Michael Evans Pentagon Correspondent
American and British military commanders were at loggerheads over the right strategy for Helmand in southern Afghanistan when Britain’s ill-fated campaign began in the summer of 2006, The Times can reveal.
Disclosures by Lieutenant-General Benjamin Freakley, then the most senior US operational commander in southern and eastern Afghanistan, support the findings of an investigation by The Times earlier this year, which found that the British military had signed off on a plan for Helmand that was flawed from the start.
In an exclusive interview. General Freakley recalled that he had been scathing about the British effort in Helmand, which included an inability, in his view, to put sufficient pressure on the Taleban while also implementing reconstruction programmes to keep the insurgents on the back foot. When General Freakley felt that this was not happening, he became so annoyed that he flew to British headquarters in Lashkar Gah, the provincial capital, to make his point in person.
“I made a strong recommendation that they take more offensive action in Helmand because the enemy was building up,” he said.
“But I was told by the British that they didn’t believe their forces were ready, so we had all these troops just living in Camp Bastion [the main British base in Helmand].”
Those present at the meeting included Colonel Charlie Knaggs, who was in tactical charge of the British troops in Helmand, Lieutenant-Colonel Stuart Tootal, commander of the 3rd Battalion The Parachute Regiment, and Mohammed Daud, then governor of the province.
Britain’s most senior commander, Brigadier Ed Butler, who was in charge of all the British military personnel in Afghanistan, did not attend.
After what by all accounts was a confrontational encounter, an official from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office took exception to the general’s tone. “He wrote back to London saying I had been scathing about the British effort. That was true.
“But I was trying to get them to keep constant pressure on the adversary and to make sure that reconstruction efforts and spreading the governance of the Afghan Government went on simultaneously.
“Without simultaneous action you’re just poking your finger at the problem,” General Freakley said.
He said that he admired Colonel Knaggs and enjoyed working with him. He said, however, that it was his impression that there was a difficulty, even friction, over the British chain of command, with Colonel Knaggs in charge of troops in Helmand and Brigadier Butler as the senior overall commander based in Kabul. “I think Brigadier Butler wanted Colonel Knaggs just to be in charge of the British provincial reconstruction team [in Lashkar Gah],” he said.
General Freakley also criticised Britain’s tactic of sending small groups of soldiers to defend district centres in far-flung places around the province, such as Musa Qala and Sangin. The “platoon house” strategy led to assaults by the Taleban and heavy casualties among the British.
“That tactic proved disastrous,” said General Freakley, who is now commander of US Accessions Command (recruiting and army cadets) at Fort Knox in Kentucky. “They thought of a platoon house as in Northern Ireland but in Afghanistan you have to be mobile against the Taleban. You can’t be in a fixed position because the Taleban will hit you.”
At the time General Freakley was receiving messages from President Karzai asking the military to restore the district centres, which had been overrun by the Taleban. “You do that by attacking the enemy, putting in Afghan police and then staying mobile,” he said.
Contradicting claims by British commanders in the past, he said: “I don’t believe Governor Daud [then the governor of Helmand] insisted on having the platoon houses.”
Despite his criticisms General Freakley underlined his respect for the men of 16 Air Assault Brigade who were in Helmand in 2006. “I have the greatest respect for those men,” he said. “It seems that . . . they thought they were going to be involved in some sort of peacekeeping force but they had to face a very complex environment.”
General Freakley’s comments came as President Karzai said that the overall Nato strategy in Afghanistan needed to be reassessed.
“The experience over the past eight years showed that fighting [the Taleban] in Afghan villages has been ineffective and is not achieving anything but killing civilians,” President Karzai said in a statement released after a meeting with Norbert Lammert, the president of the German parliament.
Seven US troops died at the weekend in southern and eastern Afghanistan, while officials found the bodies of five kidnapped aides working for a female candidate in the western Herat province. A total of 62 international forces have died in the country this month, including seven British troops.
© Times Newspapers Ltd 2010 Registered in England
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Monday, August 30, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Lest We Forget
by Butler Shafferby Butler Shaffer Recently by Butler Shaffer: This Land Is Whose Land?
The masses have never thirsted after truth. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim.
~ Gustave LeBon
Hardly a day passes in which the reporting of political events does not bring to mind the teachings of, perhaps, the greatest of all psychiatrists, Carl Jung. He reminded us of a truth that most of us reject, namely, that there is a "dark side" to our unconscious minds which can easily be mobilized for destructive purposes to which our conscious minds would never subscribe. We are uncomfortable with the thought that we might harbor inclinations for dishonesty, violence, laziness, killing, etc., and unconsciously project such traits upon others, against whom we can take action. Such forces often find expression when fears and perceived threats from others cause us to fall victim to mob-like thinking, capable of being organized into political or other violent undertakings. The state thrives on conflicts it has helped to generate among people, which accounts for the parallel proliferation of disputes and increased political powers. Such dynamics have been most evident during these past nine years, as the least reflective have found it easy to accept any group identified by political leaders as a threat to some imagined sense of security.
A virulent form of this pathology has arisen in recent weeks over the proposed construction of an Islamic cultural center a few blocks from the site of the former World Trade Center. With the same irrational, self-righteous posturing that would lead white supremacists to react to a black family moving into their neighborhood, various groups have sounded like a Greek chorus in attacking the Muslims for their alleged "insensitivity" to the "feelings" of those still traumatized by 9/11. That condemning an entire religion for the actions of a handful of its members – particularly when the 9/11 attacks were driven by political rather than religious considerations – is a form of the collectivist thinking of which Jung warned. How far might such shrieking reaction extend? Would a modern businessman properly be criticized for his plans to build a sushi restaurant near Pearl Harbor? Should the Ayn Rand Institute be charged with "insensitivity" to the religious feelings of Mormons were it to establish a facility in Salt Lake City? Is anything which the most neurotic person finds offensive to be defined as a "hate crime," or an act of "insensitivity"?
Is there any purpose to this tirade against an Islamic cultural center other than helping U.S./Israeli warmongering efforts against the Middle Eastern enemy-of-the-month? Can these fomenters of hatred expect to be taken seriously in posing as agents of "sensitivity" on behalf of victims of past wrongdoing? If they are truly concerned with respecting gravesites – even though the proposed Islamic center would not be located on the World Trade Center land – the Islamaphobes might look further than just the dead of 9/11. They might consider providing due sensitivity to earlier victims of wrongs committed in the environs of Manhattan.
The Wall Street area is the site of an earlier cemetery that functioned for more than one hundred years. Known as the African Burial Ground, it was the final resting place for what some archeologists estimate may be as many as ten thousand former slaves and black freemen. This burial site was discovered fewer than twenty years ago, during the construction of a federal office building. Somehow, I do not expect to hear the political establishment or its mainstream media campaigning against the federal government's "insensitivity" to the victims of slavery!
For reasons that the "sensitive"-minded voices of political correctness prefer to downplay or completely ignore, Manhattan had been a major center of the African slave trade into the nineteenth century. Slaves were brought into New York City ports, there to be sold. The book, Slavery in New York, published by the New York Historical Society, offers this encapsulation of this slave market:
For nearly three hundred years, slavery was an intimate part of the lives of all New Yorkers, black and white, insinuating itself into every nook and cranny of New York's history. For portions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, New York City housed the largest urban slave population in mainland North America, with more slaves than any other city on the continent.
It has been estimated that, by the mid-1700s, some 25% of the workers in New York City were slaves, while half the work force beyond the city was so constituted. During this same period, about 40% of New York City homes were served by one or more slaves.
Many of the erstwhile slaves who had been set free prior to the Civil War saw the importance of owning property, rather than being the property of others. These persons formed a community in the mid-Manhattan area, called Seneca Village. Irish and German immigrants also bought land in this village. A number of white New Yorkers became troubled with the success of Seneca and, concerned about the impact this might have on the future development of Manhattan, called upon the New York City mayor – a Democrat – to use eminent domain to eliminate the village. The stolen land became a part of today's Central Park.
The black property owners resisted being removed from their homes, and were forcibly removed by police officers. As with later "urban renewal" projects in various cities – programs that destroyed the orderly nature of established neighborhoods, thus contributing to the modern disorder of the inner cities – the residents of Seneca Village were left to fend for themselves. Will any organized campaign of "sensitivity" to these victims of urban renewal be forthcoming from the current trumpets of bigotry?
Private property interests have succumbed to the socialistic nature of eminent domain elsewhere on Manhattan. When Wall Street banking and other financial interests – particularly the Rockefellers – saw the enhanced property values that would come from having a World Trade Center constructed in their neighborhood, local government employed the powers of eminent domain to forcibly deprive small businesses and other property owners of their lands. Being driven more by political interests than market demand, the resulting WTC became a white elephant unable to sustain itself without the state government – then under the governorship of Nelson Rockefeller – moving numerous state offices to this facility.
I have often wondered whether some parcels of land might be affected by a "power of place," whose influences might continue from one owner to another, and from one time period to another. It may be no coincidence that the remains of thousands of slaves – whose claims to self-ownership were so viciously denied by state and federal governments – are buried in the same area as the dead of 9/11, lands from which subsequent owners were forcibly despoiled of their property in order to serve private banking interests. Perhaps there is added symmetry in the fact that Alexander Hamilton – whose inconsistent attitudes toward slavery, and whose politically interventionist predilections would have brought him down on the side of the Wall Street banking interests – lies buried in a churchyard not far from the ruins of the World Trade Center.
Perhaps the sordid history that lies buried within this region is contributing to the playing-out of the "dark side" forces that now militate against the efforts of Muslims to build their recreation center. There is a long line of politically-generated abuses of people on Manhattan Island – and elsewhere – to be attended to before addressing the construction of a religious center that does not depend on violating the property interests of anyone. The inconstancy of the "sensitivity" to the claims of property ownership has been too unsightly and morally offensive for any of us to tolerate yet another denial of the principle of inviolability which, alone, can civilize us.
