<Forwarded for your consideration. Not evaluated by myself. -Allan>
>From: "Curtis Lang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-Yahoo-Profile: curtis_lang2001
>Mailing-List: list [EMAIL PROTECTED]; contact
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 08:13:53 -0500
>Subject: [globalnews] HAARP: Weather Weapons Go Online
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Guerrila News Network
>
>
>
>Playing God
>Michel Chossudovsky, January 30, 2002
>
>The important debate on global warming under UN auspices provides
>but a partial picture of climate change; in addition to the
>devastating impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the ozone layer,
>the World's climate can now be modified as part of a new generation
>of sophisticated "non-lethal weapons." Both the Americans and the
>Russians have developed capabilities to manipulate the World's
>climate.
>
>In the U.S., the technology is being perfected under the
>High-frequency Active Aural Research Program (HAARP) as part of the
>("Star Wars") Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI). Recent scientific
>evidence suggests that HAARP is fully operational and has the
>ability of potentially triggering floods, droughts, hurricanes and
>earthquakes. From a military standpoint, HAARP is a weapon of mass
>destruction. Potentially, it constitutes an instrument of conquest
>capable of selectively destabilising agricultural and ecological
>systems of entire regions.
>
>While there is no evidence that this deadly technology has been
>used, surely the United Nations should be addressing the issue of
>"environmental warfare" alongside the debate on the climatic impacts
>of greenhouse gases...
>
>Despite a vast body of scientific knowledge, the issue of deliberate
>climatic manipulations for military use has never been explicitly
>part of the UN agenda on climate change. Neither the official
>delegations nor the environmental action groups participating in the
>Hague Conference on Climate Change (CO6) (November 2000) have raised
>the broad issue of "weather warfare" or "environmental modification
>techniques (ENMOD)" as relevant to an understanding of climate
>change.
>
>The clash between official negotiators, environmentalists and
>American business lobbies has centered on Washington's outright
>refusal to abide by commitments on carbon dioxide reduction targets
>under the 1997 Kyoto protocol.(1) The impacts of military
>technologies on the World's climate are not an object of discussion
>or concern. Narrowly confined to greenhouse gases, the ongoing
>debate on climate change serves Washington's strategic and defense
>objectives.
>
>"WEATHER WARFARE"
>
>World renowned scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell confirms that "U.S.
>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) Already in the 1970s, former
>National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski had foreseen in his
>book "Between Two Ages" that:
>
>"Technology will make available, to the leaders of major nations,
>techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare
>minimum of the security forces need be appraised... [T]echniques of
>weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods
>of drought or storm."
>
>Marc Filterman, a former French military officer, outlines several
>types of "unconventional weapons" using radio frequencies. He refers
>to "weather war," indicating that the U.S. and the Soviet Union had
>already "mastered the know-how needed to unleash sudden climate
>changes (hurricanes, drought) in the early 1980s."(3) These
>technologies make it "possible to trigger atmospheric disturbances
>by using Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) radar [waves]." (4)
>
>A simulation study of future defense "scenarios" commissioned for
>the U.S. Air Force calls for:
>
>"U.S. aerospace forces to 'own the weather' by capitalizing on
>emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies
>to war-fighting applications... From enhancing friendly operations
>or disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of
>natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global
>communications and counterspace control, weather-modification offers
>the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce
>an adversary... In the United States, weather-modification will
>likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic
>and international applications. Our government will pursue such a
>policy, depending on its interests, at various levels.(5)
>
>HIGH-FREQUENCY ACTIVE AURAL RESEARCH PROGRAM (HAARP)
>
>The High-Frequency Active Aural Research Program (HAARP) based in
>Gokoma Alaska --jointly managed by the U.S. Air Force and the U.S.
>Navy-- is part of a new generation of sophisticated weaponry under
>the U.S. Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Operated by the Air
>Force Research Laboratory's Space Vehicles Directorate, HAARP
>constitutes a system of powerful antennas capable of creating
>"controlled local modifications of the ionosphere". Scientist Dr.
