Weather Warfare: The Invisible U.S. Military Offensives in Weather Weaponry

by Keith Harmon Snow

July, 2002

 To gain further insight into the mental illness of our leaders, and the
irresponsible, catastrophic direction in which they have thrust us, consider
the ongoing research, development and applications of weather warfare
technologies. Adherents of weather warfare prefer to call it ³environmental
modification techniques² ­ or ENMOD. The corporate media has reported almost
nothing about these aerospace and defense programs, or the technologies
involved. Thus do I open the discussion of the ENMOD arena by deconstructing
recent news stories.

First note that the Internet abounds with conspiracy theories of all stripes
about weather warfare, environmental modification and climatic mayhem.
Numerous postings declare the climate instabilities we are already seeing to
be the work of the antichrist or the New World Order ­ indeed in some cases
they are one and the same -- and some of these web sites describe people
legitimately concerned and vocal about climatic change as the agents of a
³left-wing conspiracy² with a ³communist agenda² ever hostile to ³free
enterprise.²

Buried beneath the volumes of imaginative but wholly fictitious conspiracies
that gain wide circulation however, are the many legitimate secret programs
orchestrated behind the darkness and denial of the military-industrial
complex. Call these conspiracies if you like. This story ­ weather as a
weapon ­ is certainly not one of them and, depending on how you look at it,
this is certainly one of them.

 The Fog Watch (Propaganda):[1]

Throughout April, 2002, Amherst College (MA) radio (WAMH) ran a series of
public service announcements (PSAs) sponsored by a Christian church
organization declaring the existence of weather modification technologies,
and advocating that listeners contact the U.S. government to demand that
these technologies be deployed to moderate the extreme weather and drought
we are seeing. According to these PSAs, the government use of these existing
technologies to mitigate hostile weather is a fundamental right of every
U.S. citizen.[2]

On February 17, 2002, ABC News ran a very brief  ³news² clip titled ³Weather
As A Weapon?² The inquisitive title infers that this is some not-yet-certain
possibility, contributing to the delusional beliefs that weather warfare
might be something we ­ the public ­ ought to at least be thinking about,
and possibly debating. ABC would never have run the story without some
greater purpose than simply ³to keep the public informed² -- the expected
role of the democratic free press that ABC purports to be part of.[3]

 The article describes the advantages of weather modification: seeding
clouds, creating rain or tornadoes over hostiles forces, burning through fog
to expose enemy aircraft:

Consider what might happen on some battlefield of the future where the U.S.
military could gain a tactical advantage by changing the weather. There are
several ways they might try to do that. One way would be to create rain that
turns battlefields into mud baths in order to immobilize enemy troops and
enemies. Another is by triggering lightning storms over airfields to keep
hostile aircraft on the ground. Yet another possibility would be to burn
through a heavy fog by firing lasers to give U.S. fighter pilots a better
view of enemy targets. An Air Force research paper called ³Owning the
Weather in 2025² predicts that weather modification could reshape
battlefields. [4] 

Weather warfare, of course, is set in some amorphous future battlespace.
There is ABC¹s first deception. ABC draws attention to the Air Force
document Owning the Weather in 2025. This is an unclassified document,
accessible to the public, and it suggests that ENMOD research and
development is all mere theory and speculation.

Owning the Weather in 2025 appears on its face to reveal significant details
about the nature of U.S. national security and defense capabilities.
However, in the age of international terrorism, with the U.S. military and
its multinational corporations and their media minions whipping up a frenzy
about terrorists of all stripes, anthrax scares and world trade massacres --
and with rapid information access and exchange making such reports available
to hoards of uncivilized information-seeking barbarians feared by the
Pentagon -- we can be sure that this document shows us only what we are
intended to see.

Owning the Weather in 2025 serves the greater purpose of exposing only what
is efficacious to the military, to the intelligence apparatus, to the
companies they are in league with, and to the compromised policymakers
seeking public support ­ by any means -- for the military programs they are
paid to peddle. That is ABC¹s second deception: steering interested readers
toward an inversion of reality, a public relations document, officially
sanctioned, released and posted by the military. ABC does not question the
origins of this document, or why it has suddenly come into vogue.

 ABC confirms that weather warfare is, at the very least, under development:
the article closes noting that substantial ongoing investments in research
and development have continued.

In the U.S. and in many other countries, the private sector continues to
work on weather modification technology ‹ work that could also be used on
the battlefield. And as this research continues on, for example, cloud
seeding techniques that produce heavy rain to help farmers in time of
drought or laser technology that could clear heavy fog for passenger jets,
the military is watching.[5]

To say that the military is ³watching² is to lie outright. There is ABC¹s
third deception: as I will imminently show, the military has funded and
sponsored these weather warfare technologies for over fifty years. ABC¹s
fourth deception is the suggestion that the private sector and the
government defense sector are independent, that one does not wash the hand,
or wipe the ass, of the other. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

The fifth deception by ABC News is the suggestion that these life and earth
destroying technologies ­ pursued with a scientific hubris that is psychotic
and obscene -- will also serve peaceful uses. Indeed, given the industrial
acceleration of climatic mayhem we can be sure that the public will be
clamoring for these weather modification technologies. The further
suggestion is that their military adaptability is an afterthought, rather
than their raison d¹etre. That is ABC¹s sixth deception.

 

Naturally, weather modification tools will revive gardens of sunflowers and
fields of wheat stricken by drought, and they will guide passenger jets full
of innocent people (!) to safety. By implication, these weather modification
technologies are essential to human survival, they will never be used
unjustly, they are as benign as atoms for peace. Such arguments about the
ENMOD arena will increasingly proliferate with great media fanfare, serving
the intended purpose of manipulating the public mind, as information about
ENMOD technologies is slowly and strategically transitioned out of the
(classified) closet.

 

Indeed, the public has paid hundreds of millions of dollars, at least -- and
it is most likely billions -- to develop these technologies ­ a fact that
ABC does not share -- so we might as well see them put to good use. Hiding
the proliferation of public subsidies for weather warfare is ABC¹s seventh
deception.

 

The main purpose of the ABC article ­ and the WAMH public service
announcement ­ is to introduce a new subject heretofore forbidden by the
military and, its extension, the corporate media. These articles signal the
beginnings of a propaganda campaign to habituate citizens to a happy,
un-dissenting coexistence with weather warfare technology. That is ABC¹s
eighth deception.

 

The deeper purpose of the ABC ³news² clip ­ the ninth deception -- is to
garner support from U.S. citizens to withdraw from ­ to denounce, evade or
trample on ­ an international treaty prohibiting environmental warfare,
signed by the U.S. in the 1970¹s.

 

Thus does the bold and colorful subtitle, and the paragraph that follows,
elucidate the central theme of the ABC article: ³AGREEMENT BARS WEATHER
MANIPULATION.²

 

But there is a problem turning theory into fact. Using weather as a weapon
is a clear violation of international agreements. In 1977, the United
Nations passed, and the U.S. signed, a resolution that prohibits changing
the weather for hostile purposes on the grounds that too many civilians
could be harmed. So the U.S. military, which once seeded clouds in Vietnam
to produce heavy rains along the Ho Chi Minh trail, can now only concentrate
on better weather forecasting. ³We want to anticipate and exploit the
weather, not modify it,² says U.S. Air Force Director of Weather Brig. Gen.
Fred Lewis.

There is no problem turning fact into propaganda: some ENMOD technologies
have been tested and, as reported elsewhere, used in battle already. It has
been reported for example that weather warfare technologies cleared the
skies to enable NATO carpet-bombing of Serbia ­ causing unprecedented,
widespread, long-lasting droughts.[6] So there is ABC¹s tenth deception. In
contradistinction to the suggestions by ABC News, we are not talking about
merely seeding a few clouds. Here are the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth
deceptions: ABC News hides the scale, magnitude and lethal capabilities of
ENMOD weaponry.

 

The United States is party to an arms control treaty known as the
³Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Other Hostile Use of
Environmental Modification Techniques² (ENMOD Treaty), ratified in 1980.[7]
We do not know why the U.S. signed this treaty in 1977, but we can be at
least 95 % certain that the Nixon/Ford administrations did not do so out of
concern that ³too many civilians could be harmed.² There is ABC¹s fourteenth
deception.

 

In the wake of the 1970s¹ U.S. Senate Select Intelligence Committee hearings
on covert actions, the broad spectrum of political assassinations, coups,
secret operations and technology developments deemed essential to the
national security apparatus were driven underground in highly classified
programs.[8] Just as the assassinations, coups and covert operations never
stopped, the programs to develop weather warfare continued. Undoubtedly, the
U.S. signed the 1977 ENMOD Treaty for cosmetic purposes only.