August 28, 2010
Butler Shaffer [send him e-mail] teaches at the Southwestern University School of Law. He is the author of the newly-released In Restraint of Trade: The Business Campaign Against Competition, 1918–1938 and of Calculated Chaos: Institutional Threats to Peace and Human Survival. His latest book is Boundaries of Order
The masses have never thirsted after truth. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim.
~ Gustave LeBon
Hardly a day passes in which the reporting of political events does not bring to mind the teachings of, perhaps, the greatest of all psychiatrists, Carl Jung. He reminded us of a truth that most of us reject, namely, that there is a "dark side" to our unconscious minds which can easily be mobilized for destructive purposes to which our conscious minds would never subscribe. We are uncomfortable with the thought that we might harbor inclinations for dishonesty, violence, laziness, killing, etc., and unconsciously project such traits upon others, against whom we can take action. Such forces often find expression when fears and perceived threats from others cause us to fall victim to mob-like thinking, capable of being organized into political or other violent undertakings. The state thrives on conflicts it has helped to generate among people, which accounts for the parallel proliferation of disputes and increased political powers. Such dynamics have been most evident during these past nine years, as the least reflective have found it easy to accept any group identified by political leaders as a threat to some imagined sense of security.
A virulent form of this pathology has arisen in recent weeks over the proposed construction of an Islamic cultural center a few blocks from the site of the former World Trade Center. With the same irrational, self-righteous posturing that would lead white supremacists to react to a black family moving into their neighborhood, various groups have sounded like a Greek chorus in attacking the Muslims for their alleged "insensitivity" to the "feelings" of those still traumatized by 9/11. That condemning an entire religion for the actions of a handful of its members – particularly when the 9/11 attacks were driven by political rather than religious considerations – is a form of the collectivist thinking of which Jung warned. How far might such shrieking reaction extend? Would a modern businessman properly be criticized for his plans to build a sushi restaurant near Pearl Harbor? Should the Ayn Rand Institute be charged with "insensitivity" to the religious feelings of Mormons were it to establish a facility in Salt Lake City? Is anything which the most neurotic person finds offensive to be defined as a "hate crime," or an act of "insensitivity"?
Is there any purpose to this tirade against an Islamic cultural center other than helping U.S./Israeli warmongering efforts against the Middle Eastern enemy-of-the-month? Can these fomenters of hatred expect to be taken seriously in posing as agents of "sensitivity" on behalf of victims of past wrongdoing? If they are truly concerned with respecting gravesites – even though the proposed Islamic center would not be located on the World Trade Center land – the Islamaphobes might look further than just the dead of 9/11. They might consider providing due sensitivity to earlier victims of wrongs committed in the environs of Manhattan.
The Wall Street area is the site of an earlier cemetery that functioned for more than one hundred years. Known as the African Burial Ground, it was the final resting place for what some archeologists estimate may be as many as ten thousand former slaves and black freemen. This burial site was discovered fewer than twenty years ago, during the construction of a federal office building. Somehow, I do not expect to hear the political establishment or its mainstream media campaigning against the federal government's "insensitivity" to the victims of slavery!
For reasons that the "sensitive"-minded voices of political correctness prefer to downplay or completely ignore, Manhattan had been a major center of the African slave trade into the nineteenth century. Slaves were brought into New York City ports, there to be sold. The book, Slavery in New York, published by the New York Historical Society, offers this encapsulation of this slave market:
For nearly three hundred years, slavery was an intimate part of the lives of all New Yorkers, black and white, insinuating itself into every nook and cranny of New York's history. For portions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, New York City housed the largest urban slave population in mainland North America, with more slaves than any other city on the continent.
It has been estimated that, by the mid-1700s, some 25% of the workers in New York City were slaves, while half the work force beyond the city was so constituted. During this same period, about 40% of New York City homes were served by one or more slaves.
Many of the erstwhile slaves who had been set free prior to the Civil War saw the importance of owning property, rather than being the property of others. These persons formed a community in the mid-Manhattan area, called Seneca Village. Irish and German immigrants also bought land in this village. A number of white New Yorkers became troubled with the success of Seneca and, concerned about the impact this might have on the future development of Manhattan, called upon the New York City mayor – a Democrat – to use eminent domain to eliminate the village. The stolen land became a part of today's Central Park.
The black property owners resisted being removed from their homes, and were forcibly removed by police officers. As with later "urban renewal" projects in various cities – programs that destroyed the orderly nature of established neighborhoods, thus contributing to the modern disorder of the inner cities – the residents of Seneca Village were left to fend for themselves. Will any organized campaign of "sensitivity" to these victims of urban renewal be forthcoming from the current trumpets of bigotry?
Private property interests have succumbed to the socialistic nature of eminent domain elsewhere on Manhattan. When Wall Street banking and other financial interests – particularly the Rockefellers – saw the enhanced property values that would come from having a World Trade Center constructed in their neighborhood, local government employed the powers of eminent domain to forcibly deprive small businesses and other property owners of their lands. Being driven more by political interests than market demand, the resulting WTC became a white elephant unable to sustain itself without the state government – then under the governorship of Nelson Rockefeller – moving numerous state offices to this facility.
I have often wondered whether some parcels of land might be affected by a "power of place," whose influences might continue from one owner to another, and from one time period to another. It may be no coincidence that the remains of thousands of slaves – whose claims to self-ownership were so viciously denied by state and federal governments – are buried in the same area as the dead of 9/11, lands from which subsequent owners were forcibly despoiled of their property in order to serve private banking interests. Perhaps there is added symmetry in the fact that Alexander Hamilton – whose inconsistent attitudes toward slavery, and whose politically interventionist predilections would have brought him down on the side of the Wall Street banking interests – lies buried in a churchyard not far from the ruins of the World Trade Center.
Perhaps the sordid history that lies buried within this region is contributing to the playing-out of the "dark side" forces that now militate against the efforts of Muslims to build their recreation center. There is a long line of politically-generated abuses of people on Manhattan Island – and elsewhere – to be attended to before addressing the construction of a religious center that does not depend on violating the property interests of anyone. The inconstancy of the "sensitivity" to the claims of property ownership has been too unsightly and morally offensive for any of us to tolerate yet another denial of the principle of inviolability which, alone, can civilize us.
August 28, 2010
Butler Shaffer [send him e-mail] teaches at the Southwestern University School of Law. He is the author of the newly-released In Restraint of Trade: The Business Campaign Against Competition, 1918–1938 and of Calculated Chaos: Institutional Threats to Peace and Human Survival. His latest book is Boundaries of Order
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Weather as a Force Multiplier:
A Research Paper
Presented To
Air Force 2025
by
Col Tamzy J. House
Lt Col James B. Near, Jr.
LTC William B. Shields (USA)
Maj Ronald J. Celentano
Maj David M. Husband
Maj Ann E. Mercer
Maj James E. Pugh
August 1996
Presented To
Air Force 2025
by
Col Tamzy J. House
Lt Col James B. Near, Jr.
LTC William B. Shields (USA)
Maj Ronald J. Celentano
Maj David M. Husband
Maj Ann E. Mercer
Maj James E. Pugh
August 1996
Executive Summary
In 2025, US aerospace forces can “own the weather” by capitalizing on emerging technologies and
focusing development of those technologies to war-fighting applications. Such a capability offers the war
fighter tools to shape the battlespace in ways never before possible. It provides opportunities to impact
operations across the full spectrum of conflict and is pertinent to all possible futures. The purpose of this
paper is to outline a strategy for the use of a future weather-modification system to achieve military
objectives rather than to provide a detailed technical road map.
A high-risk, high-reward endeavor, weather-modification offers a dilemma not unlike the splitting of the
atom. While some segments of society will always be reluctant to examine controversial issues such as
weather-modification, the tremendous military capabilities that could result from this field are ignored at our
own peril. 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. Some of the potential capabilities a weather-modification system could provide to a war-fighting
commander in chief (CINC) are listed in table 1.
Technology advancements in five major areas are necessary for an integrated weather-modification
capability: (1) advanced nonlinear modeling techniques, (2) computational capability, (3) information
gathering and transmission, (4) a global sensor array, and (5) weather intervention techniques. Some
intervention tools exist today and others may be developed and refined in the future.
Current technologies that will mature over the next 30 years will offer anyone who has the necessary
resources the ability to modify weather patterns and their corresponding effects, at least on the local scale.
Current demographic, economic, and environmental trends will create global stresses that provide the
impetus necessary for many countries or groups to turn this weather-modification ability into a capability.
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. These levels could include unilateral actions, participation in a security
framework such as NATO, membership in an international organization such as the UN, or participation in a
coalition. Assuming that in 2025 our national security strategy includes weather-modification, its use in our
national military strategy will naturally follow. Besides the significant benefits an operational capability
would provide, another motivation to pursue weather-modification is to deter and counter potential
adversaries.
viii
In this paper we show that appropriate application of weather-modification can provide battlespace
dominance to a degree never before imagined. In the future, such operations will enhance air and space
superiority and provide new options for battlespace shaping and battlespace awareness.1 “The technology is
there, waiting for us to pull it all together;”2 in 2025 we can “Own the Weather.”
Scenario: Imagine that in 2025 the US is fighting a rich, but now consolidated, politically powerful
drug cartel in South America. The cartel has purchased hundreds of Russian-and Chinese-built fighters that
have successfully thwarted our attempts to attack their production facilities. With their local numerical
superiority and interior lines, the cartel is launching more than 10 aircraft for every one of ours. In addition,
the cartel is using the French system probatoire d' observation de la terre (SPOT) positioning and tracking
imagery systems, which in 2025 are capable of transmitting near-real-time, multispectral imagery with 1
meter resolution. The US wishes to engage the enemy on an uneven playing field in order to exploit the full
potential of our aircraft and munitions.