>Nicholas Begich --actively involved in the public campaign against
>HAARP-- describes HAARP as:
>
>"A super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that lifts areas of
>the ionosphere [upper layer of the atmosphere] by focusing a beam
>and heating those areas. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto
>earth and penetrate everything -- living and dead." (6)
>
>Dr. Rosalie Bertell depicts HAARP as "a gigantic heater that can
>cause major disruption in the ionosphere, creating not just holes,
>but long incisions in the protective layer that keeps deadly
>radiation from bombarding the planet." 7
>
>MISLEADING PUBLIC OPINION
>
>HAARP has been presented to public opinion as a program of
>scientific and academic research. U.S. military documents seem to
>suggest, however, that HAARP's main objective is to "exploit the
>ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes." (8) Without
>explicitly referring to the HAARP program, a U.S. Air Force study
>points to the use of "induced ionospheric modifications" as a means
>of altering weather patterns as well as disrupting enemy
>communications and radar.9
>
>According to Dr. Rosalie Bertell, HAARP is part of a integrated
>weapons' system, which has potentially devastating environmental
>consequences:
>
>"It is related to fifty years of intensive and increasingly
>destructive programs to understand and control the upper atmosphere.
>It would be rash not to associate HAARP with the space laboratory
>construction which is separately being planned by the United States.
>HAARP is an integral part of a long history of space research and
>development of a deliberate military nature. The military
>implications of combining these projects is alarming. ... The
>ability of the HAARP / Spacelab/ rocket combination to deliver very
>large amount of energy, comparable to a nuclear bomb, anywhere on
>earth via laser and particle beams, are frightening. The project is
>likely to be "sold" to the public as a space shield against incoming
>weapons, or, for the more gullible, a device for repairing the ozone
>layer. (10)
>
>In addition to weather manipulation, HAARP has a number of related uses:
>
>"HAARP could contribute to climate change by intensively bombarding
>the atmosphere with high-frequency rays... Returning low-frequency
>waves at high intensity could also affect people's brains, and
>effects on tectonic movements cannot be ruled out. (11)
>
>More generally, HAARP has the ability of modifying the World's
>electro-magnetic field. It is part of an arsenal of "electronic
>weapons" which U.S. military researchers consider a "gentler and
>kinder warfare". (12)
>
>WEAPONS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER
>
>HAARP is part of the weapons arsenal of the New World Order under
>the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). From military command points
>in the U.S., entire national economies could potentially be
>destabilized through climatic manipulations. More importantly, the
>latter can be implemented without the knowledge of the enemy, at
>minimal cost and without engaging military personnel and equipment
>as in a conventional war.
>
>The use of HAARP -- if it were to be applied -- could have
>potentially devastating impacts on the World's climate. Responding
>to U.S. economic and strategic interests, it could be used to
>selectively modify climate in different parts of the World resulting
>in the destabilization of agricultural and ecological systems.
>
>It is also worth noting that the U.S. Department of Defense has
>allocated substantial resources to the development of intelligence
>and monitoring systems on weather changes. NASA and the Department
>of Defense's National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) are working
>on "imagery for studies of flooding, erosion, land-slide hazards,
>earthquakes, ecological zones, weather forecasts, and climate
>change" with data relayed from satellites. (13)
>
>POLICY INERTIA OF THE UNITED NATIONS
>
>According to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
>signed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro:
>
>"States have... in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations
>and the principles of international law, the (...) responsibility to
>ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not
>cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond
>the limits of national jurisdiction." (14)
>
>It is also worth recalling that an international Convention ratified
>by the UN General Assembly in 1997 bans "military or other hostile
>use of environmental modification techniques having widespread,
>long-lasting or severe effects." (15) Both the U.S. and the Soviet
>Union were signatories to the Convention. The Convention defines
>"'environmental modification techniques' as referring to any
>technique for changing--through the deliberate manipulation of
>natural processes--the dynamics, composition or structure of the
>earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere
>or of outer space." (16)
>
>Why then did the UN --disregarding the 1977 ENMOD Convention as well
>as its own charter-- decide to exclude from its agenda climatic
>changes resulting from military programs?
>
>EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ACKNOWLEDGES IMPACTS OF HAARP
>
>In February 1998, responding to a report of Mrs. Maj Britt Theorin
>--Swedish MEP and longtime peace advocate--, the European
>Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense
>Policy held public hearings in Brussels on the HAARP program.(17)
>The Committee's "Motion for Resolution" submitted to the European
>Parliament:
>
>"Considers HAARP... by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the
>environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal,
>ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an
>international independent body...; [the Committee] regrets the
>repeated refusal of the United States Administration... to give
>evidence to the public hearing ...into the environmental and public
>risks [of] the HAARP program." (18).
