Lev Navrozov
Friday, Aug. 1, 2003

The word ‘nanogram’ means one-billionth of a gram. Nanotechnology penetrates within nanograms and rearranges atoms. If the atoms in coal are rearranged, it becomes a diamond (a mediaeval alchemist’s dream). Such are its civilian uses. As for its military uses, Mark Gubrud of the University of Maryland has posted on a Web site his 18-page paper, "Nanotechnology and International Security,” for the Fifth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology.

At the beginning of his paper (p. 2) Dr. Gubrud says, "Indeed, it is plausible that a nation which gained a sufficient lead in molecular nanotechnology would at some point be in a position to simply disarm any potential competitors.”

This is what I have been saying since Russia in 1972 and China in 1986 launched the development of post-nuclear superweapons, except that I have been referring not to any specific post-nuclear superweapons, such as those based on molecular nanotechnology, but a certain generalized Superweapon No. 3, since probably only the "supreme leader of China” knows what specific superweapons China considers at the moment the most promising "to simply disarm” the West, that is, to destroy its means of nuclear retaliation (Mutual Assured Destruction).

But when our associate (Isak Baldwin) prompted Dr. Gubrud to read those installments of my book that are already online, the scientist ranted in the spirit of those who believe that the criticism of a text is the negative political and psychiatric labeling of the author.

If Dr. Gubrud considered himself a right-winger, he would have ranted, "Mr. Navrozov’s book is an insane liberal harangue in a 1930s pro-Soviet style.” But since Dr. Gubrud obviously considers himself and all sane and sensible people to be left-wing (and certainly never right-wing!), he ranted: "Mr. Navrozov’s book is a paranoid right-wing rant in a 1950s Cold War style.”

I wonder why Dr. Gubrud did not call me a "raving fascist” or a "schizophrenic reactionary.” Just as an uneducated Russian peasant, an American university professor may, alas, also believe that whoever disagrees with him is thereby a madman or a criminal or both by definition.

Where did I disagree with Dr. Gubrud?

True enough, it is only our premises that coincide, whereupon Dr. Gubrud produces a long, verbose, convoluted, yet incredibly naive and parochial paper to prove that nanotechnology is to lead to "an integrated international security system” (p. 2).

Compared with Dr. Gubrud’s fantastic political utopia, even Neville Chamberlain’s Munich Agreement of 1938 seems sensible. Dr. Gubrud does not divide the countries into those that are or may be after world domination and those that defend themselves, as the United States defended itself against Hitler’s Germany and Tojo’s Japan, but did not use its monopoly on nuclear weapons between 1945 and 1949 to establish world domination.

Imagine that monopoly in the hands of Hitler, Tojo, Stalin and his successors, Mao and today’s rulers of China!

With a naivete far surpassing that of Chamberlain, Dr. Gubrud tutors at the end of his article (p. 16) all "nations” – China, Russia, the Islamic world, India, Pakistan:

"Nations must learn to trust one another enough to live without massive arsenals, by surrendering some of the prerogatives of sovereignty so as to permit intrusive verification of arms control agreements, and by engaging in cooperative military arrangements. Ultimately, the only way to avoid nanotechnic confrontation and the next world war is by evolving an integrated international security system, in effect a single global regime.”

So, nanotechnology will not give China a chance to establish world domination. Oh, no! Read again Dr. Gubrud’s idyll! A simple global regime!

Or here is a snippet from Isak Baldwin’s e-mail interview of Dr. Gubrud on July 18, 2003:

Isak Baldwin: "Since 1986, through its ‘Project 863,’ China has been developing post-nuclear superweapons in 7 fields of research.”

Dr. Gubrud: "I don’t know if such a ‘project’ exists, but even if it does, I’m not worried. There are a lot of military projects in the US which make outlandish promises and are actually little more than hot air.”

So Dr. Gubrud does not know whether Project 863, which even the New York Times reported on Sept. 7, 2000, has existed since 1986. That is, he knows nothing about the development of post-nuclear weapons in China, which is to him just one of "nations” to establish a "single global regime” and live in it happily ever after.

Project 863 was founded by Chinese scientists who are nationally known, while in the United States hardly anyone knows the name of any of them, and Dr. Gubrud suspects them, without knowing them or Project 863, of being charlatans producing "little more than hot air.”

Incidentally, I checked the list of scientists who created in the 1960s and the 1970s the Chinese nuclear arsenal. They all have Chinese names. Is this arsenal also "little more than hot air”?

Let us have a glimpse into the relations between the real United States and the real China, for both countries still exist as real countries, not yet as part of a "single global regime.”

The People’s Daily ("the organ of the Communist Party of the People’s Republic of China”) announced on Nov. 21, 2002, that a "nanotechnology center” had been opened in Beijing by U.S. company Veeco Instruments Inc., a worldwide leader in the relevant fields, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

For historical parallel it can only be said that this would be like U.S. nuclear scientists having established a "nuclear research center” in Berlin early in 1939, when Hitler was still regarded as a champion of peace.

But if Dr. Gubrud represents the average mentality of U.S. nanoscientists and nanotechnologists, there is nothing wrong with China getting ahead of the West in nanotechnology since China eventually will become part of a "single global regime.”

Besides, the Veeco scientists may assure themselves and/or the public that if Veeco is transmitting U.S. nanotechnology to China, the latter is behind the United States in that field. Actually, The People’s Daily notes: "CAS [Chinese Academy of Sciences] statistics show that more than 300 enterprises are working on nanoscience in China, with some 7,000 scientists studying it.”

At any rate, Veeco will bring to the new joint nanotechnology center in Beijing its "atomic force microscope and scanning tunneling microscope.” Perhaps China had not yet (in 2002) produced such. As for the "Chinese government,” it has budgeted about $240 million "for nanotech projects,” with at least as much "due from local governments.”

Under Chinese absolutism, the top ruling elite think about geostrategy, while the rest of the population need not bother about it. In a democracy, a voter must also think about geostrategy because he elects much of the ruling elite. But if the electorate is represented by nanoscientists like Dr. Gubrud and those of Veeco, the democracy becomes suicidal.

The link to my book online is www.levnavrozov.com. My e-mail is navlev@cloud9.net. You can also request our webmaster@levnavrozov.com send you by e-mail my outline of my book.

Editor's note:
New Chinese Military Manual Calls for "Unrestricted" War Against America – Click here now

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
China/Taiwan