Death By Design

By Sebastian V. Pym

Over the past seventy-five years, the Japanese government has refused to apologize to the United States government for decimating Pearl Harbor on Sunday, December 7, 1941. But while most Americans, now three generations hence, know little about that tragedy, not all, especially the aging veterans, have forgotten. Their just due is in this book. And so, as a Canadian who has studied that slice of American history rather extensively, as well as the historically murderous mindset of the Japanese military, and particularly though a foreign spirited American disciple, I felt it incumbent upon me to make right that wrong committed against America's very soul. The American president of that era, FDR, said that "There shall be no more days of infamy." To memorialize those words for all time, it became imperative to give them both a greater weight than they have ever had, and a warning to any other State so inclined that the soul of America is fully resurrected to where any such future intent, potential or actual, will be unapologetically met with its "Death by Design."

• Language: English
• Publisher: Page Publishing, Inc.
• Release date: Aug 1, 2022
• ISBN: 9781635686579

Book preview

Chapter 1

Confirmation

The United States Senate’s confirmation process can be a very trying experience. In recent decades, many of the nominees who have appeared to run that gauntlet likely said to themselves that they would prefer a different venue to test their fitness to render his or her service to the Republic. Nonetheless, such is the order of things if one is disposed to do so.

None of those earlier candidates, however, had to undergo the excruciating pain of such an experience as did the late judge Robert Bork, the conservative constitutional scholar. His principal nemeses were the late Massachusetts Senator Edward M. Kennedy and the former Vice President Joe (the buffoon) Biden, as well as a host of other democrats who sought to be cruel in terms of their opposition to Bork personally and to his nomination.

He did not receive his deserved confirmation to the Supreme Court, and America is a lesser-nation because of that result.

However, such will not be the fate of the current nominee. For this very talented man, like Caesar’s wife, is above reproach. He is as talented and experienced as few of such nominees have ever been. And it would be a grievous understatement to say that he is more than deserving of this nomination.

In Room 243 on the second floor of the Russell Senate Building, the Senate’s Armed Services Committee is about to convene.

The ever curious, an amalgam of friends and associates of the nominee, assorted Limbaugh adherents, a quantum of the politically correct, and other sundry observers, are gathering as is their wont to do on occasions of this nature.

Some want the candidate to fall flat on his face, while others who know him well take silent comfort in the assured expectation that no such event will occur. They will not be disappointed.

The ever impotent media lazily begin to assume their customary stations which are some forty feet between where the nominee will be seated and where the members of the Committee are sitting.

Behind the members will sit a variety of staff personnel from the offices of the respective senators, most of whom are political lawyers, investigators, researchers, interns, and a bevy of secretaries.

There is great bustle as the largely shallow, albeit polite, mill about. Some engage in exchanges with a few of the senators with whom they are familiar through working in their electoral campaigns. It is an atmosphere of seeming cordiality.

Naturally, we all know that the exchanges, for the most part, are riddled with outrageous pretension. After all, this is Washington where no seeming sincerity can gain permanency. Everybody tends to play everybody else.

The cameras, understandably, are doing nothing to diminish this air of wanton pretension. After all, a conservative in the well of wolfish liberals is not exactly a comfort zone. Nonetheless, this nominee will have substantial support from both camps for the simple reasons that he is nationally known, well-respected, and has never publicly voiced a political preference.

The nominee, Dr. Waldron Hazen Andrews, has now entered the august setting. He is quickly greeted by a number of well-wishers and friends. After some minutes of this, he goes up to shake hands with all the Senators who know him only by reputation. But even to those who know him only by name, great care will be accorded him following their detailed perusing of the Senate investigators’ reports on his background.

The enormously positive remarks from the FBI, the Defence Intelligence Agency, the NIH, the CDC, Homeland Security, and five other similar bodies, are such that the Committee will not toy with this most eligible of nominees. For he will neither tolerate any nonsense nor suffer fools gladly. Dressed in a crisp, blue, pin-striped suit, this darling of the intellectual set does not look particularly studious.

