🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <bv3tvq$oe9$1@pencil.math.missouri.edu>, President, USA Exile Govt.
says...
>
>Forwarded with Compliments of Government of the USA in Exile (GUSAE):
>Free Americans Resisting the Fourth Reich on Behalf of All Species.
>
>www.globalresearch.ca
>Centre for Research on Globalisation
>Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation
>Environmental Warfare and US Foreign Policy:
>
>The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction
>
>by Scott Gilbert
>
>January 2004
>www.globalresearch.ca   January 2004
>
>The URL of this article is:
>http://globalresearch.ca/articles/GIL401A.html
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Environmental warfare may sound new to some, but it has been
>researched extensively in military circles for years. The first
>public description of weather modification techniques as a weapon of
>war was made on 20 March, 1974. At that time the Pentagon revealed a
>seven-year cloud seeding effort in Vietnam and Cambodia, costing
>$21.6 million. The objective was to increase rainfall in target
>areas, thereby causing landslides and making unpaved roads muddy,
>hindering the movement of supplies. (1) But interest in the
>exploitation of the environment for military purposes did not end
>there.
>
>Air University, located at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama,
>describes itself as a "center for advanced education" that "plays a
>vital role in fulfilling the mission of the United States Air Force"
>and whose "service members must place the nation's defense above
>self." The Chief of Staff of the US Air Force tasked Air University
>to "look 30 years into the future to identify the concepts,
>capabilities and technologies the United States will require to
>remain the dominant air and space force in the 21st century." The
>study, completed in 1996, was titled Air Force 2025. One component
>was of the study was a paper titled Weather as a Force Multiplier:
>Owning the Weather in 2025. It is a chilling document. It is evident
>that the authors regard our environment as nothing more than a
>resource to be exploited for military purposes. They claim that by
>2025 US forces can "own the weather" by "capitalizing on emerging
>technologies and focusing development of those technologies to
>warfighting applications." The authors describe weather modification
>as having "tremendous military capabilities" which "can provide
>battlespace dominance to a degree never before imagined," claiming
>the project would be "not unlike the splitting of the atom." The
>paper goes on to discuss how ionospheric research (The ionosphere is
>a region of the earth's atmosphere ranging from about 30 - 1200 miles
>above the surface of the earth.) is necessary to achieve goals in
>both enhancing US communication capabilities and as a method of
>disabling enemy communications. "By 2025, it may be possible to
>modify the ionosphere and near space, creating a variety of potential
>applications." (2)
>
>Dr. Bernard Eastlund, while working as a consultant for Advanced
>Power Technologies Inc. (APTI) in the 1980s, patented devices that
>are described as capable of "causing
>total disruption of
>communications over a very large portion of the Earth
>missile or
>aircraft destruction, deflection or confusion
>weather modification
>"
>(3) These patents were based on the ideas and fundamental research of
>Nicola Tesla (many of his ideas were stolen by US corporations). Some
>of Eastlund's patents were temporarily sealed under a US Secrecy
>Order. APTI and Eastlund's patents were quickly purchased by
>E-Systems, a company that is home to many retired and currently
>employed CIA agents. In 1993 E-Systems received $1.8 billion in
>classified contracts. Raytheon, the fourth largest US defense
>contractor and third largest aerospace company, currently holds the
>patents. (4)
>
>In light of the above, it is significant to know that since the early
>1990s the US Air Force has been sponsoring the world's largest
>ionospheric modification project called HAARP (High-frequency Active
>Auroral Research Program). HAARP, located in the remote bush country
>of Gakona, Alaska, is a small version of the antenna discussed in the
>Eastlund patents. APTI initially won the contract to build HAARP.
>Eastlund feels that the current version of HAARP, although the
>largest ionospheric heater ever built, is not yet powerful enough to
>bring the ideas in his patents to fruition, "But," he says, "they're
>getting up there. This is a very powerful device. Especially if they
>go to the expanded stage." (5) What they have done to date is
>definitely a necessary first step in the overall objective. Eastlund
>says, "The military was interested [in his patents] because, in the
>event of a Russian nuclear attack on the United States, an Alaskan
>site would be under the path of the incoming warheads."(6) HAARP is
>currently a part of the ongoing Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI),
>popularly known as "Star Wars". (7)
>
>A 1990 internal document obtained by Popular Science describes
>applications of the HAARP project as "Creating a "full global shield"
>that would destroy ballistic missiles by overheating their electronic
>guiding systems as they fly" and for "manipulating local weather."
