An Interview on Nanoweapons (Post Nuclear Super Weapons)

Before launching the Web site www.worldthreats.com, Ryan Mauro was a geopolitical analyst for a maritime security company called Tactical Defense Concepts. I like our interview and have decided to publish it in my column because it "starts from scratch,” a useful approach, since in the last eight years or so the media have created an honest-to-goodness vacuum on the subject.

A Glimpse Into China’s Post-Nuclear Super-Weapons: Lev Navrozov Interviewed by Ryan Mauro for www.worldthreats.com

I am thankful to Lev Navrozov, an expert in post-nuclear superweapons, as he calls them, for granting this interview.

Ryan Mauro: Mr. Navrozov, your "nano weapons columns” on Newsmax.com and WorldTribune.com are intriguing. What is nanotechnology and how can it neutralize the U.S. means of nuclear retaliation?

Lev Navrozov: The word "nano” means "one billionth.” Nanotechnology is a field of many fields, some of them civilian, dealing with such small systems. What is of interest to us is tiny systems (they are called "assemblers”) of molecular nanotechnology. Such assemblers can penetrate molecules and transform or destroy them.

The world peace has been based on Mutual Assured Destruction. That is, every nuclear power such as the United States, Russia, or China has had means of nuclear retaliation, which an enemy nuclear attack cannot destroy. Thus, nuclear weapons can destroy New York, Moscow, or Beijing, but they cannot destroy submarines deep underwater, carrying nuclear missiles, underground nuclear installations, or bombers on duty high in the air carrying nuclear bombs. Nano assemblers are expected to be able to find these means of retaliation and destroy them by penetrating in between their atoms. Thus an attacked country can be destroyed safely by nuclear weapons because it has no means of nuclear retaliation to retaliate after the enemy nuclear attack and destroy the attacker by way of Mutual Assured Destruction.

LN: Let me recall the description a nanotechnologist has e-mailed to me. A molecular assembler I spoke about is a device capable of breaking and creating the chemical bonds between atoms and molecules. Since a molecular assembler is by definition able to self-replace, the first could build a duplicate copy of itself. Those two then become four, become eight, and so on. This compounding capital base could lead to a massive and decisive force within days. As Eric Drexler described it in his book – which he published in 1986! – "a state that makes the assembler breakthrough could rapidly create a decisive military force – if not literally overnight, then at least with unprecedented speed.”

Such a device is capable of rapidly manufacturing and deploying billions of microscopic/macroscopic machines at relatively little cost. These machines could comb the oceans for enemy submarines and quickly disable the nuclear arsenals they carry. Similar acts of sabotage could be carried out simultaneously against land-based nuclear facilities and conventional military forces in a matter of hours, if not minutes.

The race to build a molecular assembler, if won by China, will result in its worldwide nanotechnic dictatorship. We are certainly at a crucial juncture in history, not unlike 1938 and its nuclear scientists who foretold the atom bomb. This time, we cannot afford to be caught sleeping.

RM: What countries are developing the post-nuclear superweapons involving nanotechnology?

LN: It is worthwhile to speak only of China, Russia if dictatorship comes back to that country, and the United States if it awakens from its sleep, which may well be its last. To make the nanoweapons useful, a country must have the ability and the will to either world domination or to the defense against another country’s world domination.

RM: What do you believe are the motives and goals of the countries that are developing the post-nuclear superweapons?

LN: The national student movement of 1989, associated with Tiananmen Square, endangered the Chinese dictatorship more than any group in Soviet Russia endangered the Soviet dictatorship two years later. Yet the Soviet dictatorship fell. What a lesson for the Chinese dictators! We know authentic information about the Tiananmen Square movement from Zhang Liang’s publication "The Tiananmen Papers,” a 514-page collection of Chinese government documents. It is clear that the dictators of China saw how absolutism was endangered in China and understood that the only way to prevent future Tiananmens was to annihilate or subjugate the source of subversion, viz., the West.

RM: What do you believe are going to be China’s next steps in terms of acquiring territory?

LN: In contrast to Hitler, who stupidly grabbed the rump of Czechoslovakia in 1939, China has been very cautious in its territorial claims, since the position of China now is the best for the development of "Superweapon No. 3,” such as the nano superweapon.

LN: The worst enemy is the democratic West, whose very existence produces Tiananmens able to destroy the Chinese dictatorship. The best ally is the democratic West, supplying China with everything necessary for the annihilation or subjugation of the democratic West.

RM: Are the other post-nuclear weapons being researched to this day? If so, are they known? If not, can you enlighten us?

LN: Since the nano "Superweapon No. 3” is a hypothesis, and not an absolute certainty, the Chinese Project 863 has been engaged in genetic engineering and at least six or seven other fields.

