Riemann's Contribution to Flight and Laser Fusion

the programs of Hjalmar Schacht, the finance minister under both Briiningand Hitler. Both restrict military policy to dependence upon wunderwar/en.As LaRouche summarized it: "NATO policy makers have insisted that militarypolicy must be subordinated to the effects of such a neo-Schachtian policy forthe USA, et al., obliging themselves to adopt a parody of Hermann Goerirvg's'Guns Instead of Butter' doctrine of arms and operations."These NATO planners argue that because the Nazis developed frontierquality military technologies under the terms of the Schacht-Speer austeritypolicies, we can replicate this achievement; because we have much greatergeopolitical assets than the Nazis, they say, we can succeed where the Nazisfailed.LaRouche describes the twofold fallacy of this argument:TheLightningRodFirst, the Nazi economy used up a previously established scientific andindustrial potential which no Nazi or kindred political economic ordercould produce. The correlated point is that we lack the technologicalresources comparable to those the Nazi regime appropriated in subjugatingthe German nation to its rule. In terms of the present state of oureducational system, the potentialities for producing, assimilating, andapplying technology in our industrial establishment and in the qualificationof and the extent of our scientific community, we are relatively farbelow the resources of the nation which fell into Hitler's and Schacht'shands. The Nazi weapon development center at Peenemunde expressesthe role of non-Nazi created scientific and industrial resources in developingan advanced military capability despite the contrary implications ofNazi economic, social, and cultural and political characteristics.A Question of MethodThe question of method for the creation and assimilation of new technologyis the crux of the matter for both the military and civilian success of a nation.The Nazis perfected a war-losing strategy (all NATO's fantasies aside, the Nazisdid lose the war)—a strategy that destroyed the industrial base, manpowerpotential, and cognitive capabilities of the German nation; they looted thequalities of mind that they inherited from the older generation, scientists likeAdolf Busemann, who is interviewed in this issue.What the United States must master today if it is to survive the present crisisin military and civilian terms—and these, after all, are essentially the same—isthe traditionalist military doctrine. As LaRouche summarized this: "The technologyof warfare should be defined in respect to a reference-policy of'Manhattan Project'-scale broad spectrum development and deployment ofrelativistic plasma-beam antimissile weaponry, combined with the strengtheningof the civilian-economic agroindustrial basis from in-depth logistical,mobility, and personnel features of military capabilities. [We must applyl'thecontinuing relevance of the great traditionalist republican military science ofAlexander the Great, George Gemistos Plethon, Leonardo da Vinci, NiccoloMachiavelli, Gottfried Leibniz, Lazare Carnot, and the Prussian state reformsof 1809-1810."It is impossible to develop an in-depth, war-winning capability within theconfines of an austerity program dictated either by Volcker, or as has beenrecently mooted, by the International Monetary Fund. Strategists who haveforgotten this should be forcefully reminded of the significance of the Naziweapons research programs. They should be reminded that the Nazis' V-1 andV-2 weapons are exactly the same as the Cruise missile and the Pershing; onlythe names are new.The role of advanced scientific education and research projects at thefrontiers of high energy density physics—like laser fusion—is indispensable.And, ironically, the scientific method required for the solution of theseproblems is identical to the political method required for their translation intosocial reality.My dear friends,No sooner had the various heads ofgovernment concluded their deliberationsat Ottawa, than I noted withsorrow once again that our sensibilitieswere being assaulted and ourgood sense abused by eminent personswrongfully insistent that the loweringof our own population is themajor objective of the human species.I too say, with Fusion, "The World• Needs More People!" And by way ofpresenting credentials in this newmovement you are building, I offer afew remarks from a brief essaypenned by a young Pennsylvaniaprinter in 1751, which is entitled,"Observations concerning the Increaseof Mankind and the Peoplingof Countries." Extreme modesty almostforbids me to point out that theauthor's reasoning on one or twopoints is entirely adequate to the refutationof the most "modern" argumentsdevised at Harvard and such, asto the supposed "necessity" of artificiallyrestricting the growth of population.To wit: It is frequently alleged thatimprovements in agriculture and industryare to be discouraged as theylead to "overpopulation" of the land,but that more primitive, "labor-intensive"techniques relieve this problem.Yet as the author of the "Observations"pointed out in our nation'sinfancy:"America is chiefly occupied by Indians,who subsist mostly by hunting.But as the hunter, of all men, requiresthe greatest quantity of land fromwhence to draw his subsistence, (thehusbandmen subsisting on much less,the gardener on still less, and themanufacturer requiring least of all,)Continued on page 6October-November 1981FUSION