Meteorological analysis reveals that equatorial South America typically has afternoon thunderstorms on
a daily basis throughout the year. Our intelligence has confirmed that cartel pilots are reluctant to fly in or
near thunderstorms. Therefore, our weather force support element (WFSE), which is a part of the
commander in chief’s (CINC) air operations center (AOC), is tasked to forecast storm paths and trigger or
intensify thunderstorm cells over critical target areas that the enemy must defend with their aircraft. Since
our aircraft in 2025 have all-weather capability, the thunderstorm threat is minimal to our forces, and we can
effectively and decisively control the sky over the target.
The WFSE has the necessary sensor and communication capabilities to observe, detect, and act on
weather-modification requirements to support US military objectives. These capabilities are part of an
advanced battle area system that supports the war-fighting CINC. In our scenario, the CINC tasks the WFSE
to conduct storm intensification and concealment operations. The WFSE models the atmospheric conditions
to forecast, with 90 percent confidence, the likelihood of successful modification using airborne cloud
generation and seeding.
In 2025, uninhabited aerospace vehicles (UAV) are routinely used for weather-modification operations.
By cross-referencing desired attack times with wind and thunderstorm forecasts and the SPOT satellite’s
projected orbit, the WFSE generates mission profiles for each UAV. The WFSE guides each UAV using
near-real-time information from a networked sensor array.
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 (IR)
surveillance. Simultaneously, microwave heaters create localized scintillation to disrupt active sensing via
synthetic aperture radar (SAR) systems such as the commercially available Canadian search and rescue
satellite-aided tracking (SARSAT) that will be widely available in 2025. Other cloud seeding operations
cause a developing thunderstorm to intensify over the target, severely limiting the enemy’s capability to
defend. The WFSE monitors the entire operation in real-time and notes the successful completion of another
very important but routine weather-modification mission.
This scenario may seem far-fetched, but by 2025 it is within the realm of possibility. The next chapter
explores the reasons for weather-modification, defines the scope, and examines trends that will make it
possible in the next 30 years.
Required Capability
Why Would We Want to Mess with the Weather?
According to Gen Gordon Sullivan, former Army chief of staff, “As we leap technology into the 21st
century, we will be able to see the enemy day or night, in any weather— and go after him relentlessly.”1 A
global, precise, real-time, robust, systematic weather-modification capability would provide war-fighting
CINCs with a powerful force multiplier to achieve military objectives. Since weather will be common to all
possible futures, a weather-modification capability would be universally applicable and have utility across
the entire spectrum of conflict. The capability of influencing the weather even on a small scale could change
it from a force degrader to a force multiplier.
People have always wanted to be able to do something about the weather. In the US, as early as 1839,
newspaper archives tell of people with serious and creative ideas on how to make rain.2 In 1957, the
president’s advisory committee on weather control explicitly recognized the military potential of weathermodification,
warning in their report that it could become a more important weapon than the atom bomb.3
However, controversy since 1947 concerning the possible legal consequences arising from the
deliberate alteration of large storm systems meant that little future experimentation could be conducted on
storms which had the potential to reach land.4 In 1977, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution
prohibiting the hostile use of environmental modification techniques. The resulting “Convention on the
Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Technique (ENMOD)”
committed the signatories to refrain from any military or other hostile use of weather-modification which
could result in widespread, long-lasting, or severe effects.5 While these two events have not halted the
pursuit of weather-modification research, they have significantly inhibited its pace and the development of
associated technologies, while producing a primary focus on suppressive versus intensification activities.
The influence of the weather on military operations has long been recognized. During World War II,
Eisenhower said,
[i]n Europe bad weather is the worst enemy of the air [operations]. Some soldier once
said, “The weather is always neutral.” Nothing could be more untrue. Bad weather is
obviously the enemy of the side that seeks to launch projects requiring good weather, or of
the side possessing great assets, such as strong air forces, which depend upon good
weather for effective operations. If really bad weather should endure permanently, the
Nazi would need nothing else to defend the Normandy coast!6
The impact of weather has also been important in more recent military operations. A significant number
of the air sorties into Tuzla during the initial deployment supporting the Bosnian peace operation aborted due
to weather. During Operation Desert Storm, Gen Buster C. Glosson asked his weather officer to tell him
which targets would be clear in 48 hours for inclusion in the air tasking order (ATO).7 But current
forecasting capability is only 85 percent accurate for no more than 24 hours, which doesn't adequately meet
the needs of the ATO planning cycle. Over 50 percent of the F-117 sorties weather aborted over their targets
and A-10s only flew 75 of 200 scheduled close air support (CAS) missions due to low cloud cover during
the first two days of the campaign.8 The application of weather-modification technology to clear a hole over
the targets long enough for F-117s to attack and place bombs on target or clear the fog from the runway at
Tuzla would have been a very effective force multiplier. Weather-modification clearly has potential for
military use at the operational level to reduce the elements of fog and friction for friendly operations and to
significantly increase them for the enemy.
What Do We Mean by “Weather-modification”?
Today, weather-modification is the alteration of weather phenomena over a limited area for a limited
period of time.9 Within the next three decades, the concept of weather-modification could expand to include
the ability to shape weather patterns by influencing their determining factors.10 Achieving such a highly
accurate and reasonably precise weather-modification capability in the next 30 years will require
overcoming some challenging but not insurmountable technological and legal hurdles.
Technologically, we must have a solid understanding of the variables that affect weather. We must be
able to model the dynamics of their relationships, map the possible results of their interactions, measure their
actual real-time values, and influence their values to achieve a desired outcome. Society will have to
provide the resources and legal basis for a mature capability to develop. How could all of this happen? The
following notional scenario postulates how weather-modification might become both technically feasible and
socially desirable by 2025.
Between now and 2005, technological advances in meteorology and the demand for more precise
weather information by global businesses will lead to the successful identification and parameterization of
the major variables that affect weather. By 2015, advances in computational capability, modeling techniques,
and atmospheric information tracking will produce a highly accurate and reliable weather prediction
capability, validated against real-world weather. In the following decade, population densities put pressure
on the worldwide availability and cost of food and usable water. Massive life and property losses
associated with natural weather disasters become increasingly unacceptable. These pressures prompt
governments and/or other organizations who are able to capitalize on the technological advances of the
previous 20 years to pursue a highly accurate and reasonably precise weather-modification capability. The
increasing urgency to realize the benefits of this capability stimulates laws and treaties, and some unilateral
actions, making the risks required to validate and refine it acceptable. By 2025, the world, or parts of it, are
able to shape local weather patterns by influencing the factors that affect climate, precipitation, storms and
their effects, fog, and near space. These highly accurate and reasonably precise civil applications of
weather-modification technology have obvious military implications. This is particularly true for aerospace
forces, for while weather may affect all mediums of operation, it operates in ours.
The term weather-modification may have negative connotations for many people, civilians and military
members alike. It is thus important to define the scope to be considered in this paper so that potential critics
or proponents of further research have a common basis for discussion.
In the broadest sense, weather-modification can be divided into two major categories: suppression and
intensification of weather patterns. In extreme cases, it might involve the creation of completely new weather
patterns, attenuation or control of severe storms, or even alteration of global climate on a far-reaching and/or
long-lasting scale. In the mildest and least controversial cases it may consist of inducing or suppressing
precipitation, clouds, or fog for short times over a small-scale region. Other low-intensity applications might
include the alteration and/or use of near space as a medium to enhance communications, disrupt active or
passive sensing, or other purposes. In conducting the research for this study, the broadest possible
interpretation of weather-modification was initially embraced, so that the widest range of opportunities
available for our military in 2025 were thoughtfully considered. However, for several reasons described
below, this paper focuses primarily on localized and short-term forms of weather-modification and how
these could be incorporated into war-fighting capability. The primary areas discussed include generation and
dissipation of precipitation, clouds, and fog; modification of localized storm systems; and the use of the
ionosphere and near space for space control and communications dominance. These applications are
consistent with CJCSI 3810.01, “Meteorological and Oceanographic Operations.”
11
Extreme and controversial examples of weather modification—creation of made-to-order weather,
large-scale climate modification, creation and/or control (or “steering”) of severe storms, etc.—were
researched as part of this study but receive only brief mention here because, in the authors’ judgment, the
technical obstacles preventing their application appear insurmountable within 30 years.12 If this were not the
case, such applications would have been included in this report as potential military options, despite their
controversial and potentially malevolent nature and their inconsistency with standing UN agreements to
which the US is a signatory.
On the other hand, the weather-modification applications proposed in this report range from technically
proven to potentially feasible. They are similar, however, in that none are currently employed or envisioned
for employment by our operational forces. They are also similar in their potential value for the war fighter of
the future, as we hope to convey in the following chapters. A notional integrated system that incorporates
weather-modification tools will be described in the next chapter; how those tools might be applied are then
discussed within the framework of the Concept of Operations in chapter 4.
7
1 Gen Gordon R. Sullivan, “Moving into the 21st Century: America’s Army and Modernization,”
Military Review (July 1993) quoted in Mary Ann Seagraves and Richard Szymber, “Weather a Force
Multiplier,” Military Review, November/December 1995, 75.
2 Horace R. Byers, “History of Weather-modification,” in Wilmot N. Hess, ed. Weather and Climate
Modification, (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1974), 4.
3 William B. Meyer, “The Life and Times of US Weather: What Can We Do About It?” American
Heritage 37, no. 4 (June/July 1986), 48.
4 Byers, 13.
5 US Department of State, The Department of State Bulletin. 74, no. 1981 (13 June 1977): 10.
6 Dwight D Eisenhower. “Crusade in Europe,” quoted in John F. Fuller, Thor’s Legions (Boston:
American Meterology Society, 1990), 67.
7 Interview of Lt Col Gerald F. Riley, Staff Weather Officer to CENTCOM OIC of CENTAF Weather
Support Force and Commander of 3rd Weather Squadron, in “Desert Shield/Desert Storm Interview Series,”
by Dr William E. Narwyn, AWS Historian, 29 May 1991.
8 Thomas A. Keaney and Eliot A. Cohen. Gulf War Air Power Survey Summary Report (Washington
D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1993), 172.