RM: If China has or is close to, molecular nanotechnology to be used in war, what is the purpose of having a large, advanced conventional army and "traditional” nuclear weapons?

LN: Eric Drexler, the Newton of nanotechnology, alive and enriching us with his wisdom, discusses the problem in his historic book of 1986 "Engines of Creation.” My assistant Isak Baldwin says that, according to Drexler, "A nation armed with molecular nanotechnology-based weapons would not require nuclear weapons to annihilate a civilization. In fact, it seems that a rather surgical system of seeking and destroying enemy human beings as cancerous polyps could be developed--leaving the nation’s infrastructure intact to be repopulated.”

Nevertheless conventional weapons might be useful even on the "D-day,” after nanotechnology has been successfully weaponized. Conventional non-nuclear weapons have been useful even after 1945. Please recall that two "atom bombs” were delivered in 1945 by conventional U.S. bombers with conventional machine guns and all.

RM: What beliefs or desires are motivating the rulers of China? The belief that Communism must triumph over Capitalism?

LN: A New York taxi robber risks his life, life imprisonment, or death sentence to acquire the taxi driver’s $200. Hence the bulletproof partitions in taxis. The dictators of China defend not $200, but their power, which is worth trillions of dollars, apart from what cannot be expressed in terms of money (royal grandeur, cult, and glorification). Remember the French king who said, "The state – it is me”? Many dictators have been saying and can always say: "Communism/capitalism/democracy/freedom/socialism/national socialism/our great country/the meaning of life/the goal of history – it is me."

RM: If the U.S. is the most technologically advanced country, does this mean we have been surpassed?

LN: The "most technologically advanced country” is an ambiguous generality. In the 1950s, Russia was still a technologically backward country, with most of its population deprived of running water, to say nothing of passenger cars. Yet it did not prevent Russia from outstripping the United States in space rocketry, when the Soviet space satellite was launched before its American counterpart. In its annual "Soviet Military Power,” to which I subscribed, the Pentagon could not help praising certain Soviet weapons as second to none in the world.

RM: What today is holding China back from becoming overtly aggressive and reshaping the geopolitical world?

LN: The dictators of China are not insane! China’s government-controlled "capitalist corporations” have been penetrating the entrails of the Western economies, absorbing the latest science and technology – or sometimes entire Western corporations, induced to operate in China on cheap local labor.

To become "overtly aggressive”? What for? To invade Taiwan? To perish, along with the West, in Mutually Assured Destruction? No, the dictators of China are not insane! They are developing superweapons able to annihilate the Western means of nuclear retaliation.

LN: It is necessary for the U.S. political establishment to understand what is going on. Then the right steps will be taken. This is not a recipe that one person or one group can offer. This must be a national effort.

In 1978, to enlighten the West, I convinced nineteen outstanding Westerners to join the Advisory Board of the Center for the Survival of Western Democracies under my presidency. The irony is that when we concentrated on Soviet Russia, before 1991, we had all the grants we needed. But in the last eight years or so, China was the American holy cow, and we have had no funds to carry on our research of China and the enlightenment of the West.

RM: How much progress have you made in alerting the government and intelligence apparatus about the Chinese threat?

LN: Since our Center for the Survival of Western Democracies began to regard China, and not Russia, as the key geostrategic player, the donations to our organization stopped. My assistants work without pay or with a token pay. We need a top-level publicist at $10,000 for four months, Chinese translators at $100 a week, etc. Quite unlike a conjectural $200 billion on the war in Iraq, where WMDs are still being hidden (presumably under Hussein’s bed, which is also being hidden) and a conjectural $600 billion for the reconstruction of Iraq (well, once it has been destroyed by the Coalition bombs, missiles, and shells, it is to be reconstructed).

LN: For the time being, the prediction is not difficult: Unless the situation changes, the West will be annihilated or will become a Chinese colony with all the consequences arising therefrom.

Lev Navrozov:

"Since our Center for the Survival of Western Democracies began to regard China, and not Russia, as the key geostrategic player, the donations to our organization stopped."

Why have donations stopped since China is mentioned? Hmmm?

Are recent American Presidents allies with China, or, are they traitors?

From what I've seen on this subject over the past year or so, if America doesn't establish this 'nanoweapon technology' (Post Nuclear Super Weapons) first, we will likely perish, or merely exist as a colony of China.

Is that the plan? It surely looks like it.

Red Dragon Rising ---- Year of The Rat.

But, Clinton may not be the only traitor. I cannot believe that this subject is rarely mentioned. Did you notice that last paragraph?

"Since our Center for the Survival of Western Democracies began to regard China, and not Russia, as the key geostrategic player, the donations to our organization stopped."

Sounds like some duplicity or complicity going on here, eh?

Good grief. Why isn't anyone interested in this?