However, behind that polite face and cautious smile churns a volcano of ferocious intellect punctuated with mind-numbing historical facts.

When Andrews was twenty-six and already an associate professor of genetics at MIT, he wrote a lengthy research paper entitled 2020 and Beyond: America’s Necessary Defence Grid. The paper, which later became a very widely read book, was considered a landmark study of the past, present, and future of the American military position both at home and abroad.

Time magazine, in a lengthy and very favorable review, referred to the book as the first definitive study of the American military establishment in this century. It is a work of sterling precision and insight. The publication also went on to say that a master military thinker has now emerged. The praise was unusual considering that Andrews was never in the military nor were any member of his family. Within one year of the book’s publication, it became a standard reference for military planners, as well as required reading for all military academies throughout the United States.

Even at the Pentagon, it is still considered the template. Five years later, at thirty-one years of age, he was appointed a full professor of biochemistry at MIT, becoming the second youngest person ever to achieve that status.

Then fourteen years later and based largely on a second very exhaustive study entitled Nucleic Acids, Protein Syntheses and Viruses within the Regulation of Genes, Andrews was selected by the President to head the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia.

He stayed there for three years. During his tenure at the CDC, several representatives came his way seeking to encourage him to meet quietly with officials from the White House. Eventually, he relented, emphasizing that all must be as it never happened. He was forty-eight years old. And his characteristic persona of caution never abandoned him.

A private call from the President, who wants him to become the nation’s next Secretary of Defence, was now before his mind. He thought to himself, No refusal of the President’s call is ever possible. The candidate-in-waiting began his preparations.

The Senate’s Armed Services Committee has thirteen members. This very strategic number represents a natural defence against gridlock.

Having received a general air of warmth from the senators, the nominee now returns to the long table where he initially dropped off his materials when first entering the hearings room. Looking at the crowd, the nominee, with a warm but faint smile, acknowledges several familiar members in the audience.

Sitting at the table, which is draped with a soft, blue spread, he begins to adjust himself. Actually, there are four tables. This is normal for the senate’s hearings room irrespective of which committee is meeting, because often, there will be more than one person giving testimony together with colleagues and lawyers.

The room is now largely quiet. Some chitchat is occurring, but that will soon cease. The professor prepares to open his five-inch thick binder, removing various, bulging folders and distributing them in front of him. He next places a rather thick report immediately in front of himself and begins to peruse it. Closing the report, he looks around the room, particularly where the full committee will be seated. Of his many efficiencies, he cherishes preparedness.

Both of the Senate’s security officers now close the double doors to Room 243. For obvious reasons, they are not permitted to remain inside. Instead, they remain outside the room, ensuring no other entry to the setting.

Senator Bryce Archer, the committee chairman and a fourth-term Republican from Tennessee, is a mild-mannered, very well-respected member. He was formerly chairman of the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee. This setting will be important for the chairman, as he will not be seeking a fifth-term because his wife is suffering from muscular dystrophy.

The chairman now raises his gavel, bringing the room to order.

Day One

Archer: Ladies and gentlemen, the honorable nominee, and members of the press, on behalf of this Committee, the United States Senate, and the American public, I want to welcome you here to these proceedings.

Dr. Andrews, you are a very distinguished American and I especially welcome you before the Committee. We are very happy to have you here. Before we begin, however, would you kindly stand to take the oath? Repeat after me.

Andrews: I, Waldron Hazen Andrews, do solemnly swear that I shall tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth according to the laws of the United States and under the provisions of a nominee before a Committee of the United States Senate, so help me God.

Archer: Thank you, Dr. Andrews.

Andrews: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Archer: Dr. Andrews, your official statement will be entered into the record. Are there any objections? None being heard, the statement will be so entered. Now, Dr. Andrews, how many people have served as Secretaries of Defence in the history of the United States?