>(8) The word "local" was used because some 150 international treaties
>prohibit "weather warfare". (5) However, Pravda reported: "the works
>continued anyway, despite the signed document. It was simply
>conducted under the disguise of scientific research or the
>development of double-purpose technology." (9)
>
>HAARP is presented as a harmless scientific project, but The
>Washington Post reported that a growing number of physicists and
>others in the scientific community are becoming increasingly
>skeptical. A "small group of American physicists, some of whom have
>aired complaints in scientific journals
>fear HAARP may not simply be
>the benign research experiment advocates describe, but possibly phase
>one of a secret US military program that could be seeking ways to
>blow other countries' spacecraft out of the sky or disrupt
>communications over large portions of the planet." (6) Richard
>Williams, a physicist and consultant to the David Sarnoff laboratory
>in Princeton alleges HAARP constitutes "an irresponsible act of
>global vandalism." He and others fear a secret second stage where
>HAARP would "beam much more energy into the ionosphere. That could
>produce a severe disruption of the upper atmosphere at one location
>that may produce effects that spread rapidly around the Earth for
>years." (6)
>
>In 2002 the website globalresearch.ca reported that the Russian State
>Duma's International Affairs and Defence Committee expressed concern
>that "Under the HAARP program the USA is creating new integral
>geophysical weapons that may influence the near-Earth medium with
>high-frequency radio waves
>the significance of this qualitative leap
>could be compared to the transition from cold steel to firearms, or
>from conventional weapons to nuclear weapons." The deputies demanded
>an international ban on large-scale geophysical experiments of this
>sort and sent the appeal to President Vladimir Putin, news outlets,
>scientific groups, the UN and others. The article went on to say that
>the HAARP program "will create weapons capable of breaking radio
>communication lines and equipment installed on spaceships and
>rockets, provoke serious accidents in electricity networks and in oil
>and gas pipelines and have a negative impact on the mental health of
>people populating entire regions." (10)
>
>Dr. Nicholas Begich, co-author of the book Angels Don't Play This
>HAARP, depicts HAARP as "a super-powerful radio wave beaming
>technology that lifts areas of the ionosphere by focusing a beam on
>them and then heating them. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back
>onto earth and penetrate everything - living and dead." This ability
>allows for better communication with submarines and wide-area
>Earth-penetrating tomography (similar to radar) that can be used to
>locate underground missile sites, bunkers and oil reserves. Through
>his research he has come to the conclusion that HAARP has the
>potential to jam global communication systems, change weather
>patterns over large areas, interfere with wildlife migration patterns
>and negatively affect human health. It is also capable of potentially
>triggering targeted floods, droughts, hurricanes and earthquakes. (11)
>
>Dr. Rosalie Bertell, author of Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon of War
>and founder of the International Institute of Concern for Public
>Health, while writing on the background of HAARP says, "It would be
>rash to assume that HAARP is an isolated experiment which would not
>be expanded. 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
>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." (12)
>
>Michel Chossudovsky, professor of economics at the University of
>Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization, says
>that "there are very clear statements by the US Air Force to the
>effect that weather modification technology is available, HAARP is
>fully operational and could be used in actually military situations.