9 Herbert S. Appleman, An Introduction to Weather-modification (Scott AFB, Ill.: Air Weather
Service/MAC, September 1969), 1.
10 William Bown, “Mathematicians Learn How to Tame Chaos,” New Scientist, 30 May 1992, 16.
11 CJCSI 3810.01, Meteorological and Oceanographic Operations, 10 January 95. This CJCS
Instruction establishes policy and assigns responsibilities for conducting meteorological and oceanographic
operations. It also defines the terms widespread, long-lasting, and severe, in order to identify those activities
that US forces are prohibited from conducting under the terms of the UN Environmental Modification
Convention. Widespread is defined as encompassing an area on the scale of several hundred km; long-lasting
means lasting for a period of months, or approximately a season; and severe involves serious or significant
disruption or harm to human life, natural and economic resources, or other assets.
12 Concern about the unintended consequences of attempting to “control” the weather is well justified.
Weather is a classic example of a chaotic system (i.e., a system that never exactly repeats itself). A chaotic
system is also extremely sensitive: minuscule differences in conditions greatly affect outcomes. According to
Dr. Glenn James, a widely published chaos expert, technical advances may provide a means to predict when
weather transitions will occur and the magnitude of the inputs required to cause those transitions; however, it
will never be possible to precisely predict changes that occur as a result of our inputs. The chaotic nature of
weather also limits our ability to make accurate long-range forecasts. The renowned physicist Edward
Teller recently presented calculations he performed to determine the long-range weather forecasting
improvement that would result from a satellite constellation providing continuous atmospheric measurements
over a 1 km2 grid worldwide. Such a system, which is currently cost-prohibitive, would only improve longrange
forecasts from the current five days to approximately 14 days. Clearly, there are definite physical
limits to mankind’s ability to control nature, but the extent of those physical limits remains an open question.
Sources: G. E. James, “Chaos Theory: The Essentials for Military Applications,” in ACSC Theater Air
Campaign Studies Coursebook, AY96, 8 (Maxwell AFB, Ala: Air University Press, 1995), 1-64. The
Teller calculations are cited in Reference 49 of this source.
System Description
Our vision is that by 2025 the military could influence the weather on a mesoscale (<200 km2) or
microscale (immediate local area) to achieve operational capabilities such as those listed in Table 1. The
capability would be the synergistic result of a system consisting of (1) highly trained weather force
specialists (WFS) who are members of the CINC’s weather force support element (WFSE); (2) access ports
to the global weather network (GWN), where worldwide weather observations and forecasts are obtained
near-real-time from civilian and military sources; (3) a dense, highly accurate local area weather sensing and
communication system; (4) an advanced computer local area weather-modification modeling and prediction
capability within the area of responsibility (AOR); (5) proven weather-modification intervention
technologies; and (6) a feedback capability.
The Global Weather Network
The GWN is envisioned to be an evolutionary expansion of the current military and civilian worldwide
weather data network. By 2025, it will be a super high-speed, expanded bandwidth, communication network
filled with near-real-time weather observations taken from a denser and more accurate worldwide
observation network resulting from highly improved ground, air, maritime, and space sensors. The network
will also provide access to forecast centers around the world where sophisticated, tailored forecast and data
products, generated from weather prediction models (global, regional, local, specialized, etc.) based on the
latest nonlinear mathematical techniques are made available to GWN customers for near-real-time use.
By 2025, we envision that weather prediction models, in general, and mesoscale weather-modification
models, in particular, will be able to emulate all-weather producing variables, along with their interrelated
dynamics, and prove to be highly accurate in stringent measurement trials against empirical data. The brains
of these models will be advanced software and hardware capabilities which can rapidly ingest trillions of
environmental data points, merge them into usable data bases, process the data through the weather prediction
models, and disseminate the weather information over the GWN in near-real-time.1 This network is depicted
schematically in figure 3-1.
Source: Microsoft Clipart Gallery ã 1995 with courtesy from Microsoft.
Figure 3-1. Global Weather Network
Evidence of the evolving future weather modeling and prediction capability as well as the GWN can be
seen in the national oceanic and atmospheric administration's (NOAA) 1995–2005 strategic plan. It includes
program elements to "advance short-term warning and forecast services, implement seasonal to inter-annual
climate forecasts, and predict and assess decadal to centennial change;"2 it does not, however, include plans
for weather-modification modeling or modification technology development. NOAA's plans include
extensive data gathering programs such as Next Generation Radar (NEXRAD) and Doppler weather
surveillance systems deployed throughout the US. Data from these sensing systems feed into over 100
forecast centers for processing by the Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS), which
will provide data communication, processing, and display capabilities for extensive forecasting. In addition,
NOAA has leased a Cray C90 supercomputer capable of performing over 1.5x1010 operations per second that
has already been used to run a Hurricane Prediction System.3
Applying Weather-modification to Military Operations
How will the military, in general, and the USAF, in particular, manage and employ a weathermodification
capability? We envision this will be done by the weather force support element (WFSE),
whose primary mission would be to support the war-fighting CINCs with weather-modification options, in
addition to current forecasting support. Although the WFSE could operate anywhere as long as it has access
to the GWN and the system components already discussed, it will more than likely be a component within the
AOC or its 2025-equivalent. With the CINC’s intent as guidance, the WFSE formulates weathermodification
options using information provided by the GWN, local weather data network, and weathermodification
forecast model. The options include range of effect, probability of success, resources to be
expended, the enemy’s vulnerability, and risks involved. The CINC chooses an effect based on these inputs,
and the WFSE then implements the chosen course, selecting the right modification tools and employing them
to achieve the desired effect. Sensors detect the change and feed data on the new weather pattern to the
modeling system which updates its forecast accordingly. The WFSE checks the effectiveness of its efforts by
pulling down the updated current conditions and new forecast(s) from the GWN and local weather data
network, and plans follow-on missions as needed. This concept is illustrated in figure 3-2.
11
33--DECIISIION
6--FEEDBACK
AIIR OPS CENTER
WEATHER FORCE
SUPPORT ELEMENT
CINC
1--IINTENT
2--WX MOD
OPTIIONS
FORECASTS//
DATA
4--EMPLOY
WX MOD TOOLS
5--CAUSE EFFECT
GWN
Source: Microsoft Clipart Gallery ã 1995 with courtesy from Microsoft.
Figure 3-2. The Military System for Weather-Modification Operations.
WFSE personnel will need to be experts in information systems and well schooled in the arts of both
offensive and defensive information warfare. They would also have an in-depth understanding of the GWN
and an appreciation for how weather-modification could be employed to meet a CINC’s needs.
Because of the nodal web nature of the GWN, this concept would be very flexible. For instance, a
WFSE could be assigned to each theater to provide direct support to the CINC. The system would also be
survivable, with multiple nodes connected to the GWN.
A product of the information age, this system would be most vulnerable to information warfare. Each
WFSE would need the most current defensive and offensive information capabilities available. Defensive
abilities would be necessary for survival. Offensive abilities could provide spoofing options to create
virtual weather in the enemy's sensory and information systems, making it more likely for them to make
decisions producing results of our choosing rather than theirs. It would also allow for the capability to mask
or disguise our weather-modification activities.
12
Two key technologies are necessary to meld an integrated, comprehensive, responsive, precise, and
effective weather-modification system. Advances in the science of chaos are critical to this endeavor. Also
key to the feasibility of such a system is the ability to model the extremely complex nonlinear system of
global weather in ways that can accurately predict the outcome of changes in the influencing variables.
Researchers have already successfully controlled single variable nonlinear systems in the lab and
hypothesize that current mathematical techniques and computer capacity could handle systems with up to five
variables. Advances in these two areas would make it feasible to affect regional weather patterns by making
small, continuous nudges to one or more influencing factors. Conceivably, with enough lead time and the
right conditions, you could get “made-to-order” weather.4
Developing a true weather-modification capability will require various intervention tools to adjust the
appropriate meteorological parameters in predictable ways. It is this area that must be developed by the
military based on specific required capabilities such as those listed in table 1, table 1 is located in the
Executive Summary. Such a system would contain a sensor array and localized battle area data net to
provide the fine level of resolution required to detect intervention effects and provide feedback. This net
would include ground, air, maritime, and space sensors as well as human observations in order to ensure the
reliability and responsiveness of the system, even in the event of enemy countermeasures. It 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.
Notes
1 SPACECAST 2020, Space Weather Support for Communications, white paper G (Maxwell AFB,
Ala.: Air War College/2020, 1994).
2 Rear Adm Sigmund Petersen, “NOAA Moves Toward The 21st Century,” The Military Engineer 20,
no. 571 (June-July 1995): 44.
3 Ibid.
4 William Brown, “Mathematicians Learn How to Tame Chaos,” New Scientist (30 May 1992): 16.
Concept of Operations
The essential ingredient of the weather-modification system is the set of intervention techniques used to
modify the weather. The number of specific intervention methodologies is limited only by the imagination,
but with few exceptions they involve infusing either energy or chemicals into the meteorological process in
the right way, at the right place and time. The intervention could be designed to modify the weather in a
number of ways, such as influencing clouds and precipitation, storm intensity, climate, space, or fog.
Precipitation
For centuries man has desired the ability to influence precipitation at the time and place of his choosing.
Until recently, success in achieving this goal has been minimal; however, a new window of opportunity may
exist resulting from development of new technologies and an increasing world interest in relieving water
shortages through precipitation enhancement. Consequently, we advocate that the DOD explore the many
opportunities (and also the ramifications) resulting from development of a capability to influence
precipitation or conducting “selective precipitation modification.” Although the capability to influence
precipitation over the long term (i.e., for more than several days) is still not fully understood. By 2025 we
will certainly be capable of increasing or decreasing precipitation over the short term in a localized area.
Before discussing research in this area, it is important to describe the benefits of such a capability.
While many military operations may be influenced by precipitation, ground mobility is most affected.
Influencing precipitation could prove useful in two ways. First, enhancing precipitation could decrease the
enemy’s trafficability by muddying terrain, while also affecting their morale. Second, suppressing
precipitation could increase friendly trafficability by drying out an otherwise muddied area.
