|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
The Problem of Freedom Lev Navrozov Alan Freed, my assistant, as intellectually alert as when he was a Lutheran pastor, has drawn my attention to Einstein's statement: "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits." Indeed, stupidity is boundless; and if anyone, no matter how stupid, can be heard all over the free world, owing to the communication media of today, then stupidity can, in freedom, lead to the self-destruction of the free world. The genius of Einstein was not drowned by the ocean of stupidity because his theory was proved experimentally—physically, and hence everyone, no matter how stupid, had to accept it. No matter how stupid or intelligent Roosevelt could have been (his wife published a book, glorifying Stalin's Russia), Einstein informed him that Hitler's Germany was developing nuclear weapons, and since Hitler declared war on the United States in 1941, Roosevelt could not help understanding that Nazi Germany having nuclear weapons meant the death or unconditional surrender of the United States having none. In post-1949 China, there is no problem of freedom for unlimited stupidity because there is no freedom. The Chinese know that had China been engaged in a war with Iraq for about four years, on the pretext of false espionage data, and had lost the war, all those responsible would have been put to death. Or had China faced a dictatorship the population of which would have exceeded hers four times and which would have been developing nano and other super weapons, the same fate would have befallen those who would have denied the danger or would have been silent about it on official occasions. But as I came to the United States from Soviet Russia in 1971, I found a near-total silence about the danger of post-nuclear super weapons developed in Soviet Russia and in the dictatorship of China. "Is it possible that no member of the U.S. Congress is paying attention to the danger of China?" I asked. Finally: Eureka! I did find such a member of Congress! Story Continues Below
Today it is still possible to read the following paragraph in the entry "Nancy Pelosi" of the Internet "Congresspedia," in the section "Congressional Career," consisting of two short paragraphs, one of which reads: "After the Tiananmen protests of 1989, Pelosi became a supporter of the Chinese democracy movement and vocal critic of the government of the People's Republic of China and sponsored the Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992." As soon as I heard of this, I sent her a letter, expressing my appreciation, offering information, and proposing cooperation. But evidently, somewhere between 1989 and the time she received my letter, her anti-China-dictatorship stand was no longer "politically correct" or culturally fashionable, and I received no answer. On Jan. 23, 2007, she was prominent on the TV screen as the new Congress listened and applauded the Address to the Nation of President Bush. That was a good time for her to respond after his speech with: "Hey, but what about China?" But I did not hear her or any other member of the new Congress mentioning the danger of China. On Jan. 3, 2007, I received an e-mail from one of my readers, John Petri, Texas:
Dear Mr. Navrozov, I thoroughly enjoy your articles and believe you speak the truth about the possibility of ‘nano' warfare, or the "assassin's mace." It's too bad that very few people are listening to you. The following article is currently on the Web site www.StrategyPage.com. John Petri cites it, beginning with its title:
The Chinese Paper Tiger by James Dunnigan December 30, 2006 Let us pause for a minute. If China is a paper tiger, what then is Iraq? A paper cockroach? Why cannot the USA subdue its resistance for about four years? The answer is: because in freedom, the number of "great strategists" like James Dunnigan is infinite since everyone is free to speak publicly as a "great strategist." The list of Dunnigan's books about war is a page long, and in 1980 he wrote "How to Make War," though it is not clear what war he made and won. He is 64, and he looks like a druggist on the eve of full retirement in our drugstore. How does he prove that China is a "paper tiger"? Easy! He declares that China has "only about 200 nuclear warheads." His conclusion:
Perhaps [!] China realizes that the chances of the United States using, or even threatening to use, nuclear armed missiles against China are slim to none. In that case, why should China spend a lot of money trying to match the American arsenal? Why was Iraq so dangerous that the United States launched a war against it? The CIA (falsely) decided that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction," and intended to develop a nuclear warhead. China is a "paper tiger" because it has "only about 200 nuclear warheads." Alas, the Chinese dictators consider the greatest strategist in the history of mankind not Dunnigan (or any other such an abuser — dangerous to his own country — of freedom, and in particular, of the freedom of speech and that of press), but Sun Tzu of the 4th century B.C. Sir Basil Liddell Hart, a British strategist and historian, has written that Sun Tzu's "Art of War" and other strategic studies "have never been surpassed in comprehensiveness and depth of understanding." It has to be admitted that in 1945, the USA carried out — by accident —Sun Tzu's strategic principle of "winning without fighting." Roosevelt was informed by Einstein's letter of Aug. 2, 1939, that Germany was developing the atom bomb. But after 1942, Germany had no resources to spare on the atomic project from the conventional war, while the USA had atom bombs in1945, after the war with Germany was over, and hence used them against Japan, which surrendered unconditionally. This is Sun Tzu's key principle: win at one blow, shashou jian. Incidentally, the example also shows that freedom (as in the United States in the 1940s) may lead to victory and survival, and dictatorship (as in Germany) to defeat. Nuclear physics had been developing in Germany before 1933 more intensely than in the United States. Einstein held the highest academic posts and received a Nobel Prize. But Hitler introduced official anti-Semitism, yet let Jewish nuclear physicists emigrate to the United States, which produced the atom bomb in 1945, while Hitler was stupid enough to be cool to the development of the super weapon of that time, and so Germany and Japan were anyway doomed to defeat. The war was their suicide, and, in particular, the personal suicide of Hitler. The nuclear bomb was, in 1945, the super weapon. After nuclear weapons had been developed by Soviet Russia and then by China, world peace rested on Mutual Assured Destruction, for even 200 hidden Chinese nuclear warheads, which James Dunnigan pooh-poohs, can, if dropped on American cities, result in 100 million corpses. Obviously, the principle indicated by Sun Tzu 24 centuries ago now points to post-nuclear super weapons (such as nano weapons, able to destroy the enemy's means of retaliation), which the "great strategist" James Dunnigan does not even mention as though we are living and will always live in 1945. On May 1, 2003, PBS (Public Broadcasting Station) presented in its program "Lessons of War" Donald Rumsfeld, James Dunnigan, and other "top military experts," all of them fools. Their stupid conclusion: The victory in Iraq (by May 1, 2003!) "marked a turning point in the history of warfare," as Rumsfeld had told the troops in Iraq.
James Dunnigan: Yeah, I mean as I mentioned earlier, the casualty rate was, you know, historically very low. And there are good reasons for that. I mean we tend to forget that now we have an all-voluntary army. They're professionals. They're not in for two years; they're in for three, four or more. That makes an enormous difference. Also, the training is much better. It's superior, you know, probably the best in the world. And that has made a big difference. We've also managed to defeat the enemy weapons over the last, you know, 50 years. They can't get their artillery on us, they have no air force against us. And there's also a spirit of innovation in the armed forces, which I think Secretary Rumsfeld was alluding to when he was talking about the spirit of jointness. And that has made a tremendous difference — as Rumsfeld pointed out, we're faster and that mix [is] an enormous difference, no matter what you're doing on the battlefield. Today it is hardly possible to find someone so stupid as to fail to see the stupidity of all these outpourings of self-glorification. Indeed, Rumsfeld was finally forced to retire, for he sounded too stupid against the background of the war, lost to a small technologically backward Third-World country.
You can e-mail me at navlev@cloud9.net. Editor's note: Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Print Page 
Forward Page 
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2008 NewsMax.Com |