>It is evident weather warfare does constitute an instrument of the
>Air Force, they even identify the scenarios of its use." He said his
>interest in the topic was sparked by the fact that it is possible to
>change climate and disrupt electricity over large areas of the Earth,
>effectively destabilizing portions of the globe and paralysing
>national economies. This can be done without the enemy even knowing
>the source of it. The health and economic prosperity of entire
>regions could potentially be devastated through climatic
>manipulations without the deployment of a single troop or the firing
>of any munitions. It is naove to assume that those who ordered the
>development of the nuclear bomb would not want total control over
>this technology. Chossudovsky says HAARP can act as a "weapon of mass
>destruction" because it can destroy industry, infrastructure,
>agriculture and cause loss of life. He questions whether HAARP should
>be used at all since it has "global and environmental implications"
>and because it affects the electromagnetic field of the Earth. (13)
>
>In September 2003 the website globalresearch.ca reported that a
>scientist who works in ionospheric research expressed concern that
>the 14 August, 2003 blackout might have been "a secret government
>test" that served multiple purposes including "fulfilling
>requirements for sophisticated warfare and security response." The
>author poses the question: Could a secret HAARP experiment have
>caused the blackout? This article was based on a number of facts that
>seemed oddly coincidental given the circumstances. For example, the
>power went out a few minutes after the closing bell on Wall Street
>and a few minutes after HAARP was turned on that day. The power grid
>that was affected was not the vulnerable California grid. The data
>that would show where the effects of HAARP were directed, by
>providing a picture of the ionosphere, were not posted on the day of
>the blackout. He also commented on the possibility that the HAARP
>heaters were directed at the power grid's bottleneck while the grid
>was operating near full power. "The sudden presence of
>electromagnetic energy could easily force an unexpected increase in
>the power flow which could in-turn cause a critical failure such as
>the one seen on August 14, 2003
>The only requirement to achieve
>geographic precision is that geomagnetic activity be minimal such as
>it was on the day of the blackout." There was also a short test
>conducted shortly before 4pm. The author says such a test would serve
>the purpose of "showing the researchers exactly where the beam would
>focus itself given the current conditions, and would be a necessary
>step before executing such an experiment." The author describes how
>experiments of this sort would be an "ideal way to test possible
>military applications of the instrument
>of course, this would need to
>be tested in a controlled environment where the effects could be
>thoroughly analyzed (such as on our own soil)
>this was an excellent
>homeland security response test." He concludes by saying "Although it
>may sound like an episode of the X-files, the facts are clear; HAARP
>is an ionospheric warfare tool, it is capable of focusing it's
>electromagnetic energy at long distances, it was turned on right at
>the time the event began, and such a scenario would serve multiple
>national security interests simultaneously with minimal economic
>impact." (14) Michel Chossudovsky, by conferring with other
>well-known scientists, was able to conclude, "this man knows the
>facts. He can read and analyse scientific data and is well informed
>on the impact of the HAARP program." Although the article does not
>amount to proof, Chossudovsky feels that the author's statements
>should be taken seriously and investigated. (13, 14)
>
>The HAARP program was scheduled for completion in 2002 and full-scale
>testing had started by early 2003. While there is currently no
>conclusive proof that HAARP has ever been used for weather
>manipulation, there have been numerous reports describing very
>unusual weather and environmental conditions throughout the world in
>recent years. In January 2003 Yuru Solomatin, secretary of the
>Ukrainian Committee for Economic Policy, writing in Pravda reported
>"A lot of specialists and scientists believe that unpredictable
>natural disasters and several 
> catastrophes that struck Europe and
>Asia in the summer of 2002 might have certain global reasons that
>caused them all." He posits "a possibility of secret geophysical
>weapon tests. Those tests were either secret or unauthorized
> [Many]
>specialists and scientists believe that a special American program
>HAARP is one of those developments."(9) Chossudovsky says, "Even
>though we do not have clear-cut information on particular climatic
>occurrences, when there are very unusual weather patters that are
>occurring, which cannot be explained by greenhouse gas emissions, we
>cannot exclude the possibility of man-made climatic manipulations,
>based on our understanding of climate." (13)
>
>A primary objection to weather modification for military purposes is
>that its use is indiscriminant and civilians will inevitably be
>affected. Furthermore, the research necessary to achieve these goals
>is dangerous. According to Bertell, HAARP can make "long incisions in
>the protective layer of the Earth's atmosphere."(7) As with the
>Manhattan project, scientists working on this massive military
>project simply are not able to determine for certain whether or not
>their activities will cause irreparable damage. Nor do they seem to
>care. In 1971 Science published an article titled Modifying the
>Ionosphere with Intense Radio Waves in which the authors describe the
>development of radio wave beaming technology for ionospheric
>modification that has long been "a desire for researchers." This new
>technology now allows them to conduct research without the
>"associated complications" of a laboratory. They now have a "plasma
>laboratory in the sky." (15)
>
>There is a dire need for this technology to be closely monitored by
>multiple independent scientific bodies (it currently is not) and, if
>it must be used, needs to be used in such a way as to be beneficial
>to life on earth. It could be used to increase food supply, repair
>the ozone layer or reduce damage to civilian populations frequently
>affected by adverse weather conditions. Sadly, current military
>agendas appear not to give much weight to these possible beneficial
>uses of the technology.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Notes
>
>1 - Science, "Weather Warfare: Pentagon Cencedes 7-Year Vietnam
>Effort," Deborah Shapley, June 7, 1974.