What is the possibility of developing this capability and applying it to tactical operations by 2025?
Closer than one might think. Research has been conducted in precipitation modification for many years, and
an aspect of the resulting technology was applied to operations during the Vietnam War.1 These initial
attempts provide a foundation for further development of a true capability for selective precipitation
modification.
Interestingly enough, the US government made a conscious decision to stop building upon this
foundation. As mentioned earlier, international agreements have prevented the US from investigating
weather-modification operations that could have widespread, long-lasting, or severe effects. However,
possibilities do exist (within the boundaries of established treaties) for using localized precipitation
modification over the short term, with limited and potentially positive results.
These possibilities date back to our own previous experimentation with precipitation modification. As
stated in an article appearing in the Journal of Applied Meteorology,
[n]early all the weather-modification efforts over the last quarter century have been aimed
at producing changes on the cloud scale through exploitation of the saturated vapor
pressure difference between ice and water. This is not to be criticized but it is time we
also consider the feasibility of weather-modification on other time-space scales and with
other physical hypotheses.2
This study by William M. Gray, et al., investigated the hypothesis that “significant beneficial influences
can be derived through judicious exploitation of the solar absorption potential of carbon black dust.”3 The
study ultimately found that this technology could be used to enhance rainfall on the mesoscale, generate cirrus
clouds, and enhance cumulonimbus (thunderstorm) clouds in otherwise dry areas.
The technology can be described as follows. Just as a black tar roof easily absorbs solar energy and
subsequently radiates heat during a sunny day, carbon black also readily absorbs solar energy. When
dispersed in microscopic or “dust” form in the air over a large body of water, the carbon becomes hot and
heats the surrounding air, thereby increasing the amount of evaporation from the body of water below. As the
surrounding air heats up, parcels of air will rise and the water vapor contained in the rising air parcel will
eventually condense to form clouds. Over time the cloud droplets increase in size as more and more water
vapor condenses, and eventually they become too large and heavy to stay suspended and will fall as rain or
other forms of precipitation.4 The study points out that this precipitation enhancement technology would
work best “upwind from coastlines with onshore flow.” Lake-effect snow along the southern edge of the
Great Lakes is a naturally occurring phenomenon based on similar dynamics.
Can this type of precipitation enhancement technology have military applications? Yes, if the right
conditions exist. For example, if we are fortunate enough to have a fairly large body of water available
upwind from the targeted battlefield, carbon dust could be placed in the atmosphere over that water.
Assuming the dynamics are supportive in the atmosphere, the rising saturated air will eventually form clouds
and rainshowers downwind over the land.5 While the likelihood of having a body of water located upwind
of the battlefield is unpredictable, the technology could prove enormously useful under the right conditions.
Only further experimentation will determine to what degree precipitation enhancement can be controlled.
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 location. Transporting it in a completely
controlled, safe, cost-effective, and reliable manner requires innovation. 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. This method is
based on injection of liquid hydrocarbon fuel into the afterburner’s combustion gases. This direct generation
method was found to be more desirable than another plausible method (i.e., the transport of large quantities of
previously produced and properly sized carbon dust to the desired altitude).
The carbon dust study demonstrated that small-scale precipitation enhancement is possible and has been
successfully verified under certain atmospheric conditions. Since the study was conducted, no known
military applications of this technology have been realized. However, we can postulate how this technology
might be used in the future by examining some of the delivery platforms conceivably available for effective
dispersal of carbon dust or other effective modification agents in the year 2025.
One method we propose would further maximize the technology’s safety and reliability, by virtually
eliminating the human element. To date, much work has been done on UAVs which can closely (if not
completely) match the capabilities of piloted aircraft. 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. However, minimizing the number of
UAVs required to complete the mission would depend upon the development of a new and more efficient
system to produce carbon dust by a follow-on technology to the afterburner-type jet engines previously
mentioned. In order to effectively use stealth technology, this system must also have the ability to disperse
carbon dust while minimizing (or eliminating) the UAV’s infrared heat source.
In addition to using stealth UAV and carbon dust absorption technology for precipitation enhancement,
this delivery method could also be used for precipitation suppression. Although the previously mentioned
study did not significantly explore the possibility of cloud seeding for precipitation suppression, this
possibility does exist. If clouds were seeded (using chemical nuclei similar to those used today or perhaps a
more effective agent discovered through continued research) before their downwind arrival to a desired
location, the result could be a suppression of precipitation. In other words, precipitation could be “forced”
to fall before its arrival in the desired territory, thereby making the desired territory “dry.” The strategic and
operational benefits of doing this have previously been discussed.
Fog
In general, successful fog dissipation requires some type of heating or seeding process. Which
technique works best depends on the type of fog encountered. In simplest terms, there are two basic types of
fog—cold and warm. Cold fog occurs at temperatures below 32oF. The best-known dissipation technique
for cold fog is to seed it from the air with agents that promote the growth of ice crystals.6
Warm fog occurs at temperatures above 32oF and accounts for 90 percent of the fog-related problems
encountered by flight operations.7 The best-known dissipation technique is heating because a small
temperature increase is usually sufficient to evaporate the fog. Since heating usually isn’t practical, the next
most effective technique is hygroscopic seeding.8 Hygroscopic seeding uses agents that absorb water vapor.
This technique is most effective when accomplished from the air but can also be accomplished from the
ground.9 Optimal results require advance information on fog depth, liquid water content, and wind.10
Decades of research show that fog dissipation is an effective application of weather-modification
technology with demonstrated savings of huge proportions for both military and civil aviation.11 Local
municipalities have also shown an interest in applying these techniques to improve the safety of high-speed
highways transiting areas of frequently occurring dense fog.12
There are some emerging technologies which may have important applications for fog dispersal. As
discussed earlier, heating is the most effective dispersal method for the most commonly occurring type of fog.
Unfortunately, it has proved impractical for most situations and would be difficult at best for contingency
operations. However, the development of directed radiant energy technologies, such as microwaves and
lasers, could provide new possibilities.
Lab experiments have shown microwaves to be effective for the heat dissipation of fog. However,
results also indicate that the energy levels required exceed the US large power density exposure limit of 100
watt/m2 and would be very expensive.13 Field experiments with lasers have demonstrated the capability to
dissipate warm fog at an airfield with zero visibility. Generating 1 watt/cm2, which is approximately the US
large power density exposure limit, the system raised visibility to one quarter of a mile in 20 seconds.14
Laser systems described in the Space Operations portion of this AF 2025 study could certainly provide this
capability as one of their many possible uses.
With regard to seeding techniques, improvements in the materials and delivery methods are not only
plausible but likely. Smart materials based on nanotechnology are currently being developed with gigaops
computer capability at their core. They could adjust their size to optimal dimensions for a given fog seeding
situation and even make adjustments throughout the process. They might also enhance their dispersal
qualities by adjusting their buoyancy, by communicating with each other, and by steering themselves within
the fog. They will be able to provide immediate and continuous effectiveness feedback by integrating with a
larger sensor network and can also change their temperature and polarity to improve their seeding effects.15
As mentioned above, UAVs could be used to deliver and distribute these smart materials.
Recent army research lab experiments have demonstrated the feasibility of generating fog. They used
commercial equipment to generate thick fog in an area 100 meters long. Further study has shown fogs to be
effective at blocking much of the UV/IR/visible spectrum, effectively masking emitters of such radiation from
IR weapons.16 This technology would enable a small military unit to avoid detection in the IR spectrum. Fog
could be generated to quickly, conceal the movement of tanks or infantry, or it could conceal military
operations, facilities, or equipment. Such systems may also be useful in inhibiting observations of sensitive
rear-area operations by electro-optical reconnaissance platforms.17
Storms
The desirability to modify storms to support military objectives is the most aggressive and
controversial type of weather-modification. The damage caused by storms is indeed horrendous. For
instance, a tropical storm has an energy equal to 10,000 one-megaton hydrogen bombs,18 and in 1992
Hurricane Andrew totally destroyed Homestead AFB, Florida, caused the evacuation of most military
aircraft in the southeastern US, and resulted in $15.5 billion of damage.19 However, as one would expect
based on a storm’s energy level, current scientific literature indicates that there are definite physical limits on
mankind’s ability to modify storm systems. By taking this into account along with political, environmental,
economic, legal, and moral considerations, we will confine our analysis of storms to localized thunderstorms
and thus do not consider major storm systems such as hurricanes or intense low-pressure systems.
At any instant there are approximately 2,000 thunderstorms taking place. In fact 45,000 thunderstorms,
which contain heavy rain, hail, microbursts, wind shear, and lightning form daily.20 Anyone who has flown
frequently on commercial aircraft has probably noticed the extremes that pilots will go to avoid
thunderstorms. The danger of thunderstorms was clearly shown in August 1985 when a jumbo jet crashed
killing 137 people after encountering microburst wind shears during a rain squall.21 These forces of nature
impact all aircraft and even the most advanced fighters of 1996 make every attempt to avoid a thunderstorm.
Will bad weather remain an aviation hazard in 2025? The answer, unfortunately, is “yes,” but
projected advances in technology over the next 30 years will diminish the hazard potential. Computercontrolled
flight systems will be able to “autopilot” aircraft through rapidly changing winds. Aircraft will
also have highly accurate, onboard sensing systems that can instantaneously “map” and automatically guide
the aircraft through the safest portion of a storm cell. Aircraft are envisioned to have hardened electronics
that can withstand the effects of lightning strikes and may also have the capability to generate a surrounding
electropotential field that will neutralize or repel lightning strikes.
Assuming that the US achieves some or all of the above outlined aircraft technical advances and
maintains the technological “weather edge” over its potential adversaries, we can next look at how we could
modify the battlespace weather to make the best use of our technical advantage.