Andrews: A total of twenty-four, Mr. Chairman. The first was James V. Forrestal in 1947. He was appointed by President Truman.

Before 1947, Mr. Chairman, such people were designated as Secretaries of War. And the first such secretary was Gen. Henry Knox. On September 12, 1789, he was selected by then President Washington and served a total of six years. The last of such Secretaries was Kenneth C. Royall. 1947 was also the year when the War Department became the Department of Defence. I believe the exact date was September 8.

Archer: I see that preparedness is a strong suit of yours, Dr. Andrews.

Andrews: Well, Mr. Chairman, I try to be as prepared as possible. Perhaps, this is my lucky day with answers. Having been an eagle scout has taught me a lot about being prepared.

Archer: Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the honorable Senator from Oregon.

Note: Senator William E. Hilliard, a democratic member of the committee, is in his second term. He has been on the committee for seven months. Dr. Hilliard, a prominent surgeon from Eugene, Oregon, is a specialist in cardiovascular diseases.

Hilliard: Dr. Andrews, what is a defence grid?

Andrews: Senator Hilliard, in order for me to answer your question fully, it is necessary to give you some historical background on the US military profile that is now part of its national defence legacy.

Without going into many of the details relating to events prior to the war of 1812 such as Sir Francis Drake claiming San Francisco for Britain in 1579 or John Winthrop’s efforts to settle Boston in 1630, the Sugar Act of 1764, the Stamp Act of 1765, the Townsend Acts of 1767, and the so-called Intolerable Acts of 1767, it was that war should be our stepping-off point in terms of strict military actions. The import of these details, Senator, is that they provide critical perspective as to the events that compelled our initiatives toward the campaign of 1812.

That bloody campaign, Senator, as most students of American history know, had nothing to do with the American sense of militarism because, to that juncture, none existed. There were three reasons why America decided that it must prepare to act with haste.

First, England undertook to unilaterally seize our ships because we were trading with France.

Second, she had captured some 4,000 of our sailors.

Third, England had armed many Indians to fight us on our own borders. Subsequently, on June 28, 1812, Congress declared war on Britain. Next, Senator, were the problems of 1836. Santa Ana had seized the Alamo, killing the entire garrison.

But a decade later, in 1846, President James Polk ordered the disputed lands that were taken by Mexico be returned immediately. Following that, with no satisfaction forthcoming from Mexico, we declared war on her in May 23rd of the same year. With 12,000 troops, we took Vera Cruz on March 27 and Mexico City on September 14, 1847. After which point, Mexico ceded its claim to Texas.

We then experienced the events which began in 1861 when seven of the Southern States on February 8 set up the Confederate States of America. The result was the Civil War, whose history is so well-known, that I need not recount its details here.

The 1898, Senator, brought us another reason to be prepared. On February 15 of that year, Cuba blew up the battleship, USS Maine, killing all two-hundred sixty aboard. We blockaded Cuba on April 22 in the interest of the pro-American independent forces that were conducting resistance to the regime then in place. Fortunately, the resistance succeeded.

Further to that Senator, in 1917 when Germany declared unrestricted submarine warfare largely because of the blockade by France and which also affected our then maritime activities, we found it necessary to declare war on Germany on April 6th. But that was not totally in our interests.

It was in full defence of our European friends’ security. The next year, 1918, following President Woodrow Wilson’s fourteen points for peace in Europe and us with one million troops there, the war was ended on November 11.

Twenty-three years later, the assault on Pearl Harbor took place. And beyond that, the Vietnam War occurred. We are all familiar with those events; hence, they need no recounting here.

And so, Senator Hilliard, a defence grid is a set of designs, a specific military architecture if you will, whose sole function would be to enable any contingent of American military equipment and personnel to be mobilized instantly to contain or counter-defend any, and I fervently emphasize any, adversarial force, foreign or domestic, whose conduct is or is likely to be interpreted as a threat, actual or potential, to our national interests anywhere in the world.