>
>The Committee's request to draw up a "Green Paper" on "the
>environmental impacts of military activities", however, was casually
>dismissed on the grounds that the European Commission lacks the
>required jurisdiction to delve into "the links between environment
>and defense". (19) Brussels was anxious to avoid a showdown with
>Washington.
>
>FULLY OPERATIONAL
>
>While there is no concrete evidence of HAARP having been used,
>scientific findings suggest that it is at present fully operational.
>What this means is that HAARP could potentially be applied by the US
>military to selectively modify the climate of an "unfriendly nation"
>or "rogue state" with a view to destabilizing its national economy.
>
>Agricultural systems in both developed and developing countries are
>already in crisis as a result of New World Order policies including
>market deregulation, commodity dumping, etc. Amply documented, IMF
>and World Bank "economic medicine" imposed on the Third World and
>the countries of the former Soviet block has largely contributed to
>the destabilization of domestic agriculture. In turn, the provisions
>of the World Trade Organization (WTO) have supported the interests
>of a handful of Western agri-biotech conglomerates in their quest to
>impose genetically modified (GMO) seeds on farmers throughout the
>World.
>
>It is important to understand the linkage between the economic,
>strategic and military processes of the New World Order. In the
>above context, climatic manipulations under the HAARP program
>(whether accidental or deliberate) would inevitably exacerbate these
>changes by weakening national economies, destroying infrastructure
>and potentially triggering the bankruptcy of farmers over vast
>areas. Surely national governments and the United Nations should
>address the possible consequences of HAARP and other "non-lethal
>weapons" on climate change.
>
>NOTES
>
>1. The latter calls for nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
>by an average of 5.2 percent to become effective between 2008 and
>2012. See Background of Kyoto Protocol at
>http://www.globalwarming.net/gw11.html .
>
>2. The Times, London, 23 November 2000.
>
>3. Intelligence Newsletter, December 16, 1999.
>
>4. Ibid.
>
>5 Air University of the U.S. Air Force,
><http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/>AF 2025 Final Report
>
>6 Nicholas Begich and Jeane Manning,
><http://www.xyz.net/~nohaarp/earthlight.html>The Military's
>Pandora's Box, Earthpulse Press. See also the
><http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/>HAARP home page.
>
>7. See Briarpatch, January, 2000. (emphasis added).
>
>8 Quoted in Begich and Manning, op cit.
>
>9. Air University, op cit.
>
>10. Rosalie Bertell,
><http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/weapons.htm>Background
>of the HAARP Program, 5 November, 1996.
>
>11. Begich and Manning, op cit.
>
>12. Don Herskovitz, Killing Them Softly, Journal of Electronic
>Defense, August 1993. According to Herskovitz, "electronic warfare"
>is defined by the U.S. Department of Defense as "military action
>involving the use of electromagnetic energy..." The
><http://www.jedefense.com/>Journal of Electronic Defense has
>published a range of articles on the application of electronic and
>electromagnetic military technologies.
>
>13. Military Space, 6 December, 1999.
>
>14. <http://www.unfccc.de/resource/conv/conv_002.html>UN Framework
>Convention on Climate Change, New York, 1992.
>
>15. See Associated Press, 18 May 1977.
>
>16. Environmental Modification Ban Faithfully Observed, States
>Parties Declare, UN Chronicle, July, 1984, Vol. 21, p. 27.
>
>17. European Report, 7 February 1998.
>
>18. European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and
>Defense Policy, Brussels, doc. no. A4-0005/99, 14 January 1999.
>
>19. EU Lacks Jurisdiction to Trace Links Between Environment and
>Defense, European Report, 3 February 1999.
>
>Copyright by Michel Chossudovsky, CRG 2002.
>
>To discuss this Article and other issues please visit the
><http://www.guerrillanews.com/cgi-bin/wwwthreads/wwwthreads.pl?Cat=&C=1>Guerrilla
>News Forum
>
>
>
>...............................................
>
>Be the change
>you want to see in the world.
>-- Mahatma Gandhi
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