Weather-modification technologies might involve techniques that would increase latent heat release in
the atmosphere, provide additional water vapor for cloud cell development, and provide additional surface
and lower atmospheric heating to increase atmospheric instability. Critical to the success of any attempt to
trigger a storm cell is the pre-existing atmospheric conditions locally and regionally. The atmosphere must
already be conditionally unstable and the large-scale dynamics must be supportive of vertical cloud
development. The focus of the weather-modification effort would be to provide additional “conditions” that
would make the atmosphere unstable enough to generate cloud and eventually storm cell development. The
path of storm cells once developed or enhanced is dependent not only on the mesoscale dynamics of the storm
but the regional and synoptic (global) scale atmospheric wind flow patterns in the area which are currently
not subject to human control.
As indicated, the technical hurdles for storm development in support of military operations are
obviously greater than enhancing precipitation or dispersing fog as described earlier. One area of storm
research that would significantly benefit military operations is lightning modification. Most research efforts
are being conducted to develop techniques to lessen the occurrence or hazards associated with lightning.
This is important research for military operations and resource protection, but some offensive military benefit
could be obtained by doing research on increasing the potential and intensity of lightning. Concepts to
explore include increasing the basic efficiency of the thunderstorm, stimulating the triggering mechanism that
initiates the bolt, and triggering lightning such as that which struck Apollo 12 in 1968.22 Possible
mechanisms to investigate would be ways to modify the electropotential characteristics over certain targets to
induce lightning strikes on the desired targets as the storm passes over their location.
In summary, the ability to modify battlespace weather through storm cell triggering or enhancement
would allow us to exploit the technological “weather” advances of our 2025 aircraft; this area has
tremendous potential and should be addressed by future research and concept development programs.
Exploitation of “NearSpace” for Space Control
This section discusses opportunities for control and modification of the ionosphere and near-space
environment for force enhancement; specifically to enhance our own communications, sensing, and navigation
capabilities and/or impair those of our enemy. A brief technical description of the ionosphere and its
importance in current communications systems is provided in appendix A.
By 2025, it may be possible to modify the ionosphere and near space, creating a variety of potential
applications, as discussed below. However, before ionospheric modification becomes possible, a number of
evolutionary advances in space weather forecasting and observation are needed. Many of these needs were
described in a Spacecast 2020 study, Space Weather Support for Communications.23 Some of the
suggestions from this study are included in appendix B; it is important to note that our ability to exploit near
space via active modification is dependent on successfully achieving reliable observation and prediction
capabilities.
Opportunities Afforded by Space Weather-modification
Modification of the near-space environment is crucial to battlespace dominance. General Charles
Horner, former commander in chief, United States space command, described his worst nightmare as “seeing
an entire Marine battalion wiped out on some foreign landing zone because he was unable to deny the enemy
intelligence and imagery generated from space.”24 Active modification could provide a “technological fix”
to jam the enemy’s active and passive surveillance and reconnaissance systems. In short, an operational
capability to modify the near-space environment would ensure space superiority in 2025; this capability
would allow us to shape and control the battlespace via enhanced communication, sensing, navigation,
and precision engagement systems.
While we recognize that technological advances may negate the importance of certain electromagnetic
frequencies for US aerospace forces in 2025 (such as radio frequency (RF), high-frequency (HF) and very
high-frequency (VHF) bands), the capabilities described below are nevertheless relevant. Our nonpeer
adversaries will most likely still depend on such frequencies for communications, sensing, and navigation
and would thus be extremely vulnerable to disruption via space weather-modification.
Communications Dominance via Ionospheric Modification
Modification of the ionosphere to enhance or disrupt communications has recently become the subject of
active research. According to Lewis M. Duncan, and Robert L. Showen, the Former Soviet Union (FSU)
conducted theoretical and experimental research in this area at a level considerably greater than comparable
programs in the West.25 There is a strong motivation for this research, because
induced ionospheric modifications may influence, or even disrupt, the operation of radio
systems relying on propagation through the modified region. The controlled generation or
accelerated dissipation of ionospheric disturbances may be used to produce new
propagation paths, otherwise unavailable, appropriate for selected RF missions.26
A number of methods have been explored or proposed to modify the ionosphere, including injection of
chemical vapors and heating or charging via electromagnetic radiation or particle beams (such as ions,
neutral particles, x-rays, MeV particles, and energetic electrons).27 It is important to note that many
techniques to modify the upper atmosphere have been successfully demonstrated experimentally. Groundbased
modification techniques employed by the FSU include vertical HF heating, oblique HF heating,
microwave heating, and magnetospheric modification.28 Significant military applications of such operations
include low frequency (LF) communication production, HF ducted communications, and creation of an
artificial ionosphere (discussed in detail below). Moreover, developing countries also recognize the benefit
of ionospheric modification: “in the early 1980’s, Brazil conducted an experiment to modify the ionosphere
by chemical injection.”29
Several high-payoff capabilities that could result from the modification of the ionosphere or near space
are described briefly below. It should be emphasized that this list is not comprehensive; modification of the
ionosphere is an area rich with potential applications and there are also likely spin-off applications that have
yet to be envisioned.
Ionospheric mirrors for pinpoint communication or over-the-horizon (OTH) radar transmission.
The properties and limitations of the ionosphere as a reflecting medium for high-frequency radiation are
described in appendix A. The major disadvantage in depending on the ionosphere to reflect radio waves is
its variability, which is due to normal space weather and events such as solar flares and geomagnetic storms.
The ionosphere has been described as a crinkled sheet of wax paper whose relative position rises and sinks
depending on weather conditions. The surface topography of the crinkled paper also constantly changes,
leading to variability in its reflective, refractive, and transmissive properties.
Creation of an artificial uniform ionosphere was first proposed by Soviet researcher A. V. Gurevich in
the mid-1970s. An artificial ionospheric mirror (AIM) would serve as a precise mirror for electromagnetic
radiation of a selected frequency or a range of frequencies. It would thereby be useful for both pinpoint
control of friendly communications and interception of enemy transmissions.
This concept has been described in detail by Paul A. Kossey, et al. in a paper entitled “Artificial
Ionospheric Mirrors (AIM).”30 The authors describe how one could precisely control the location and height
of the region of artificially produced ionization using crossed microwave (MW) beams, which produce
atmospheric breakdown (ionization) of neutral species. The implications of such control are enormous: one
would no longer be subject to the vagaries of the natural ionosphere but would instead have direct control of
the propagation environment. Ideally, the AIM could be rapidly created and then would be maintained only
for a brief operational period. A schematic depicting the crossed-beam approach for generation of an AIM is
shown in figure 4-1.31
An AIM could theoretically reflect radio waves with frequencies up to 2 GHz, which is nearly two
orders of magnitude higher than those waves reflected by the natural ionosphere. The MW radiator power
requirements for such a system are roughly an order of magnitude greater than 1992 state-of-the-art systems;
however, by 2025 such a power capability is expected to be easily achievable.
NORMAL IONOSPHERIC REFLECTING LAYERS
(100-300 km)
IONIZATION LAYER
(MIRROR)
INTENSE MW 30-70 km
BEAMS
Source: Microsoft Clipart Gallery ã 1995 with courtesy from Microsoft.
Figure 4-1. Crossed-Beam Approach for Generating an Artificial Ionospheric Mirror
Besides providing pinpoint communication control and potential interception capability, this technology
would also provide communication capability at specified frequencies, as desired. Figure 4-2 shows how a
ground-based radiator might generate a series of AIMs, each of which would be tailored to reflect a selected
transmission frequency. Such an arrangement would greatly expand the available bandwidth for
communications and also eliminate the problem of interference and crosstalk (by allowing one to use the
requisite power level).
Artificial Ionospheric Mirrors
8 MHz
5 MHz 12 MHz
14 MHz
GROUND-BASED
AIM GENERATOR
TRANSMISSION
STATION
RECEIVER
STATION
Source: Microsoft Clipart Gallery ã 1995 with courtesy from Microsoft.
Figure 4-2. Artificial Ionospheric Mirrors Point-to-Point Communications
Kossey et al. also describe how AIMs could be used to improve the capability of OTH radar:
AIM based radar could be operated at a frequency chosen to optimize target detection,
rather than be limited by prevailing ionospheric conditions. This, combined with the
possibility of controlling the radar’s wave polarization to mitigate clutter effects, could
result in reliable detection of cruise missiles and other low observable targets.32
A schematic depicting this concept is shown in figure 4-3. Potential advantages over conventional OTH
radars include frequency control, mitigation of auroral effects, short range operation, and detection of a
smaller cross-section target.
IONOSPHERE
AIM
OTH
RADAR
NORMAL
OTH RANGE
Source: Microsoft Clipart Gallery ã 1995 with courtesy from Microsoft.
Figure 4-3. Artificial Ionospheric Mirror Over-the-Horizon Surveillance Concept.
Disruption of communications and radar via ionospheric control. A variation of the capability
proposed above is ionospheric modification to disrupt an enemy’s communication or radar transmissions.
Because HF communications are controlled directly by the ionosphere’s properties, an artificially created
ionization region could conceivably disrupt an enemy’s electromagnetic transmissions. Even in the absence
of an artificial ionization patch, high-frequency modification produces large-scale ionospheric variations
which alter HF propagation characteristics. The payoff of research aimed at understanding how to control
these variations could be high as both HF communication enhancement and degradation are possible.
Offensive interference of this kind would likely be indistinguishable from naturally occurring space weather.
This capability could also be employed to precisely locate the source of enemy electromagnetic
transmissions.