Preparedness is critical, Senator. Accordingly, I would much prefer that America be ready to aggress the potential rather than to have to consider its position toward the actual.

Hilliard: Sir, what is your opinion with regard to our forays into the Middle East?

Andrews: Well, Senator, while I respect your use of the noun opinion, I must respectfully decline to respond for three important reasons.

First, it would certainly be inappropriate for me to answer because. were I fortunate enough to be confirmed, it is very possible that I would be dealing with issues substantive to that part of the world.

Second, because those forays remain fluid, it would be premature to offer an opinion of certainty as to the final result.

Third, Senator, again, were I confirmed, my opinion could be construed as future American foreign policy in the Middle East.

I should quickly note, however, that I would be more than happy to provide an opinion of this nature to you and your colleagues in confidence.

Hilliard: Dr. Andrews, you have passed this test very well. Thank you. And yes, my question was designed to see how far you would go in commenting on our government’s current foreign policy regarding those forays. Not providing your opinion publicly was the correct response.

Archer: Prof. Andrews, I have two questions. First, how would your grid be established? And second, why would such a grid be necessary given that the so-called Cold War is over?

Andrews: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I’d like to address the second question first. And as an aside, I should note that, were there a grid of the order contemplated by my book in existence in 1940, there would have been no way for the Japanese forces to penetrate within 2,000 miles of the southern coast of Hawaii in 1941.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the need for such a grid is very much before us. With the aggressive rise of terrorist actions now virtually worldwide, but particularly as they impact on our friends—the recent carnage in France being one grieving example—America cannot afford to be without a grid.

Further, as most of such actions have their genesis in the Middle East, and inasmuch as we have a number of interests in that theater, it is not beyond the pale for us to assume that any one of the nations in that part of the world, especially one who supports terrorism, could become a candidate for American military intervention. One of such nations is Iran.

In addition, there is the matter of North Korea. We are well aware of the mercurial mindset of its new young leader. There is nothing to suggest that he is without designs on effectively crippling South Korea, particularly in military terms.

The real problem with this nation, Mr. Chairman, will be when she begins testing hydrogen bomb capability. And I dare say, it may well become that beyond such capability is the fearful possibility of this rogue nation testing neutron bomb capability. At that point, Mr. Chairman, all bets respecting the perception of North Korea as a simple braggart must be removed from the table. I should add as well, Mr. Chairman, that given the established cooperation between Iran and North Korea irrespective of the so-called Iran deal with the Obama administration, it is now imperative that we take another closer look at that deal.

My information, which is available publicly, is that there is a lot of suspicion as to whether or not that deal is or will become beneficial to the interests of the United States.

Let me now focus on Russia. It is not within the nature and quality of the seeds of democracy to begin sprouting on demand in that nation. The late Boris Yeltsin, who served two terms as President of the then Soviet Union, had considerable anti-democratic support.

And so, while we may want desperately to see such sprouting in what is now Russia, the reality is that the current President, Mr. Putin, will have nothing of the sort. He is now in support of President Assad in Syria. America is not. Such a course, particularly if President Putin enhances his aggression, does not bode well for us.

A short analysis of Putin’s mindset, particularly as he is now without the fourteen Republics that constituted the former USSR and his recent penetration into the Ukraine, clearly establishes that he is firmly disposed to aggressively engage a rigid Russian imperialism of the USSR variety.

And as to China, Mr. Chairman, I am of the unofficial view that it is critical for us to keep that now very much awake yellow giant on our radar.

China, and as it is the second largest economy in the world after ourselves, is the next great numerical and economic threat to the world’s stability. One day, Mr. Chairman, we shall have to confront her in a theater of confrontation rather than at a table of conciliation. And if I may, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a few additional remarks respecting China today.

As you may know, following the eighteenth Party Congress of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party), the previous President, Hu Jintao, was replaced by Mr. Xi Jinping in November of 2012.

A regular Chinese watcher would see that event as a simple and