>
>2 - >From the Air University website: Air Force 2025 study -
>http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025 Document - "Weather as a Force
>Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025" -
>http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume3/chap15/v3c15-1.htm
>
>3 - >From the book Angels Don't Play This HAARP. See book review by
>Winn Schwartau - http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/12/HAARP.htm
>
>Also see chapter on Eastlund patents in Angels Don't Play This HAARP
>by Nick Begich and Jeane Manning, 1995 Earthpulse press.
>
>4 - Corporate Watch website - Raytheon
>http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/profiles/raytheon/raytheon.htm
>
>5 - E, The Environmental Magazine, "Discordant HAARP," Tracey C.
>Rembert, January 1997 -
>http://www.emagazine.com/january-february_1997/0197currhaarp.html
>
>6 - The Washington Post, "Pentagon Fights Secret Scenario Speculation
>Over Alaska Antennas" John Mintz, April 17, 1995, pA3.
>
>7 - Northumbria University website (UK), "Natural Disasters and
>Meteorological War?" by Vera Vratusa -
>http://online.northumbria.ac.uk/geography_research/dscrn/newsletter/newslette
>r6/vratusa.htm
>
>8 - Popular Science magazine cover story, "Mystery in Alaska," Mark
>Farmer, September 1995.
>
>9 - Pravda, "HAARP Poses Global Threat, " Yuru Solomatin, January 15,
>2003 - http://english.pravda.ru/main/2003/01/15/42068.html
>
>10 - Centre for Research on Globalisation website, "US HAARP Weapon:
>US Could Dominate The Planet If It Deploys This Weapon In Space," 10
>August2002 -http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/INT208A.html
>
>11 - Angels Don't Play This HAARP, Nick Begich and Jeane Manning,
>1995 Earthpulse press - www.earthpulse.com
>
>12 - Earthpulse press website, Background of the HAARP Project,
>Rosalie Bertell, 1999 -
>http://www.earthpulse.com/haarp/background.html
>
>13 - Telephone interview with Michel Chossudovsky, January 17, 2004.
>
>14 - Centre for Research on Globalisation website, "Did a Secret
>Military Experiment Cause the 2003 Blackout?" 7 September 2003 -
>http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ANA309A.html
>
>15 - Science, "Modifying the Ionosphere with intense radio waves,"
>October 15, 1971, p245.
>
>For this article I had a telephone interview with Dr. Michel
>Chossudovsky about his research on HAARP. I also spoke with Dr.
>Eastlund (by telephone) about his patents.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Scott Gilbert is a student majoring in Environmental Engineering at
>the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada. This article was written
>for the Student Newspaper at Guelph University.
>
>To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at
>Global Research's News and Discussion Forum , at
>http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/index.php
>
>The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at
>www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original CRG
>articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community
>internet sites, as long as the text and title of the article are not
>modified. The source must be acknowledged as follows: Centre for
>Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca .  The
>active URL hyperlink address of the original CRG article and the
>author's copyright note must be clearly displayed. (For articles from
>other news sources, check with the original copyright holder, where
>applicable.) For publication of CRG articles in print or other forms
>including commercial internet sites, contact:
>editor@globalresearch.ca .
>
>) Copyright Scott Gilbert 2004 -2004. For fair use only/ pour usage
>iquitable seulement.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------