VHF, UHF, and super-high frequency (SHF) satellite communications could be disrupted by creating
artificial ionospheric scintillation. This phenomenon causes fluctuations in the phase and amplitude of radio
waves over a very wide band (30 MHz to 30 GHz). HF modification produces electron density irregularities
that cause scintillation over a wide-range of frequencies. The size of the irregularities determines which
frequency band will be affected. Understanding how to control the spectrum of the artificial irregularities
generated in the HF modification process should be a primary goal of research in this area. Additionally, it
may be possible to suppress the growth of natural irregularities resulting in reduced levels of natural
scintillation. Creating artificial scintillation would allow us to disrupt satellite transmissions over selected
regions. Like the HF disruption described above, such actions would likely be indistinguishable from
naturally occurring environmental events. Figure 4-4 shows how artificially ionized regions might be used to
disrupt HF communications via attenuation, scatter, or absorption (fig. 4.4a) or degrade satellite
communications via scintillation or energy loss (fig. 4-4b) (from Ref. 25).
km
300
100
50
REGION
F
E
D
POTENTIAL HF PROBLEMS
ABSORPTION
ATTENUATION
SCATTER
GROUND
REGION
F
E
D
km
300
100
50
SCINTILLATION
ENERGY LOSS
GROUND
POTENTIAL TRANSIONOSPHERIC PROBLEMS
(a) (b)
Source: Microsoft Clipart Gallery ã 1995 with courtesy from Microsoft.
Figure 4-4. Scenarios for Telecommunications Degradation
Exploding/disabling space assets traversing near-space. The ionosphere could potentially be
artificially charged or injected with radiation at a certain point so that it becomes inhospitable to satellites or
other space structures. The result could range from temporarily disabling the target to its complete
destruction via an induced explosion. Of course, effectively employing such a capability depends on the
ability to apply it selectively to chosen regions in space.
Charging space assets by near-space energy transfer. In contrast to the injurious capability described
above, regions of the ionosphere could potentially be modified or used as-is to revitalize space assets, for
instance by charging their power systems. The natural charge of the ionosphere may serve to provide most or
all of the energy input to the satellite. There have been a number of papers in the last decade on electrical
charging of space vehicles; however, according to one author, “in spite of the significant effort made in the
field both theoretically and experimentally, the vehicle charging problem is far from being completely
understood.”33 While the technical challenge is considerable, the potential to harness electrostatic energy to
fuel the satellite’s power cells would have a high payoff, enabling service life extension of space assets at a
relatively low cost. Additionally, exploiting the capability of powerful HF radio waves to accelerate
electrons to relatively high energies may also facilitate the degradation of enemy space assets through
directed bombardment with the HF-induced electron beams. As with artificial HF communication
disruptions and induced scintillation, the degradation of enemy spacecraft with such techniques would be
effectively indistinguishable from natural environment effects. The investigation and optimization of HF
acceleration mechanisms for both friendly and hostile purposes is an important area for future research
efforts.
Artificial Weather
While most weather-modification efforts rely on the existence of certain preexisting conditions, it may
be possible to produce some weather effects artificially, regardless of preexisting conditions. For instance,
virtual weather could be created by influencing the weather information received by an end user. Their
perception of parameter values or images from global or local meteorological information systems would
differ from reality. This difference in perception would lead the end user to make degraded operational
decisions.
Nanotechnology also offers possibilities for creating simulated weather. A cloud, or several clouds, of
microscopic computer particles, all communicating with each other and with a larger control system could
provide tremendous capability. Interconnected, atmospherically buoyant, and having navigation capability in
three dimensions, such clouds could be designed to have a wide-range of properties. They might exclusively
block optical sensors or could adjust to become impermeable to other surveillance methods. They could also
provide an atmospheric electrical potential difference, which otherwise might not exist, to achieve precisely
aimed and timed lightning strikes. Even if power levels achieved were insufficient to be an effective strike
weapon, the potential for psychological operations in many situations could be fantastic.
One major advantage of using simulated weather to achieve a desired effect is that unlike other
approaches, it makes what are otherwise the results of deliberate actions appear to be the consequences of
natural weather phenomena. In addition, it is potentially relatively inexpensive to do. According to J. Storrs
Hall, a scientist at Rutgers University conducting research on nanotechnology, production costs of these
nanoparticles could be about the same price per pound as potatoes.34 This of course discounts research and
development costs, which will be primarily borne by the private sector and be considered a sunk cost by
2025 and probably earlier.
Concept of Operations Summary
Weather affects everything we do, and weather-modification can enhance our ability to dominate the
aerospace environment. It gives the commander tools to shape the battlespace. It gives the logistician tools
to optimize the process. It gives the warriors in the cockpit an operating environment literally crafted to their
needs. Some of the potential capabilities a weather-modification system could provide to a war-fighting
CINC are summarized in table 1, of the executive summary).
HAARP: The Ultimate Weapon?
"Seldom does a book become the seminal voice of reason when pitted against dangerous conspiracies that advance the agenda of special interests. Jerry E. Smith's HAARP: The Ultimate Weapon of the Conspiracy does just that. With utmost logic, it paints an accurate picture of governmental technology run amok in its attempts to spread American hegemony at any cost - perhaps even including planet Earth."
Vin Smith Host/Producer
Vin Smith's Midnight Bookworm
Broadcast nationally on CRN Digital Talk and the National Radio Network
Weather warfare
Beware the US military’s experiments with climatic warfare, says Michel Chossudovsky
Rarely acknowledged in the
debate on global climate change,
the world’s weather can now be
modified as part of a new
generation of sophisticated
electromagnetic weapons. Both the US and
Russia have developed capabilities to
manipulate the climate for military use.
Environmental modification techniques
have been applied by the US military for more
than half a century. US mathematician John
von Neumann, in liaison with the US
Department of Defense, started his research
on weather modification in the late 1940s at
the height of the Cold War and foresaw ‘forms
of climatic warfare as yet unimagined’.
During the Vietnam war, cloud-seeding
techniques were used, starting in 1967 under
Project Popeye, the objective of which was to
prolong the monsoon season and block enemy
supply routes along the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
The US military has developed advanced
capabilities that enable it selectively to alter
weather patterns. The technology, which is
being perfected under the High-frequency
Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), is
an appendage of the Strategic Defense Initiative
– ‘Star Wars’. From a military standpoint,
HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction,
operating from the outer atmosphere and
capable of destabilising agricultural and
ecological systems around the world.
Weather-modification, according to the US
Air Force document AF 2025 Final Report,
‘offers the war fighter a wide range of possible
options to defeat or coerce an adversary’,
capabilities, it says, extend to the triggering of
floods, hurricanes, droughts and earthquakes:
‘Weather modification will become a part of
domestic and international security and could
be done unilaterally… It could have offensive
and defensive applications and even be used
for deterrence purposes. The ability to
generate precipitation, fog and storms on
earth or to modify space weather… and the
production of artificial weather all are a part
of an integrated set of [military] technologies.’
In 1977, an international Convention was
ratified by the UN General Assembly which
banned ‘military or other hostile use of
environmental modification techniques having
widespread, long-lasting or severe effects.’
It defined ‘environmental modification
techniques’ as ‘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.’
While the substance of the 1977 Convention
was reasserted in the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) signed at the 1992
Earth Summit in Rio, debate
on weather modification
for military use has
become a scientific
taboo. Military analysts
are mute on the subject.
Meteorologists are not
investigating the matter
and environmentalists are
focused on greenhouse gas
emissions under the Kyoto
Protocol. Neither is the possibility
of climatic or environmental manipulations as
part of a military and intelligence agenda,
while tacitly acknowledged, part of the broader
debate on climate change under UN auspices.
The HAARP Programme
Established in 1992, HAARP, based in Gokona,
Alaska, is an array of high-powered antennas
that transmit, through high-frequency radio
waves, massive amounts of energy into the
ionosphere (the upper layer of the atmosphere).
Their construction was funded by the US Air
Force, the US Navy and the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
Operated jointly by the Air Force Research
Laboratory and the Office of Naval Research,
HAARP constitutes a system of powerful
antennas capable of creating ‘controlled local
modifications of the ionosphere’. According to
its official website, www.haarp.alaska.edu,
HAARP will be used ‘to induce a small, localized
change in ionospheric temperature so physical
reactions can be studied by other instruments
located either at or close to the HAARP site’.
But Rosalie Bertell, president of the
International Institute of Concern for Public
Health, says HAARP operates as ‘a gigantic
heater that can cause major disruptions in the
ionosphere, creating not just holes, but long
incisions in the protective layer that keeps
deadly radiation from bombarding the planet’.
Physicist Dr Bernard Eastlund called it ‘the
largest ionospheric heater ever built’.
HAARP is presented by the US Air Force as a
research programme, but military documents
confirm its main objective is to ‘induce
ionospheric modifications’ with
a view to altering weather
patterns and disrupting
communications and radar.
According to a report
by the Russian State
Duma: ‘The US plans to
carry out large-scale
experiments under the
HAARP programme [and]
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 entire regions.’
An analysis of statements emanating from
the US Air Force points to the unthinkable: the
covert manipulation of weather patterns,
communications and electric power systems
as a weapon of global warfare, enabling the US
to disrupt and dominate entire regions.
Weather manipulation is the pre-emptive
weapon par excellence. It can be directed
against enemy countries or ‘friendly nations’
without their knowledge, used to destabilise
economies, ecosystems and agriculture. It can
also trigger havoc in financial and commodity
markets. The disruption in agriculture creates
a greater dependency on food aid and
imported grain staples from the US and other
Western countries.
HAARP was developed as part of an Anglo-
American partnership between Raytheon
Corporation, which owns the HAARP patents,
and British Aerospace Systems (BAES). The
HAARP project is one among several
collaborative ventures in advanced weapons
systems between the two defence giants.
The HAARP project was initiated in 1992 by
Advanced Power Technologies, Inc. (APTI), a
subsidiary of Atlantic Richfield Corporation
(ARCO). APTI (including the HAARP patents)
was sold by ARCO to E-Systems Inc, in 1994.
E-Systems, on contract to the CIA and US
Department of Defense, outfitted the ‘Doomsday
Plan’, which ‘allows the President to manage a
nuclear war’. Subsequently acquired by
Raytheon Corporation, it is among the largest
intelligence contractors in the World.
BAES was involved in the development of
the advanced stage of the HAARP antenna
array under a 2004 contract with the Office of
Naval Research. The installation of 132 highfrequency
transmitters was entrusted by
BAES to its US subsidiary, BAE Systems Inc.