Maybe because the Western Democracies are rather busy fighting with each other...Boy, when you think about the military and scientific power that could be mustered should we unite !

This subject should be # 1. I'm hoping everything that needs to be done is being done ..... behind the scenes.

Back when Einstein was trying to persuade Roosevelt to begin nuclear research(it took Einstein and his cohorts four years to get through to the thick Roosevelt), there was a need for us to get the 'brains' and the bomb before Hitler (or Stalin). Some of the 'brains' went to Russia and some came here.

Now today, it is at least as important that we get our s**t together on this technology, and get ahead of the Chinese. China is spending billions on this research presently!

Who is minding the store, or, is it already not our store?

I wouldn't get too worried about nano-weapons just yet. It's a huge jump from theory and experimental machines to weapons that work reliably in the real world. It's difficult to even locate a Trident submarine, and what kind of nano-weapons can actually operate in the harsh conditions of oceans and the high altitudes where SAC bombers fly? Mr. LN sounds suspiciously like a guy making a living off of books, magazines, videotapes, etc. That doesn't mean nanotechnology won't be used effectively in war some day. But I doubt that it's the all-powerful weapon described here. There are many areas in science that we're studying for future weapons, including this one.

Boy, when you think about the military and scientific power that could be mustered should we unite !

Yes, maybe that is a thing to work toward.

I'm beginning to worry that Bush and this administration are the misdirected morons that the Democrats say they are. UNLESS, our government is working on all this nanoweaponry in total silence, which may not be such a bad idea, given the fact that the Democrats might blow the cover of the research on a whim in the slimey New York Times!

If this is as serious as it sounds, we have no choice. I've been concerned about the Chinese for years: every controversy always seems to resolve in their favor, and they've been working closely with Moscow on their military. But we're worried about suicide bombers (not to minimize that threat, but time to question our priorities).

Things could get extremely dicey if something... happens (like, say, a full-scale assault on Taiwan).

Nanotechnology is nearly the ultimate frontier between man and gods - in terms of power, and not of benevolence, of course.

It could be the key to nearly unlimited power, to such leaps in medicine that immortality could be at hand, and also will be the harbinger of a complete revolution of world economics. The nation, or group of nations, that will harness that power will ultimately have a power well beyond our wildest dreams...

So, the question is, in short : who do we want to control it ?

I'm glad I am 57 years old, and will most likely see very little of this nanotechnology in use. I have often wondered why God supposedly gave man the mental capacity to create such things. Why would God give man the powers of God himself? Makes no sense to me.

Certainly not the Chinese. Who has the will to develop it? Obviously for France, the U.S., and other allies the goal is defensive. The problem is one of research and dev.: it costs money, and our people are too worried about universal health care, drug coverage, and job training programs to tolerate any increase in defense spending.

Most probably, the Sino-Russian "alliance" won't last. China has many territorial questions to settle with her northern neighbor, and unless Russia manages to get her economy going, China will no longer have any use for her former partner...

But China alone could present a formidable threat. The country's economy is in the middle of a great revolution, fueled by the money pouring from the Western investors. They have begun to corner the markets in many high-tech goods, and can now produce advanced military vehicles... For the first time since they scuttled their blue navy 800 years ago, China is becoming a naval power we'll have to count with, fully equipped with nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers...

Truly, the writing is on the wall, and, to quote one of your great patriots, either we will hang together, or they'll hang us separately.

It's true, but that could change quite quickly. After WWII, the USA disarmed very quickly - but rearmed twice as quickly when it was obvious that the Cold War had begun. Just before WWII, the French Popular Front government was big on social issues, and deaf to military needs. But that soon changed after 1937, with a greater emphasis on military expenditures.

As for the costs, many things could be done to stop wasting our money in redundant programs, or incompatible equipment. By putting their research budgets together, the Western democracies could multiply their labs capacities, at no cost for their citizens. In a bolder move, the same could be done for military units, thus solving both Europe's lack of investment in military hardware and America's fears of over-stretchning her forces to the point where these forces are vulnerable.

ping to post #12.

Why would God give man such 'intellectual powers'. Why, in your opinion, has man been given "Godly" powers. It seems so odd.

Historically, China has had trouble building "big things" (I forget their word for it), and that's one area where they depend on Russian help. That adds a ring of concordant irony to their potential dominance in nanotechnology.

Russia and the other former Soviet nations' chief value after the dissolution of the Sino-Russian alliance will lie in its land, as the population growth rate in the north is well below replacement levels. The aging populate will be too sparsely distributed to maintain infrastructure, while China has millions of young, tough warriors ready to march in and take over.

I do hope, as summerwind said, that we're working on something in stealth mode. Perhaps our efforts would be augmented with greater international cooperation, as you've suggested. Even if this is 15-20 years away, we'd best be working on it or its equivalent.

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.