🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <btpl55$1qgn$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.
>
>Washington's New World Order Weapons Have the Ability to Trigger 
>Climate Change 
>
>  by Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa
>
>Third World Resurgence, January 2001
>
>Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG),  globalresearch.ca,   4 
>January 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 US, the technology is being perfected under the High-frequency 
>Active Auroral 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 "US 
>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 
>US Air Force calls for:
>
>"US 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 AURORAL RESEARCH PROGRAM (HAARP)
>
>The High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) based in 
>Gokoma Alaska --jointly managed by the US Air Force and the US Navy-- 
>is part of a new generation of sophisticated weaponry under the US 
>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. US 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 US 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 
>amounts of energy, comparable to a nuclear bomb, anywhere on earth 
>via laser and particle beams, is 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 US 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 US, 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 
>US 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 US 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 US 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 bloc 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 US Air Force, AF 2025 Final Report, 
>http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/ (emphasis added).
>
>6 Nicholas Begich and Jeane Manning, The Military's Pandora's Box, 
>Earthpulse Press, http://www.xyz.net/~nohaarp/earthlight.html . See 
>also the HAARP home page at http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/
>
>7. See Briarpatch, January, 2000. (emphasis added).
>
>8 Quoted in Begich and Manning, op cit.
>
>9. Air University, op cit.
>
>10. Rosalie Bertell, Background of the HAARP Program, 5 November, 
>1996, http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/weapons.htm
>
>11. Begich and Manning, op cit.
>
>12. Don Herskovitz, Killing Them Softly, Journal of Electronic 
>Defense, August 1993. (emphasis added). According to Herskovitz, 
>"electronic warfare" is defined by the US Department of Defense as 
>"military action involving the use of electromagnetic energy..." The 
>Journal of Electronic Defense at http://www.jedefense.com/ has 
>published a range of articles on the application of electronic and 
>electromagnetic military technologies.
>
>13. Military Space, 6 December, 1999.
>
>14. UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, New York, 1992. See 
>complete text at http://www.unfccc.de/resource/conv/conv_002.html , 
>(emphasis added).
>
>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. All rights reserved. 
>Permission is granted to post this text on non-commercial community 
>internet sites, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright 
>note is displayed. To publish this text in printed and/or other forms 
>contact the CRG at editor@globalresearch.ca .
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>The URL of this article is:
>http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO201A.html