 

ABC quotes Air Force Director of Weather Brig. Gen. Fred Lewis, and choosing
this person as the sole authority allowed to speak on the U.S. military¹s
weather warfare capabilities is ABC¹s fifteenth deception. Brigadier
Generals are credible enough, and he utters some truth, and ABC does not
question this truth.

 

³We want to anticipate and exploit the weather, not modify it,² says U.S.
Air Force Director of Weather Brig. Gen. Fred Lewis.

 

It is a curious statement, in the context it is in, because it is defensive
at its core. It is a direct lie. Significant evidence suggests that
somewhere in the national security apparatus ­ DOD, DOE, NSA, CIA, DIA, FBI,
or deeper ­ there are ongoing, intensive programs in ENMOD technology.
Indeed, the highly invisible U.S. National Reconnaissance Office ­ which
feeds the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency --
might be the culprit: the NRO plans, builds and operates America¹s spy
satellites, and they specialize in intelligence-gathering and information
warfare.

 

As I will show, the entire subject of weather warfare revolves around
³plausible deniability² and the capacity of elite decision makers to
³plausibly deny² that such technologies exist (just as assassinations were
not committed, coups not fomented, massacres not perpetrated). Because proof
of secret operations is highly classified, hence invisible, the unverifiable
accusations are answered with plausible denials.

 

The statement by Brig. General Fred Lewis is contradicted, in its most
simple form, by the obvious fact that all branches of the U.S. military and
security apparatus rely on sophisticated SIGINT (signal intelligence),
COMINT (communications intelligence), C4I (command, control, communication,
computing and intelligence) and EW (electronic warfare) technologies whose
entire mission and purpose can be, and often has been, compromised,
neutralized or entirely defeated by weather conditions in the battlespace
environment.[9]

 

The statement is further contradicted by the obvious military thrusts to
develop capabilities that maximize stealth and, simultaneously, minimize
risk to U.S. troops, and the propensity, again well documented, to use
clandestine operations premised, again, on ³plausible denial.² In light of
these major policy and field objectives, the existence of an entire spectrum
or portfolio of ENMOD technologies is both plausible and certain. Said
differently, it is irrational, and unlikely, and naïve, and unreasonable to
suppose the absence of these technologies.

 

Owning the Weather in 2025, advertised by ABC News, confirms the offensive
interests the U.S. Air Force has in ³owning and controlling² the weather
through warfare. (Projected ENMOD capabilities are delineated in Table 1.)
Numerous citations and references reveal that military analysts and
scientists have been working on weather modification issues in some
capacities.

 

Air Force 2025: Table 1 - Operational Capabilities Matrix

DEGRADE ENEMY FORCES
   

ENHANCE FRIENDLY FORCES

Precipitation Enhancement
   

Precipitation Avoidance

- Flood Lines of Communication
   

- Maintain/Improve LOC

- Reduce PGM/Recce Effectiveness
   

- Maintain Visibility

- Decrease Comfort Level/Morale
   

- Maintain Comfort Level/Morale

Storm Enhancement
   

Storm Modification

- Deny Operations
   

- Choose Battlespace Environment

Precipitation Denial
   

Space Weather

- Deny Fresh Water
   

- Improve Communication Reliability

-- Induce Drought
   

- Intercept Enemy Transmissions

Space Weather
   

- Revitalize Space Assets

- Disrupt Communications/Radar
   

Fog and Cloud Generation

- Disable/Destroy Space Assets
   

- Increase Concealment

Fog and Cloud Removal
   

Fog and Cloud Removal

- Deny Concealment
   

- Maintain Airfield Operations

- Increase Vulnerability to PGM/Recce
   

- Enhance PGM Effectiveness

Detect Hostile Weather Activities
   

Defend against Enemy Capabilities

 

Owning The Weather in 2025 is but one chapter of the much larger report Air
Force 2025, but ABC News did not report on that, nor did they explore the
obvious evidence of the military¹s comprehensive embracement of ENMOD
technologies. That is ABC¹s seventeenth deception.

 

Air Force 2025 is a significant document. It outlines diverse technologies
and strategies that the Air Force feels it must adopt to prevent the Air
Force from ushering in its own extinction by 2025. The following excerpts
from the Air Force 2025 shed some light on the intentions of the Air Force,
and call into question the credibility of -- ³We want to anticipate and
exploit the weather, not modify it² -- Air Force Director of Weather Brig.
Gen. Fred Lewis:

 

³2025 is a study designed to comply with a directive from the chief of staff
of the Air Force to examine the concepts, capabilities, and technologies the
United States will require to remain the dominant air and space force in the
future.² [10]

 

³In 2025, uninhabited aerospace vehicles (UAV) are routinely used for
weather modification operations¾ Prior to the attack, which is coordinated
with forecasted weather conditions, the UAVs begin cloud generation and
seeding operations. UAVs disperse a cirrus shield to deny enemy visual and
infrared surveillance.²

 

It [weather modification] would also include specific intervention tools and
technologies, some of which already exist and others which must be
developed. Some of these proposed tools are described in the following
chapter titled Concept of Operations. The total weather-modification process
would be a real-time loop of continuous, appropriate, measured
interventions, and feedback capable of producing desired weather behavior.

 

If precipitation enhancement techniques are successfully developed and the
right natural conditions also exist, we must also be able to disperse carbon
dust into the desired location¾ Numerous dispersal techniques have already
been studied, but the most convenient, safe, and cost-effective method
discussed is the use of afterburner-type jet engines to generate carbon
particles while flying through the targeted air. If this UAV technology were
combined with stealth and carbon dust technologies, the result could be a
UAV aircraft invisible to radar while en route to the targeted area, which
could spontaneously create carbon dust in any location.

 

Recent army research lab experiments have demonstrated the feasibility of
generating fog.[11]

 

It is important to note that many techniques to modify the upper atmosphere
have been successfully demonstrated experimentally. Ground-based
modification techniques employed by the [Former Soviet Union] include
vertical HF heating, oblique HF heating, microwave heating, and
magnetospheric modification. Significant military applications of such
operations include low frequency (LF) communication production, HF ducted
communications, and creation of an artificial ionosphere. Moreover,
developing countries also recognize the benefit of ionospheric modification:
³in the early 1980's, Brazil conducted an experiment to modify the
ionosphere by chemical injection.²

 

Air Force 2025 is, in theory, a roadmap to the future. It closes with a
passionate and glowingly patriotic section outlining the coming extinction
of the Air Force, and, indeed, the entire United States itself, if critical
technologies, environments, personnel and capabilities outlined in Air Force
2025 are not exploited absolutely.

 

Of course, without any further qualification or investigation by ABC News,
and fed by ABC only the simplest of ideas to ensure that they are digested
by the public, the casual reader is unable to separate the truth from the
lie. ABC¹s eighteenth deception comes in allowing the lie to pass. Neither
does ABC News balance the newly enshrined truth with any alternative views,
or counter quotes, or dissenting opinions -- as if dissenters and their
rationales did not exist at all. ABC has not reported on the proliferation
of, or the dissenting scientific views on, or the risks of, these
technologies ­ military or civilian. That is ABC News¹ nineteenth
deception.  

 

The ABC News ³news² clip -- sympathetic to a military establishment
ostensibly plagued by budget cuts and federal oversights and shackled by
international legal treaties -- helps further the misinformation that the
military, ³which once seeded clouds in Vietnam to produce heavy rains along
the Ho Chi Minh Trail, can now only concentrate on better weather
forecasting.² There is ABC¹s twentieth deception ­ the unfortunate U.S.
military, its hands tied, ³can now only concentrate on better weather
forecasting.² Here we find a common media ploy: to help generate sympathy
for a military and intelligence apparatus ostensibly shackled by its own
government and people ­ in sharp contradistinction to egregious, brutal,
comprehensive U.S. military force and power wielded with secrecy and
impunity around the globe, with a budget that is obscene.     

