represented in 2002 as Iraq’s attack on Iran, the United States even provided Saddam Hussein with satellite photographs of Iranian troop formations. But were Type Culture Collection germs affordable for Iraq? An American named Wayne Harris bought, for his own "survivalist research,” three vials of plague germs for $300 from that same American company that had been selling war germs to Iraq up to 1989, with the blessing of the U.S. officialdom. Iraq is small and technologically backward. Soviet Russia developed nuclear weapons in 1949. In the ensuing 53 years Iraq has been unable to do so. But sums like $300 were quite affordable for a country that received for its exports, for example, $9 billion in 1987. Such "weapons of mass destruction" are good against other small and technologically backward countries like Iran. But they were not used by Iraq against the United States and its allies as they bombed and invaded Iraq. Secretary of State James Baker’s veiled warning that the United States would nuke Iraq if the latter used its war germs was more than enough. But why did Soviet Russia and why does China today need post-nuclear and, in particular, biological superweapons? The CIA and the New York Times had refused to believe in the Soviet development of biological superweapons because even the conjecture seemed to them absurd. Good Heavens! Soviet Russia was not an Iraq, but a superpower whose nuclear-warhead-tipped cruise missiles, launched from submarines off both U.S. shores, could, by way of retaliation, destroy the United States within an hour even if Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars plan (SDI) had been realized in the 1980s, much less in 2002! Why on earth should this nuclear superpower, whose nuclear arsenal could annihilate the outside world many times over, tinker with plague bacteria? Did Brezhnev or Gorbachev want the Americans to die not from nuclear explosions but from plague? But the presumed absurdity of this conjecture became an apparently absurd, yet real, fact in 1992 when Yeltsin opened the Soviet "bioweapons empire” to international inspection. I won’t quote its description in the New York Times AFTER 1992, when the West SAW the Soviet "germ empire” and could no longer doubt its existence. I will merely cite its annual production at its peak of war germs, as against that of the United States at its peak – before 1969.
The question "Why on earth had a nuclear superpower continued to spend, under Gorbachev, billions of dollars every year to produce such gigantic quantities of war germs?" was now linked with the question "Why on earth did Yeltsin dismantle the project and thus throw away billions of dollars that had been spent annually on it for 20 years?" Gorbachev looks like a Western government official, is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, and still a darling of the West. Yeltsin looks like a Russian Russian, has a Russian partiality for Russian vodka, and has been despised or ignored by the West. Yet Gorbachev belonged to the same socio-political species as Hitler, the Soviet rulers since Lenin (whom Gorbachev glorified up to his last days in power) and the rulers of post-1949 China; that is, he was the owner of a large country, having advanced military technology. On the other hand, Yeltsin belonged to the same socio-political species as heads of state and/or governments in the democratic West; that is, he was a temporary top executive who was elected and who retired of his own free will before his second term had expired. The owner of a large country can decide, entirely on his own, that in order to preserve his ownership, he must establish world domination. Nuclear weapons may be good for intimidating Iraq into surrender, but they alone are useless for world domination, for if the owner of a large country nukes the United States, the U.S. bombers on duty in the air, the U.S. submarines on duty deep under water, and the U.S. missiles concealed deep in the earth will retaliate by nuking the attacker’s country together with the attacker. The war for world domination in the age of nuclear weapons must destroy the enemy means of retaliation, and Gorbachev’s bio superweapons were part of post-nuclear superweaponry intended to destroy the enemy means of retaliation, to prevent MAD (mutual assured destruction). The owners of Soviet Russia needed such superweaponry, and the owners of China need them today. President Nixon and President Yeltsin did not need them, since neither of them was, or could be, politically, after world domination, and nuclear weapons were quite sufficient for both of them. If Putin becomes the owner of Russia, he will resume Gorbachev’s quest for world domination. On Nov. 20, I received from a NewsMax reader, in response to my column of Nov. 19 about China, an e-mail declaring: "China stands to gain little from the destruction of the U.S." "Destruction"? Like the owners of Soviet Russia, the owners of China are after world domination. The official behavior of the United States toward the owners of China since the last years of President Clinton in office has been deserving of their highest marks. We have seen evidence indicating that President Clinton acted very much as their paid agent. If the United States accepts, early enough, the status of Hong Kong, why on earth will the owners of China (and Hong Kong) destroy their new property? The owners of China will destroy the United States only if this becomes expedient for their world domination, that is, world ownership. Please pay attention to that response to my column: "China stands to gain little from the destruction of the U.S.” The author of the response bears Anglo-Saxon first and second names, suggesting that their bearer is a born American. But instead of saying, "We will never allow the owners of China or Russia (if dictatorship comes back to Russia) to destroy or neutralize our means of retaliation,” this presumably Anglo-Saxon American (a WASP?) pleads that the owners of China will gain little from the destruction of the U.S. Do not destroy us, so gainful to you – you will gain little from destroying us. Of course, if the West becomes a bicontinental Hong Kong, the owners of China will gain more. The only trouble will be that at some point of his world ownership, the world owner may decide to annihilate, for example, all Anglo-Saxon Americans (recall Stalin, Hitler and Mao). Except for that one sentence that I have quoted above, the presumably Anglo-Saxon American’s e-mail consists of insults aimed at me, which the author evidently takes for criticisms. To be sure, it is safer today and possibly more gainful in the long run to criticize or insult me and other China- and Russia-watchers than the owners of China and possible future owners of Russia, one of whom (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) threatened to assassinate me, for surely assassination is the best criticism.
This piece is a variation on one of the themes of my book in progress, "Out of Moscow and Into New York: A Life in the Geostrategically Lobotomized West in the Age of Terrorism and Post-Nuclear Superweapons.” Publishers: The 27-page Proposal and the first 130-page part of the book can be mailed to you if you apply to me (navlev@cloud9.net; tel. 1-718-796-6028).
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Editor's note:
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2012 NewsMax.Com |