For their twenty-first deception, ABC News has casually introduced the idea
that, well, by the way, weather warfare has been used before, in
Vietnam.[12] However, this is unappreciated, primarily because it has been
little reported ­ if reported at all -- by the corporate U.S. media. The
CIA, FBI and other ³national security² institutions regularly utilize this
same propaganda ruse to deflect attention from secret operations, torture
and state-legitimized terrorism. The method is simple: begin circulating
previously unreported facts to lay the groundwork for public acceptance, and
then, if challenged, shrug the information off as ³old news² that is ³common
public knowledge.² In any event -- we are always assured -- the institution
in question (CIA) has long since reformed.[13]

 

 

Weather Warfare Realities:

 

As early as the late 1940¹s Dr. Wilhelm Reich was developing weather
modification techniques at his Orgonon Research Center in Rangeley, Maine.
Reich was sharing his work with the U.S. Department of Defense, unaware that
he was being targeted as a subversive for his pioneering futuristic work in
numerous fields, weather included. (The U.S. Food and Drug Administration
imprisoned Reich in 1954 for a minor interstate transportation infraction
committed by an employee: Reich died in federal prison in 1957.)

 

By 1952 the White House had a special adviser on weather modification. In
1957 the President¹s advisory committee on weather control explicitly
recognized the military potential of weather modification, warning in their
report that it could become a more important weapon that the atom bomb.[14]

 

In 1968, Professor Gordon J.F. McDonald, a member of President Lyndon

Johnson¹s Science Advisory Committee, elaborated in great detail on the
state-of-the-knowledge weather modification technologies in a book chapter
called ³How To Wreck the Environment.²

 

³The key to geophysical warfare,² McDonald wrote, ³is the identification of
the environmental instabilities to which the addition of a small amount of
energy would release vastly greater amounts of energy.² [15]

 

McDonald describes large field programs on weather modification, and he
elaborates on the scientific knowledge and the capacity for the military to
hide ENMOD operations behind environmental chaos. This raises questions
about whether the military has facilitated climatic mayhem ­ no matter the
active or passive means -- to provide a permanent shield behind which to
secretly operate. (Blocking and stalling on climate treaties is one such
means.)

 

McDonald bemoans the potential to mask offensive ENMOD operations under
nature¹s irregularities, where an ³operation could be concealed by the
statistical irregularity of the atmosphere¾ A nation possessing superior
technology in environmental manipulation could damage an adversary without
revealing its intent.² [16]

 

McDonald¹s detailed discussions of manipulating Antarctica¹s ice sheets
raise questions about the possible military / scientific role in promoting
the recent substantial Antarctic ice shelf fractures and the unprecedented
shattering of icebergs, heretofore scientifically unknown.[17] One could
imagine that Very Low Frequency (VLF) waves propagated by submarines or
other high-energy transmitters might be responsible. The U.S. Navy is
certainly capable of irresponsible high-energy submarine testing: the U.S.
Navy recently confirmed, for example, that high-energy, low-frequency sonar
experiments have killed humpback whales.[18]

 

Another possibility is that downscaled thermonuclear devices have been
tested in remote ice core experiments in Antarctica: McDonald addresses this
potential scenario. Curiously, the military, since the World Trade center
attacks, has stepped up its public relations campaign focused on the
supposed necessity of detonating small-scale thermonuclear devices. It is
not unlikely that high-energy and directed-energy weapons -- nuclear or
otherwise ­ are being sporadically tested beyond public or institutional
oversight. Indeed, as we will see below, it appears that high-energy weapons
have already been developed and tested under the High-frequency Active Aural
Research Program (HAARP).

 

World renowned scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell today confirms that ³US
military scientists ... are working on weather systems as a potential
weapon. The methods include the enhancing of storms and the diverting of
vapor-rivers in the Earth's atmosphere to produce targeted droughts or
floods.² [19] As noted in Air Force 2025, ³recent army research lab
experiments have demonstrated the feasibility of generating fog.[20]
Similarly, research has been conducted in precipitation modification for
decades.[21]

 

Former French military officer Marc Filterman outlines several types of
contemporary ³unconventional weapons² using radio frequencies. He refers to
³weather war,² indicating that the U.S. and the Soviet Union had already
³mastered the know-how needed to unleash sudden climate changes (hurricanes,
drought) in the early 1980s.² These technologies make it ³possible to
trigger atmospheric disturbances by using Extremely Low Frequency (ELF)
radar [waves].² [22]

 

In Benign Weather Modification, published March 1997, Air Force Major Barry
B. Coble superficially documents the existence of weather modification
science ­ here is the curious phenomenon of unclassified revelations once
again -- and he traces the developments that have occurred, notably, in the
hands of the Pentagon and CIA¹s staunchest ideological enemies:

 

³The first scientifically controlled and monitored effort generally
recognized by the meteorological community as constituting weather
modification occurred in 1948,² he writes, ³when Dr. Irving Langmuir first
experimented with artificially seeding clouds in order to produce rain. His
experiments showed positive results, sparking tremendous interest in the
field nearly overnight.[23]

 Many countries throughout the world practice weather modification. The
Russians have long been interested in using weather modification as a way to
control hail.[24] The Chinese recognize the value of weather modification
and believe, incorrectly, that the US military continues to use weather as a
weapon.[25]

 However, there is little available evidence showing active efforts by other
countries to use weather modification for military use. The US military,
especially the Air Force, is considered the preeminent world leader in
technology and its applications in the battle space. Since the late 1970s,
the Air Force has ³backed away² from pursuing weather modification
technology even though the scientific understanding and the technological
capability have evolved, albeit slowly, over time. It is a well-known fact
that weather affects the battle space, contributing to the ³fog of war.² New
developments in the field of weather modification may help eliminate some of
this "fog" and turn weather into a force multiplier.[26]

Are we to believe that the U.S. national security apparatus ceased all
weather modification research even as the ever hostile and encircling
communist RED enemies pursued this research emphatically? Apparently so:
Coble elaborates on the absence of any U.S. military role in weather
modification developments.

 

DOD funding for weather modification research peaked at $2.8 million in
1977. Funding was eliminated in 1979. Since then there has been no active
research effort into weather modification by DOD. The Air Force spends no
money on research, and there is no effort to monitor civilian research,
applications and advancements. The Army's program, ³Owning the Weather for
the Battlefield,² deals only with incorporating weather information into the
digitized battlefield of the future. Efforts to modify the weather for
battle are not being pursued.[27]

 

After this rather auspicious paragraph denying any U.S.A.F. or U.S. DOD
interest or involvement in ENMOD technologies, Coble goes on and eventually
identifies existing ³benign weather modification² technologies under
development. He specifically notes at one point that government research in
benign weather modification, which in the beginning he adamantly denied,
continues:

 

Each of these weather modification types has commercial applications, and
several companies exist to practice these types of Benign Weather
Modification. US government-sponsored BWM research, however, is on the
decline. Annual government funding (both state and federal) peaked in FY77
at $19 million. In 1992 the funding level fell to $5 million.[28]

 

What are we to make of these contradictory statements? Plausible denial? The
author earlier emphatically rejected all military development of ENMOD
technologies whatsoever. This rejection came in the statements: ³Since
[1979] there has been no active research effort into weather modification by
DOD;² and ³The Air Force spends no money on research, and there is no effort
to monitor civilian research, applications and advancements.² The author has
led us through a maze of contradictions. There is ongoing development, it is
outlined to some extent in this unclassified report, and in 1992 the annual
government funding level fell to $5 million! Naturally, as we are always
reminded by the military, the funding is on the decline.

 

What kind of funding occurred from 1979 to 1992? What kind of funding
occurred, and occurs now, under the darkest and most secretive ³black²
programs of the U.S. national security apparatus? E-Systems is one of the
biggest intelligence contractors in the world -- doing work for the CIA,
defense intelligence organizations and others -- and $1.8 billion of their
annual sales are to these organizations, with $800 million for black
projects -- projects so secret that even the United States Congress isn't
told how the money is being spent.[29]

 

Another curious but oblique potential admission of the existence of these
ENMOD weapons technologies can be found in Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff Instruction. In this 1998 Air Force document delineating the
chain-of-command policies on ³Meteorological and Oceanographic Operations,²
the Air Force states:

 

³The United States occasionally receives requests for assistance with
weather modification operations in foreign nations, some of which are
proposed initially to U.S. military commands or agencies located in those
nations. In the event foreign nations or international organizations request
assistance with weather modifications, they should be informed to forward
their request through diplomatic channels to the Department of State. No
encouragement or commitment should be indicated by the receiving military
organization.² [30]

 

Are the governments or intelligence networks of other countries informed
about U.S. ENMOD capabilities? (Given that the United States has installed
many third world governments, with U.S. military trained personnel, it is
highly likely.) What has brought these requests about? Is there anything
suspect about a statement that declares: ³No encouragement or commitment
should be indicated¾?² Is it merely anecdotal that the Department of Defense
is providing guidance as recent as 1998 on what to do if countries request
U.S. assistance on weather modification operations?

 

As I will try to show below, the military directive above is designed to
help maintain the highest levels of security around ENMOD capabilities ­
a.k.a. devastating weather weaponry -- which are very real, and, it would
seem, available for select allied deployments or missions as determined at
the highest levels of the U.S. State Department.

 

 

Stealth, Deception and Death:

Unmanned Aerospace & Aerial Vehicles (UAVs):

 

We can begin our assessment of the state of ENMOD technologies by narrowly
addressing just one area related to ENMOD technology deployments: Unmanned
Aerospace Vehicles and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). Later I will
transition to a discussion of other ENMOD and weather weapons, and to the
evidence for their existence.

 

Unmanned Aerospace Vehicle and Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) research,
development and applications are a billions of dollars industry. Consider
that early in 2002, U.S. Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld added over $1
billion to the fiscal 2003 defense budget request to develop certain
promising Unmanned Aerospace Vehicle (UAV) programs. (This UAV development
is slated to occur with complete transparency: thus these appropriations do
not account for secret programs and decades of previous UAV research and
developments, or for current and future ongoing UAV development, under
top-secret black programs.)

 

Unmanned Aerospace Vehicle developments appear to have had their genesis in
the V-1 and V-2 rocket programs of NAZI-American war machine.[31] Further
refined interests appear to have spun out of the 1950¹s CIA development of a
lightweight STOL (short-takeoff-and-landing) aircraft, the human-piloted
Helio Courier. Developed by a contractor in Norwood, Massachusetts, the
Helio Courier was first utilized by Christian missionaries and other CIA
front groups furthering secretive and genocidal Rockefeller interests (Chase
Manhattan & Standard Oil) in Latin America in 1959. This remarkable CIA/NSA
³asset² was kept secret for three decades.[32]

 

Today, visible in the unclassified arena alone, there are small fleets of
UAVs of varying capacities already in service. The U.S. military has over
200 UAVs of all types today. Others are under development. Consider that all
branches of the military currently deploy UAVs with sophisticated SIGINT,
COMINT, C4I, EW and ADP (Air-Delivered Payloads) capabilities.[33]. The U.S.
Army Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (TUAV) and the U.S. Air Force Global
Hawk and Predator UAVs saw significant operational deployment in the war on
Afghanistan, and they are part of a major array of weapons-bearing UAV-type
systems slated to deploy various payloads sporting weather warfare
technologies.[34] Predator was also deployed over Bosnia.[35]

 

Not coincidentally, UAVs are amongst the platforms consistently used to
deploy and test some of the ongoing weather sensors and weapons pursued in
unclassified technology research and development programs geared toward the
Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Virtually all of these programs, on
their face, are described as weather analysis, data collection and research,
and, to be fair, those applications certainly exist. However, it is
disingenuous to dismiss the military applications, given the funding sources
and the many aerospace and defense programs already using these technologies
in one way or another. Indeed, this area revolves around highly lethal and
offensive military capabilities.

 

The Microwave Remote Sensing Laboratory (MIRSL) at the University of
Massachusetts has for seventeen years pioneered the research and development
of sophisticated sensors, radars, receivers, transmitters, antennas and
systems for weather investigation, and ultimately, to enable weather
modification and control. Virtually all of the technologies were developed
under funding by the military industrial complex.[36] (Until the late
1980¹s, at least, classified research occurred at UMass.) MIRSL personnel
regularly staff flights and tests deploying weather monitoring (clouds,
ocean waves, hurricanes, atmospheric) and measuring equipment.

 

The MIRSL expertise focuses on microwave and millimeter wave technologies
for RADAR, communications and EW applications. These MIRSL enabled
technologies are also deployed for EW, SIGINT, COMMINT, and C4I
capabilities. These technologies have seen direct applications, in repeated
tests and experiments, and they are the technologies of current choice in
use in the armed forces, and of future choice for an array of offensive
capabilities identified in the unclassified Air Force 2025 document.

 

Granting agencies to UMass in the recent past have included: NASA; Office of
Naval Research; Department of Energy; National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration; Department of Agriculture; Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency. Working with the UMass MIRSL scientists on these programs
are also: General Electric, Ball Brothers, Digital Equipment,
Hewlett-Packard, Hughes, Quadrant Engineering, Lockheed-Martin, Sun
Microsystems and United Technologies. Massachusetts¹s contractors involved
at various levels include Raytheon, Kollmorgen, Millitech and Yankee
Environmental Systems.[37]

 

Danaher Corporation -- the parent company of Kollmorgen -- is a major
contractor, with over 30 subsidiaries, involved in significant aerospace,
defense and SDI, programs. Danaher director Alan G. Spoon is President of
the Washington Post.[38]

 

The UMass MIRSL research is aligned with the U.S. Department of Defense
Atmospheric Radiation Measurement-Unmanned Aerospace Vehicle (ARM-UAV)
Program ­ another program euphemistically dedicated to ³atmospheric
measuring and monitoring.² The ARM-UAV program was made visible in the
mid-1990¹s (we cannot verify when it actually began) with millions of
dollars in funding from the DOD Strategic Environment Research and
Development Program (SERDP). SERDP continues to fund UAV and satellite
platform technology developments for the AMR-UAV program of the U.S.
Department of Energy. The U.S. DOE in turn has funded the University of
Massachusetts MIRSL program.[39] Further ENMOD related research and
development has been sponsored through NASA (ERAST) programs.[40]       

 

 

StrikeStar:

 

The obvious extension of benign weather modification UAV developments is to
expand UAV use to include lethal missions. Indeed, by 2025 ­ were we
inclined to suppose that it has not already been achieved in its full or
partial capability today -- the Air Force intends to deploy the StrikeStar
UAVs. The StrikeStar is ³a stealthy UAV that will be able to loiter over an
area of operations for 24 hours at a range of 3,700 miles from launch base
while carrying a payload of all-weather, precision weapons capable of
various effects.²[41]

 

However, as described below, StrikeStar¹s predecessors are numerous and
sophisticated, and they are also engineered for lethal missions. These are
very real, existing UAV ³drones² and their coming dominance was secured
through ³Star Wars² media films that massaged and prepared the public mind
to accept and tolerate such lethal and unnecessary futuristic weaponry.

 

The Tier II, medium altitude endurance (MAE) UAV, also called Predator, is
manufactured by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems and costs about $3.2
million per aircraft. The Predator first deployed to Bosnia in 1994 and has
since returned there with two combat-related losses.

 

A higher performance vehicle is the Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical Conventional
High Altitude Endurance (CHAE) UAV. Referred to as the Tier II+, or Global
Hawk, it is designed to fulfill a post-Desert Storm requirement Tier II+ is
scheduled to fly in late 1997 and meet a price requirement of $10 million
per unit.

 

The low observable high altitude endurance (LOHAE) UAV (Tier III- or
DarkStar) is the final member of the¾ family of endurance UAVs. Manufactured
by Lockheed-Martin/Boeing, DarkStar is designed to image well protected,
high-value targets with either SAR [synthetic aperture radar] or EO
[electro-optical] sensors. This UAV is designed to meet a $10 million per
aircraft unit flyaway price.

 

StrikeStar will give the war fighter a weapon with the capability to linger
for 24 hours over a battlespace 3,700 miles away, and, in a precise manner,
destroy or cause other desired effects over that space at will. Bomb damage
assessment will occur nearly instantaneously and restrike will occur as
quickly as the decision to strike can be made. StrikeStar will allow
continuous coverage of the desired battlespace with a variety of precision
weapons of various effects that can result in "air occupation"-the ability
of aerospacepower to continuously control the environment of the area into
which it is projected.

 

StrikeStar's utility in the performing any future missions would be limited
only by its combat payload capacity and this limitation will be offset by
revolutions in weapons technology that include light-weight, high-explosive,
and directed-energy technologies.

 

Not only could a StrikeStar hold the enemy at risk, it could produce
unparalleled psychological effects through shock and surprise. In the words
of Gen Ronald Fogleman, Chief of Staff, United States Air Force, "So, from
the sky in the aerospace medium, we will be able to converge on a multitude
of targets. The impact will be the classic way you win battles-with shock
and surprise."

 

A StrikeStar could produce physical and psychological shock by dominating
the fourth dimension -- time. Future CINCs could control the combat tempo at
every level. Imagine the potential effect on enemies who will be unable to
predict where the next blow will fall and may be powerless to defend against
it.

 

A final task, well suited to a StrikeStar, would be covert action against
trans-national threats located in politically denied territory or in
situations were plausible deniability is imperative. Because of a
StrikeStar's endurance, altitude, and stealth characteristics, it could
wait, undetected, over a specific area and eliminate targets upon receiving
intelligence cues. If required for plausible deniability, specialized
weapons could be used to erase any US fingerprint. Uniquely suited to a
StrikeStar would be delivery of high-kinetic-energy penetrating weapons.
[42]

 

Recalling that we have greatly narrowed the scope of our assessment into the
military interests of ENMOD developments to focus on UAV capabilities, we
now have evidence that these technologies will be used for covert action
missions where specialized weapons could be used to erase any US fingerprint
to insure plausible deniability.

 

Air Force 2025 has an entire chapter dedicated to secretive Special
Operations Forces and covert operations. (Recall that these operations are
accountable to no one; they perpetuate terror as a means of social control;
they are amongst America¹s most egregious examples of instruments of state
power hostile to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.[43]) While
impossible to verify, most likely UAVs carrying ENMOD technologies in
various states of development have already been deployed on covert
operations.

 

These drones have multiple secret, lethal and ³benign² operational
capabilities. UAV purchase costs alone, ignoring the monstrously high but
incalculable research and development costs paid by U.S. taxpayers, range
from $1 million to $20 million per unit.[44]

 

Many of these UAVs ­will carry radars, passive and active antennas,
electro-optical (EO) devices and systems, phased array systems, and
sophisticated weather data banks, all fundamentally enabled through the
intellectual resources, and the computational, theoretical and applied
research programs of the University of Massachusetts MIRSL laboratories.[45]
Numerous other major aerospaceborne weapons and intelligence platforms also
utilize technologies enabled by MIRSL students and scientists.

 

Most of these UAV configurations will deploy some level of active and lethal
ENMOD capabilities. As revealed above, payloads will also include ³directed
energy weapons.² As we will see below, these are another means by which
environmental warfare can and will be waged.

 

It is important here to pause and recall that military strategists and
leadership, in their reports and their direct quotes ­ as previously
delineated above ­ have emphatically denied the existence and military
interest in even the most ³benign weather modification² (BWM) technologies.
That is the point of departure from which to assess the monumental scale and
complexity of the weather warfare deceptions.

 

To reiterate, the UAV section above offers one fraction of insight into the
nature of the secret ENMOD developments under pursuit by the national
security apparatus. What follows is further evidence from the most widely
publicized case on record.

 

 

Angels Don¹t Play This HARPP [46]

 

Between August and September 1958, the US Navy exploded three fission type
nuclear bombs 480 km above the South Atlantic Ocean, in the part of the
lower Van Allen Belt, closest to the earth's surface. In addition, two
hydrogen bombs were detonated 160 km over Johnston Island in the Pacific.
The military called this ³the biggest scientific experiment ever
undertaken.²

 

Designed by the US Department of Defense and the US Atomic Energy
Commission, and code named ³Project Argus,² this gigantic experiment created
new (inner) magnetic radiation belts encompassing almost the whole earth,
and injected sufficient electrons and other energetic particles into the
ionosphere to cause worldwide effects. The electrons traveled back and forth
along magnetic force lines, causing an artificial ³aurora² when striking the
atmosphere near the North Pole.[47]

 

These pioneering experiments were the first of many ­ some of which are
ongoing today.

 

Ø    Project Argus (1958)

Ø    Project Starfish (1962)

Ø    SPS: Solar Power Satellite Project (1968)

Ø    Project Popeye (1960¹s and 1970¹s)

Ø    Saturn V Rocket (1975)

Ø    SPS Military Implications (1978)

Ø    Orbit Maneuvering System (1981)

Ø    Innovative Shuttle Experiments (1985 to present)

Ø    Mighty Oaks (1986)

Ø    Desert Storm (1991)

Ø    High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, HAARP (1993 to present)

Ø    Poker Flat Rocket Launch (1968 to present)

 

Their details are readily available. Perhaps the most comprehensively
documented however is the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program ­
HAARP ­ investigated in detail and documented in the book Angels Don¹t Play
This HAARP. This huge experiment being conducted in Alaska uses very large
arrays of transmitters and receivers to generate energy beamed into the
upper atmosphere. (The research will be briefly summarized here.) According
to authors Nick Begich and Jeane Manning:

 

HAARP will zap the upper atmosphere with a focused and steerable
electromagnetic beam. It is an advanced model of an `ionospheric heater.¹
(The ionosphere is the electrically charged sphere surrounding Earth's upper
atmosphere. It ranges between about 40 to 600 miles above Earth's surface.)

 

Angels Don't Play This HAARP cites an expert who says the military studied
both lasers and chemicals that they figured could damage the ozone layer
over an enemy. Looking at ways to cause earthquakes, as well as to detect
them, was part of the project named Prime Argus, decades ago. The money for
that came from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA, now
under the acronym ARPA.)

 

In 1994 the Air Force revealed its Spacecast 2020 master plan, which
includes weather control. Scientists have experimented with weather control
since the 1940's, but Spacecast 2020 noted that ³using environmental
modification techniques to destroy, damage or injure another state are
prohibited.² Having said that, the Air Force claimed that advances in
technology ³compels a reexamination of this sensitive and potentially risky
topic.² [48]

 

According to Dr. Rosalie Bertell, the U.S. Military¹s first target under the
HAARP program is the electrojet: a river of electricity that flows thousands
of miles through the sky and down into the polar icecap. The electrojet will
become a vibrating artificial antenna for sending electromagnetic radiation
raining down on the earth. The U.S. military can then ³X-ray² the earth and
talk to submarines.[49]

 

No surprise, by the way, aerospace systems are some of the most disruptive
agents leading to global climatic mayhem. Says Bertell:

 

³During the 1980's, rocket launches globally numbered about 500 to 600 a
year, peaking at 1500 in 1989. There were many more during the Gulf War. The
Shuttle is the largest of the solid fuel rockets, with twin 45-meter
boosters. All solid fuel rockets release large amounts of hydrochloric acid
in their exhaust, each Shuttle flight injecting about 75 tons of ozone
destroying chlorine into the stratosphere. Those launched since 1992 inject
even more ozone-destroying chlorine, about 187 tons, into the stratosphere
(which contains the ozone layer).[50]

 

In researching Angels Don¹t Play This HAARP, the authors discovered numerous
patents associated with the HAARP program for nuclear weapons, atmospheric
disturbances and, of course, weather (ENMOD) weaponry. Many of these were
originally controlled by ARCO Power Technologies Incorporated (APTI), a
subsidiary of Atlantic Richfield Company, one of the biggest oil companies
in the world. APTI was the contractor that built the HAARP facility. ARCO
sold this subsidiary, the patents and the second phase construction contract
to E-Systems in June 1994.[51]

 

Raytheon, one of the largest defense contractors in the world, bought out
E-Systems. Raytheon has thousands of patents, some of which will be valuable
to HAARP. Twelve patents [comprise] the backbone of the HAARP project, and
are now buried among the thousands of others held in the name of Raytheon.

 

Bernard J. Eastlund's U.S. Patent # 4,686,605, "Method and Apparatus for
Altering a Region in the Earth's Atmosphere, Ionosphere, and/or
Magnetosphere" was sealed for a year under a government Secrecy Order. The
Eastlund ionospheric heater was different: the radio frequency (RF)
radiation was concentrated and focused to a point in the ionosphere. This
difference throws an unprecedented amount of energy into the ionosphere.
This huge difference could lift and change the ionosphere in the ways
necessary to create futuristic effects described in the patent.

 

What would this technology be worth to ARCO, the owner of the patents? They
could make enormous profits by beaming [wireless] electrical power from a
powerhouse in the gas fields to the consumer. For a time, HAARP researchers
could not prove that this was one of the intended uses for HAARP. In April,
1995, however, Begich found other patents, connected with a ³key personnel²
list for APTI. Some of these new APTI patents were indeed a wireless system
for sending electrical power.

 

Again, it is no surprise to find significant evidence that the military has
directly pursued the ENMOD research and weather weapons capabilities
discussed with trepidation by national science adviser Gordon J.F. McDonald
(cited above) who, as early as 1968, articulated the dynamics of energy
perturbations, thresholds and instabilities.[52]

 

The patent said: ³Thus, this invention provides the ability to put
unprecedented amounts of power in the Earth's atmosphere at strategic
locations and to maintain the power injection level, particularly if random
pulsing is employed, in a manner far more precise and better controlled than
heretofore accomplished by the prior art, particularly by detonation of
nuclear devices of various yields at various altitudes...²

 

³Weather modification is possible by, for example, altering upper atmosphere
wind patterns by constructing one or more plumes of atmospheric particles
which will act as a lens or focusing device. ... molecular modifications of
the atmosphere can take place so that positive environmental effects can be
achieved. Besides actually changing the molecular composition of an
atmospheric region, a particular molecule or molecules can be chosen for
increased presence.

 

The military has had about twenty years to work on weather warfare methods.
The U.S. Department of Defense sampled lightning and hurricane manipulation
studies in Project Skyfire and Project Stormfury. And they looked at some
complicated technologies that would give big effects.

 

The HAARP project is the test run for a super-powerful radio wave beaming
technology that lifts areas of the ionosphere by focusing a beam and heating
those areas. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto Earth and penetrate
everything-living and dead. HAARP publicity gives the impression that this
is mainly an academic project with the goal of changing the ionosphere to
improve communications for our own good. However, other US military
documents put it more clearly: HAARP aims to learn how to exploit the
ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes. Communicating with submarines
is only one of those purposes.[53]

 

In light of the conclusive evidence of weather warfare capabilities outlined
above it is instructive to revisit the recent statements by USAF Major Barry
B. Coble and USAF Director of Weather Brig. General Fred Lewis that were
previously cited herein: 

 

We want to anticipate and exploit the weather, not modify it. (Lewis)

 

DOD funding for weather modification research peaked at $2.8 million in
1977. Funding was eliminated in 1979. Since then there has been no active
research effort into weather modification by DOD. The Air Force spends no
money on research, and there is no effort to monitor civilian research,
applications and advancements. The Army's program, ³Owning the Weather for
the Battlefield,² deals only with incorporating weather information into the
digitized battlefield of the future. Efforts to modify the weather for
battle are not being pursued. (Coble)

 

 

The Revolving Doors of Secrecy and Denial

 

It is interesting to note the extended connections between so-called
³civilian² university research programs, their graduates, and the
institutions of secrecy where ENMOD and weather warfare technologies are
most likely ­ or certainly -- under development. Noted above were the many
HAARP related interests of Raytheon Corporation. Another major defense
contractor involved in the prime contracts for space-based weapons and the
Strategic Defense Initiative is Lockheed Martin Corporation. One more
company of note is SAIC -- Science Applications International Corporation ­
the original developer of Department of Defense information technologies
that, amongst other developments, spawned the Internet.

 

Raytheon Corporation and General Electric Aerospace have both had major
collaborative programs with the University of Massachusetts Department of
Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE). In the 1980¹s both corporations
hired and then funded UMass ECE graduate students who went on to work for
them. The GE/ UMass Microwave Master¹s Engineering Program was one such
collaboration.

 

Raytheon Corporation currently employs numerous former ECE and MIRSL
(Microwave Remote Sensing Laboratory) Master¹s and Ph.D.s degree graduate
students.

 

A company called Prosensing Inc., (Amherst, MA), was created by a Ph.D.
graduate of the MIRSL programs; other MIRSL graduates retain all key
Prosensing management and research positions. Prosensing recently (circa
2001) merged with another local company called Quadrant Engineering.
University of Massachusetts MIRSL Professors Calvin T. Swift and Robert E.
Macintosh founded Quadrant Engineering in 1981.[54] Quadrant and Prosensing
work with numerous Department of Defense contractors, including the Office
of Naval Research (ONR); Air Force Research Lab at Hanscom AFB (MA); NASA
and NOAH.

 

At least one Ph. D. candidate currently enrolled in the MIRSL programs has a
NATO Secret security clearance.[55] Access to some University of
Massachusetts buildings ­ including the building housings the offices of
professors ­ requires card keys. Several graduate students now work with
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Labs ­ also involved in highly
classified space and defense programs. At least one MIRSL Ph. D. graduate is
now employed by SAIC ­ one of the most secretive institutions of the
National Security apparatus.

 

SAIC has ongoing collaborations with Bechtel ­ another of the world¹s most
secretive aerospace technology, energy infrastructure and defense
contractors, and one with ties to the intelligence community at the highest
and deepest levels.[56] SAIC works closely with DARPA ­ Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency  -- the granting agency behind HAARP and many other
secretive advanced research and development programs.[57] SAIC directors
include: U.S. Navy Admiral B.R. Inman (ret.); U.S. Army General W.A. Downing
(ret.); and U.S. Air Force General J.A. Welch (ret.).[58]  SAIC also has an
ongoing collaboration with the multibillion doallr pharmaceutical giant
Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS). Unsurprisingly, through shared directorships,
BMS is economically and politically aligned with the New York Times
Corporation. Last SAIC has long been entrenched with oil, gas and nuclear
interests.

 

No surprise either, SAIC provides major support for the core of the U.S.
intelligence apparatus ­ the National Reconnaissance Office ­ and SAIC has
invested heavily in advanced Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. To remind readers,
the NRO feeds the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security
Agency (orders of magnitude more critical than the CIA): the NRO builds and
operates America¹s spy satellites, and they specialize in
intelligence-gathering and information warfare.

 

The Vigilante Vertical Takeoff and Landing UAV was first developed and later
refined under SAIC¹s internal R&D program. SAIC recently received a Navy
contract to deliver a reengineered version of Vigilante and fly it in a
tactical demonstration. Clearly delineating the expected uses of these UAVs
in their Annual Report ­ always for the betterment of the civilized world
--- SAIC notes that Vigilante applications ³could include border
surveillance, oil pipeline monitoring, and special operations missions.² (No
doubt these special operations missions will further secure American
military superiority at the expense of the world¹s innocent, poor -- and
already disenfranchised ­ people.)

 

When SAIC says that they ³lead a multi-contractor team that provides
performance analysis of future systems architectures² we can be sure that
these ³future systems² include highly secretive ³black² programs buried in
the belly of the beast. Amongst these, no doubt, are weather warfare
technologies and expertise. 

 

Our space experts also analyze programs and alternatives in conjunction with
the National Security Space Architect, Air Force Space Command, and National
Reconnaissance Office. Our engineers are developing and integrating systems
to collect and process information, and to enable correlation and
coordinated communication of battle conditions. For the Air Force Space and
Missile Systems Center, we provide planning, systems engineering, and
integration for advanced space development and warfighter exploitation¾
Today¹s environment and infrastructure challenges demand the ability to
understand, integrate, and optimize natural processes and human systems.
[59]

 

Again, it would be naïve, irresponsible and absurd to assume that the U.S.
defense-intelligence apparatus is pursuing such lethal and comprehensive
weapons technologies, but ignoring ENMOD research and development that might
deny U.S. forces optimal conditions of give ³the enemy² some military
(environmental) advantage. How does a military force ³optimize natural
processes?²

 

Through MIRSL, ECE and other alumni, the University of Massachusetts retains
significant, meaningful and contemporary ties with defense and intelligence
institutions, and through these ties the faculty gains critical feedback to
enable them to further hone and focus their research activities in
accordance with major military objectives and trends. (This is standard
operating procedure.)

 

As university researchers learn what technologies corporations, agencies and
institutions need, they develop programs aimed at providing the basic
support research, and at developing the necessary intellectual and human
capital. This is how such research programs ­ and the academics involved --
insure their proliferation and success.

 

Thus are university grants written with a thorough understanding of the
military and intelligence needs. Funds are subsequently provided.
Intellectual and human resources are developed, and then transferred to the
funding institutions. The cycle is then complete.

 

It is clear, then, that University of Massachusetts researchers are using
the cover of civilian atmospheric research and geophysical monitoring to
support the U.S. Department of Defense ­ Department of Offense would more
aptly summarize the agenda -- objectives from the most basic and fundamental
levels to the highest echelons of classified research and development. 

 

Weather warfare or ENMOD technologies are clearly under development. Some
have already been deployed and tested. However, to drive the point home one
last time, were we to assume that military spokespeople were sincere and
honest ­ an assumption clearly disproved at this point -- we could merely
note the plethora of studies and documents further clarifying the military¹s
active pursuit of ENMOD capabilities. I will provide a brief list, by no
means exhaustive.

 

Please note the dates and sponsors of these publications. Last, please
consider the likelihood that significant ENMOD research and development
occurs under the cover of friendly client regimes in other countries (e.g.
Brazil): hence the preservation of highly classified top-secret material as
indicated below.

 

Peter M. Banks, ³Overview of Ionospheric Modification from Space Platforms,²
in Ionospheric Modification and Its Potential to Enhance or Degrade the
Performance of Military Systems, AGARD Conference Proceedings 485, October
1990, 19-1.

 

Christopher Centner, et al., Environmental Warfare: Implications for
Policymakers and War Planners, Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Air Command and Staff
College, May 1995.

 

Lewis M. Duncan and Robert L. Showen, ³Review of Soviet Ionospheric
Modification Research,² in Ionospheric Modification and Its Potential to
Enhance or Degrade the Performance of Military Systems AGARD Conference
Proceedings 485, October 1990.

 

Paul A. Kossey, et al. ³Artificial Ionospheric Mirrors (AIM): Concept and
Issues,² in Ionospheric Modification and its Potential to Enhance or Degrade
the Performance of Military Systems, AGARD Conference Proceedings 485,
October 1990.

 

Capt Edward E. Hume Jr., Atmospheric and Space Environmental Research
Programs in Brazil (U), March 1993. Foreign Aerospace Science and Technology
Center, AF Intelligence Command, 24 September 1992. (Secret) Information
extracted is unclassified.

 

G. E. James, ³Chaos Theory: The Essentials for Military Applications,² ACSC
Theater Air Campaign Studies Coursebook, AY96, Vol. 8. Maxwell AFB, Ala.:
Air University Press, 1995.

 

Capt Mike Johnson, Upper Atmospheric Research and Modification-Former Soviet
Union (U), supporting document DST-18205-475-92, Foreign Aerospace Science
and Technology Center, AF Intelligence Command, 24 September 1992. (Secret)
Information extracted is unclassified.

 

SPACECAST 2020, Space Weather Support for Communications, White paper G.
Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Air War College/2020, 1994.

 

Robert A. Sutherland, ³Results of Man-Made Fog Experiment,² in Proceedings
of the 1991 Battlefield Atmospherics Conference, Fort Bliss, Tex.: Hinman
Hall, 3-6 December 1991.

 

Edward M. Tomlinson, Kenneth C. Young, and Duane D. Smith Laser Technology
Applications for Dissipation of Warm Fog at Airfields, PL-TR-92-2087.
Hanscom AFB, Mass.: Air Force Materiel Command, 1992.

 

 

The Falsification of Consciousness

 

The extent of the subterfuge we as American citizens face from our
leadership, and our media institutions, can be mildy gleamed from the above.
Unfortunately, this is but the tip of the weather warfare and environmental
modification iceberg. The material in this report is readily available to
the general (world) public. Given that an individual outside the classified
sectors of government can so easily access this information, we can take
this as a powerful testament to the vast assortment of information, research
and development that must exist, and retain classification, within the
defense and intelligence arena. 

 

Much of the general public remains apathetic, disinterested, and confused by
the climate skeptics and the huge propaganda machine. The debate centers on
whether there is clear scientific rationale to address climate change. The
disparity between public perceptions and military realities is monumental.
The current public debate around climate protocols and greenhouse gas
emissions only serves to facilitate greater military adventurism, at the
expense of American citizens, at the expense of democracy, to the greater
devastation of earth and all its life forms.     

 

Thus do we draw the following conclusions from the limited research provided
above:

 

1.     The general public remains confused by climate skeptics.

2.     The scientific community is mostly engaged in a narrow debate about
climate change.

3.     The spectrums of problems of climatic mayhem are greatly
unappreciated.

4.     Where these problems are appreciated, proponents argue narrowly about
fossil fuels and climate protocols that, conveniently, distract and deflect
attention from greater issues of secrecy, military dominance and
environmental chaos.

5.     Military and ³civilian² ENMOD capabilities are already being tested,
and quite likely have already been deployed to affect human loss of life and
environmental instability.

6.     The U.S. government position vacillates between admissions that
limited development of ENMOD technologies has occurred in the private
sector, and that ENMOD technologies do not exist at all.

7.     Scientists, soldiers and government officials have lied outright, and
many continue to intentionally obfuscate and misinform on climate issues and
weather warfare.

8.     There is a trillion dollar industry behind the monied interests, and
the propaganda, of fossil fuels, weather warfare, military and climate
issues.

9.     The military-industrial complex has no intentions of mitigating
climatic mayhem.

10.  ENMOD and weather weaponry relies on widespread environmental
instability to provide a threshold of ³background² chaos to shield its
covert ENMOD operations.

11.  The United States of America has violated the 1977 Convention on the
Prohibition of Military or Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification
Techniques,  (ENMOD Treaty), of which it is a long-standing signatory
member.   

12.  The United Nations has demonstrated its lack of attention and
investigation into climate issues and the violations of international
treaties (as above).

13.  The military ENMOD programs and their goals are predicated on
widespread devastation, environmental calamity, and loss of life in the
so-called ³developing² world.

14.  Gross environmental instabilities are appearing more frequently, with
greater force and violence, virtually everywhere at once.

15.  Intentional depopulation of various, and large, groups and ethnicities
by various other groups and ethnicities is occurring, and will increasingly
occur, given the current momentum and direction of American
military-corporate power.

16.  The United States of America has violated the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, approved by the General Assembly of
the United Nations in Resolution 260 A (III) of 9 December 1948, to which it
is a signatory member.

17.  The United States is responsible for war crimes and genocide in
numerous instances.

18.  The United Nations has not served the oversight purposes for which it
was ostensibly created, and instead serves the purposes for which it was
actually created: to insure the prosperity and military objectives of
powerful entrenched interests.

19.  Rich and poor countries alike will increasingly suffer as accelerated
processes of environmental change are aggravated by unforeseen feedback
mechanisms.

20.  The radical shift to an alternate state or states of climate, most
probably undesirable and unmanageable, has become an increasingly likely
event, and it is increasingly likely that such an event will occur sooner
rather than later.   ~ end.

 

 

 

keith harmon snow graduated B.S.E.E. and M.S.E.E. with a specialty in
microwaves and antennas engineering from the University of Massachusetts,
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, in 1986. From 1985 to
1989 he worked for General Electric Aerospace Electronics Laboratory on
aerospace and defense technologies for aerospace and defense communications,
RADAR EW, and Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) programs. Since 1990 he has
worked as a journalist.

[1] Titled after a popular column by media analyst Edward S. Herman.

[2] Despite repeated requests, Amherst College Radio could not produce a
copy of this PSA, and hence the sponsoring organization remains
unidentified, although the Christian organization was named during the
broadcasts.

[3] Progressives ­ especially democrats -- point to the article as proof of
the media¹s absence of bias and investigative belligerence in reporting on
private and government monied interests.

[4] Michele Norris, ³Weather As A Weapon: Manipulating the Weather,²
ABCNEWS.com, February 17, 2002,

< www.abcnews.go.com/onair/DailyNews/wnt_weatherwar990217_story.html >.

[5] Michele Norris, ³Weather As A Weapon: Manipulating the Weather,²
ABCNEWS.com, February 17, 2002,

< www.abcnews.go.com/onair/DailyNews/wnt_weatherwar990217_story.html >.

[6] Vladimir Krsljanin, ³Nato Used Weather Warfare in Serbia,² reported in <
www.tenc.net > as a reprint from Yugoslav newspaper, Politika, March 15,
2001.

[7] ³U.S. Government Policy Regarding Weather Modification,² Enclosure C in
CJCSI  3810.01A, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction, U.S.
Department of Defense Memorandum, February 25, 1998.

[8] The U.S. hearings resulted in the document Alleged Assassination Plots
Involving Foreign Leaders, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence,
1975. More broadly, the literature abounds with credible sources and
publications detailing covert actions and secret programs. One of the best
is William Blum, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since
World War II, Common Courage Press, 1995; See also Gary Webb, Dark Alliance:
The CIA, the Contras and the Crack Cocaine Explosion, Seven Stories Press,
1999; Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs and
the Press, Verso, 1998; David N. Gibbs, ³Academics and Spies: The Silence
That Roars² (Opinion), L.A. Times, January 28, 2001; Chris Mooney, ³For Your
Eyes Only: The CIA will let you see classified documents -- but at what
price?² Lingua Franca, November 2000, pp. 35-43; Leonard G. Horowitz,
Emerging Viruses: Aids & Ebola: Nature, Accident or Intentional?
Tetrahedron, 1996; Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, The Washington
Connection and Third World Fascism, South End Press, 1979; Gerard Colby and
Charlotte Dennett, Thy Will Be Done: The Conquest of the Amazon,
HarperCollins, 1996; Wayne Madsen, Genocide and Covert Operations in Africa,
1993-1999, Mellen Books, 1999.

[9] See e.g., Strategic Assessment 1996: The Instruments of U.S. Power,
National Defense University, 1996;

[10] Unless other wise noted, quotes in this section are from: Weather as a
Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025, Dept. of Defense, August 1996:
pp. 1-12, < www.au..af.mil/au/2025/volume3/chap15/v3c15-1.htm >.

[11] Maj. Robert J. Rizza, Cold Fog Dispersal System (CFDS) End-of-Season
Report, FY95, Fairchild AFB, February 27, 1996, p. 2, in Weather as a Force
Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025, Department of Defense, August 1996:
p. 10.

[12] From Weather as a Force Multipleir: A pilot program (Project Popeye)
conducted in 1966 attempted to extend the monsoon season in order to
increase the amount of mud on the Ho Chi Minh trail thereby reducing enemy
movements. A silver iodide nuclei agent was dispersed from WC-130, F4 and
A-1E aircraft into the clouds over portions of the trail winding from North
Vietnam through Laos and Cambodia into South Vietnam. Positive results
during this initial program led to continued operations from 1967 to 1972.
E. M. Frisby, ³Weather-modification in Southeast Asia, 1966-1972,² The
Journal of Weather Modification Vol. 14, No. 1 (April 1982): 1-3.

[13] See David N. Gibbs, ³Academics and Spies: The Silence That Roars²
(Opinion), L.A. Times, January 28, 2001.

[14] Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025, Department
of Defense, August 1996: p. 3;

[15] Gordon J.F. McDonald, ³How to Wreck the Environment,² Unless Peace
Comes, 1968: p. 1.

[16] Gordon J.F. McDonald, ³How to Wreck the Environment,² Unless Peace
Comes, 1968: p. 3.

[17] Gordon J.F. McDonald, ³How to Wreck the Environment,² Unless Peace
Comes, 1968: pp. 5-7. On recent Antarctic instabilities, see the related
report: Climatic Mayhem: Fossil Fuels, Public Policy and the Coming
Permanent State of Emergency.

[18] ³Sonar Killed Whales, Navy Admits,² Environment News Service, December
2001; and Ben White, ³U.S. Navy Kills Whales in the Bahamas,² Animal Welfare
Institute Quarterly, Summer 2000, Vol. 49, No. 3,

[19] Dr. Rosalie Bertell, Times of London, November 23, 2000, reported by
Michel Chossudovsky, ³It Is Not Only Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Washington¹s
New World Order Weapons Have Ability to Trigger Climate Change,² November
26, 2000 < http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/chuss/haarp >.

[20] Maj. Robert J. Rizza, Cold Fog Dispersal System (CFDS) End-of-Season
Report, FY95, Fairchild AFB, February 27, 1996, p. 2, in Weather as a Force
Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025, Department of Defense, August 1996:
p. 10.

[21] Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025, Department
of Defense, August 1996: p. 8.

[22] Marc Filterman in Intelligence Newsletter, December 16, 1999.

[23] Irving Langmuir, Final Report: Project Cirrus, Report No. PL 140,
General Electric Research Laboratory, December 13, 1948, p. 14.

[24]Ye Vostruxov, "Laser and Cloud: Unusual Experiment of Siberian
Scientists," translated by SCITRAN, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, Foreign
Technology Division, September 1987, p. 5.

[25] Zhou Wei, "Meteorological Weapons," translated by SCITRAN,
Wright-Patterson AFB,

Ohio, Foreign Technology Division, March 1985, p. 4.

[26] Barry B. Coble, Benign Weather Modification, School of Advanced
Airpower Studies, March, 1997: pp. 12-13.

[27] Barry B. Coble, Benign Weather Modification, School of Advanced
Airpower Studies, March, 1997: pp. 12-13.

[28] Barry B. Coble, ³Benign Weather Modification,² School of Advanced
Airpower Studies, March 1997: p. 19.

[29] Nick Begich & Jeane Manning, Vandalism in the Sky, Nexus Magazine, Vol.
3, No. 1, 

< www.earthpulse.com/haarp/vandalism >.

[30] Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction, CJCSI 3810. 01A,
February 25, 1998.

[31] On the collaboration between Nazi and U.S. military, finance and energy
corporations, see Charles Higham, Trading With the Enemy: The Nazi American
Money Plot 1933-1949, Barnes & Noble, 1983.

[32] On the Helio Courier, see Gerard Colby and Charlotte Dennett, Thy Will
Be Done: The Conquest of the Amazon, HarperCollins, 1996, p. 269, 282.

[33] See the multiple weather related payloads of UAVs in: The Military
Balance 1996/1997, The International Institute for Strategic Studies,
October 1996, pp. 291-292; see U.S. Department of Defense, Atmospheric
Radiation Measurement-Unmanned Aerospace Vehicle (ARM-UAV) Program; see also
University of Massachusetts, Microwave Remote Sensing Laboratory (MIRSL)
work in support of the ARM-UAV program

 < www.esc.umass.edu/ece/labs/mirsl/CAMRAD/intro >.

[34] Jim Garamore, ³Fly High After Afghanistan,² American Forces Press
Service, April 2002. 

[35] Air Force 2025, < www.au.af.mil/au/2025 > .

[36] See David N. Gibbs, ³Academics and Spies: The Silence That Roars²
(Opinion), L.A. Times, January 28, 2001.

[37] University of Massachusetts, MIRSL, <
www.esc.umass.edu/ece/labs/mirsl/CAMRAD/intro >.

[38] Danaher Corporation, Annual Report 1999, <
www.danaher.com/htm/investor/annual99/mngdir.html >.

[39] See U.S. Department of Defense, Atmospheric Radiation
Measurement-Unmanned Aerospace Vehicle (ARM-UAV) Program; see also
University of Massachusetts, Microwave Remote Sensing Laboratory (MIRSL)
work in support of the ARM-UAV program <
www.esc.umass.edu/ece/labs/mirsl/CAMRAD/intro >.

[40] Peter Pilewskie, et al, ERAST ­ Measurement of Solar Spectral
Irradiance on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Spring 1999, <
www.geo.arc.nasa.gov/sgp/radiation/rad1.html >.

[41] The UAV information in this section all comes from the document Air
Force 2025, < www.au.af.mil/au/2025  >.

[42] The UAV information in this section all comes from the document Air
Force 2025, < www.au.af.mil/au/2025  >.

[43] See, e.g., William Blum, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA
Interventions Since World War II, Common Courage Press, 1995; Noam Chomsky
and Edward S. Herman, The Political Economy of Human Rights (Volumes I &
II), South End Press, 1979.

[44] Air Force 2025, < www.au.af.mil/au/2025  >.

[45] See The Microwave Remote Sensing Laboratory, <
www.ecs.umass.edu/ece/labs/mirsl/collaboration.html >.

[46] Much or most of the research in this section is based on the reports
and writings of Dr. Nick Begich and Jeane Manning. Begich and their
extensive work on the HAARP project documented in detail in Angels Don't
Play This HAARP: Advances in Tesla Technology, Earthpulse Press, 1996.

[47] See, e.g., < http://www.earthpulse.com/haarp/background.html > and Dr.
Nick Begich and Jeane Manning, Angels Don't Play This HAARP: Advances in
Tesla Technology, Earthpulse Press, 1996.

[48] Nick Begich and Jeane Manning, ³Vandalism in the Sky,² Nexus Magazine,
Vol. 3No. 1,

< www.earthpulse.com/haarp/vandalism.html >.

[49] Dr. Rosalie Bertell, Times of London, Nov. 23, 2000; Rosalie Bertell,
Background of the HAARP Program, November 5, 1996, <
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/weapons.htm >.

[50] Dr. Rosalie Bertell, Times of London, Nov. 23, 2000; Bertell: <
www.earthpulse.com/haarp/background.html >.

[51] Nick Begich and Jeane Manning, ³Vandalism in the Sky,² Nexus Magazine,
Vol. 3No. 1,

< www.earthpulse.com/haarp/vandalism.html >.

[52] Gordon J. F. McDonald, ³How to Wreck the Environment,² Unless Peace
Comes, 1968.

[53] See further extensive discussion in: Nick Begich and Jeane Manning,
³Vandalism in the Sky,² Nexus Magazine, Vol. 3, No. 1, <
www.earthpulse.com/haarp/vandalism.html >.

 

[54] See MIRSL related documentation on the Internet.

[55] See the resume for Bahar Ince at http://www-unix.ecs.umass.edu/~tince .

[56] See Laton McCartney, Friends in High Places: The Bechtel Story: The
Most Secret Corporation and How It Engineered The World, Simon and Schuster,
1988.

[57] SAIC information is taken from their Annual Reports 2000, 2001; Proxy
Statements; and web site.

[58] See SAIC Proxy Statement 2001.

[59] Annual Report 2001, SAIC.

 


http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/u.s._military_offensives_in_weather_weaponry.html