The project, according to a July report in
Defense News, was undertaken by BAES’s
Electronic Warfare division. In September it
received DARPA’s top award for technical
achievement for the design, construction and
activation of the HAARP array of antennas.
The HAARP system is fully operational and
in many regards dwarfs existing conventional
and strategic weapons systems. While there is
no firm evidence of its use for military
purposes, Air Force documents suggest HAARP
is an integral part of the militarisation of
space. One would expect the antennas already
to have been subjected to routine testing.
Under the UNFCCC, the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has a mandate
‘to assess scientific, technical and socioeconomic
information relevant for the
understanding of climate change’. This
mandate includes environmental warfare.
‘Geo-engineering’ is acknowledged, but the
underlying military applications are neither
the object of policy analysis or scientific
research in the thousands of pages of IPCC
reports and supporting documents, based on
the expertise and input of some 2,500 scientists,
policymakers and environmentalists.
‘Climatic warfare’ potentially threatens the
future of humanity, but has casually been
excluded from the reports for which the IPCC
received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
Michel Chossudovsky is a Professor of
Economics at the University of Ottawa and
an editor at the Centre for Research on
Globalization, www.globalresearch.ca
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/haarpecologist.pdf
Rarely acknowledged in the
debate on global climate change,
the world’s weather can now be
modified as part of a new
generation of sophisticated
electromagnetic weapons. Both the US and
Russia have developed capabilities to
manipulate the climate for military use.
Environmental modification techniques
have been applied by the US military for more
than half a century. US mathematician John
von Neumann, in liaison with the US
Department of Defense, started his research
on weather modification in the late 1940s at
the height of the Cold War and foresaw ‘forms
of climatic warfare as yet unimagined’.
During the Vietnam war, cloud-seeding
techniques were used, starting in 1967 under
Project Popeye, the objective of which was to
prolong the monsoon season and block enemy
supply routes along the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
The US military has developed advanced
capabilities that enable it selectively to alter
weather patterns. The technology, which is
being perfected under the High-frequency
Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), is
an appendage of the Strategic Defense Initiative
– ‘Star Wars’. From a military standpoint,
HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction,
operating from the outer atmosphere and
capable of destabilising agricultural and
ecological systems around the world.
Weather-modification, according to the US
Air Force document AF 2025 Final Report,
‘offers the war fighter a wide range of possible
options to defeat or coerce an adversary’,
capabilities, it says, extend to the triggering of
floods, hurricanes, droughts and earthquakes:
‘Weather modification will become a part of
domestic and international security and could
be done unilaterally… It could have offensive
and defensive applications and even be used
for deterrence purposes. The ability to
generate precipitation, fog and storms on
earth or to modify space weather… and the
production of artificial weather all are a part
of an integrated set of [military] technologies.’
In 1977, an international Convention was
ratified by the UN General Assembly which
banned ‘military or other hostile use of
environmental modification techniques having
widespread, long-lasting or severe effects.’
It defined ‘environmental modification
techniques’ as ‘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.’
While the substance of the 1977 Convention
was reasserted in the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) signed at the 1992
Earth Summit in Rio, debate
on weather modification
for military use has
become a scientific
taboo. Military analysts
are mute on the subject.
Meteorologists are not
investigating the matter
and environmentalists are
focused on greenhouse gas
emissions under the Kyoto
Protocol. Neither is the possibility
of climatic or environmental manipulations as
part of a military and intelligence agenda,
while tacitly acknowledged, part of the broader
debate on climate change under UN auspices.
The HAARP Programme
Established in 1992, HAARP, based in Gokona,
Alaska, is an array of high-powered antennas
that transmit, through high-frequency radio
waves, massive amounts of energy into the
ionosphere (the upper layer of the atmosphere).
Their construction was funded by the US Air
Force, the US Navy and the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
Operated jointly by the Air Force Research
Laboratory and the Office of Naval Research,
HAARP constitutes a system of powerful
antennas capable of creating ‘controlled local
modifications of the ionosphere’. According to
its official website, www.haarp.alaska.edu,
HAARP will be used ‘to induce a small, localized
change in ionospheric temperature so physical
reactions can be studied by other instruments
located either at or close to the HAARP site’.
But Rosalie Bertell, president of the
International Institute of Concern for Public
Health, says HAARP operates as ‘a gigantic
heater that can cause major disruptions in the
ionosphere, creating not just holes, but long
incisions in the protective layer that keeps
deadly radiation from bombarding the planet’.
Physicist Dr Bernard Eastlund called it ‘the
largest ionospheric heater ever built’.
HAARP is presented by the US Air Force as a
research programme, but military documents
confirm its main objective is to ‘induce
ionospheric modifications’ with
a view to altering weather
patterns and disrupting
communications and radar.
According to a report
by the Russian State
Duma: ‘The US plans to
carry out large-scale
experiments under the
HAARP programme [and]
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 entire regions.’
An analysis of statements emanating from
the US Air Force points to the unthinkable: the
covert manipulation of weather patterns,
communications and electric power systems
as a weapon of global warfare, enabling the US
to disrupt and dominate entire regions.
Weather manipulation is the pre-emptive
weapon par excellence. It can be directed
against enemy countries or ‘friendly nations’
without their knowledge, used to destabilise
economies, ecosystems and agriculture. It can
also trigger havoc in financial and commodity
markets. The disruption in agriculture creates
a greater dependency on food aid and
imported grain staples from the US and other
Western countries.
HAARP was developed as part of an Anglo-
American partnership between Raytheon
Corporation, which owns the HAARP patents,
and British Aerospace Systems (BAES). The
HAARP project is one among several
collaborative ventures in advanced weapons
systems between the two defence giants.
The HAARP project was initiated in 1992 by
Advanced Power Technologies, Inc. (APTI), a
subsidiary of Atlantic Richfield Corporation
(ARCO). APTI (including the HAARP patents)
was sold by ARCO to E-Systems Inc, in 1994.
E-Systems, on contract to the CIA and US
Department of Defense, outfitted the ‘Doomsday
Plan’, which ‘allows the President to manage a
nuclear war’. Subsequently acquired by
Raytheon Corporation, it is among the largest
intelligence contractors in the World.
BAES was involved in the development of
the advanced stage of the HAARP antenna
array under a 2004 contract with the Office of
Naval Research. The installation of 132 highfrequency
transmitters was entrusted by
BAES to its US subsidiary, BAE Systems Inc.
The project, according to a July report in
Defense News, was undertaken by BAES’s
Electronic Warfare division. In September it
received DARPA’s top award for technical
achievement for the design, construction and
activation of the HAARP array of antennas.
The HAARP system is fully operational and
in many regards dwarfs existing conventional
and strategic weapons systems. While there is
no firm evidence of its use for military
purposes, Air Force documents suggest HAARP
is an integral part of the militarisation of
space. One would expect the antennas already
to have been subjected to routine testing.
Under the UNFCCC, the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has a mandate
‘to assess scientific, technical and socioeconomic
information relevant for the
understanding of climate change’. This
mandate includes environmental warfare.
‘Geo-engineering’ is acknowledged, but the
underlying military applications are neither
the object of policy analysis or scientific
research in the thousands of pages of IPCC
reports and supporting documents, based on
the expertise and input of some 2,500 scientists,
policymakers and environmentalists.
‘Climatic warfare’ potentially threatens the
future of humanity, but has casually been
excluded from the reports for which the IPCC
received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
Michel Chossudovsky is a Professor of
Economics at the University of Ottawa and
an editor at the Centre for Research on
Globalization, www.globalresearch.ca
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/haarpecologist.pdf
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Invasion of the Bling-ionaires: Meet Britain's most jaw-droppingly ostentatious tourists who have supercars flown from the Middle East to UK by privat
A sunny Thursday afternoon in August and the cars circling Harrods need to be seen to be believed. Million-pound Bugatti Veyrons - normally a rare sighting, even on the well-heeled streets of Central London - are, around here, about as common as Ford Fiestas.
Other cars, in a display that could rival anything in Monaco or Goodwood, drive round and round the block, pausing at the rear each time to see if their masters are ready for collection.
In the cafes surrounding the department store, every single table is taken by people from the Gulf states and the Middle East — Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Dubai.
A young Arabic man leaving his vehicle outside the Berkley Hotel in Central London
Welcome to Knightsbridge — or, as it is better known to locals, ‘Little Kuwait’.
For British residents, the summer is all about anescape to the sun; a fortnight in the South of France, the Italian Riviera or Spain. We Brits want sand, sangria, heat and a swimming pool. Anywhere but the sticky, filthy city.
For the mega-wealthy billionaire families of the Gulf states over here this summer
will tell you that they come to London because, unlike in the U.S. or France, they are made to feel welcome,’ says Hussam Baramo, the Syria-born features editor at Al Quds newspaper, a daily paper widely-read by Middle Eastern people in London. ‘They like London because they think it’s safe and friendly.’
And here, they can bring their cars with them. Around the corner from Harrods, I
saw one Veyron with every inch of its bodywork coated in gold; another, chromed all over.
Behind it, I watched a Veyron in pearlised white with shiny chromium wings making a noise like a scalded Rottweiler.
The Saudi number plate on this car was ‘999’. I watched the driver get out. He was around 25 and dressed like an off-duty Lewis Hamilton. I complimented him on his car and asked how he got it over to London. ‘In my plane,’ he said, grinning.
The car was parked in a pay-and-display’ bay, but its driver did neither. The auto show continued with a Rolls-Royce Phantom customised with a stainless steel bonnet. The number plate on this car is simply ‘1’. Later that day I Googled this vehicle and discovered that a couple of years ago its Dubai-based owner paid £9 million for the registration number alone.
Ajman Crown Prince Sheikh Ammar
A long Maybach limousine, painted in distinct orange and matt black, purred through the melee. The letters ‘RRR’ are picked out on the vehicle’s boot in a diamond-studded font.
A handsome young man and his friend, both dressed like aspirant R&B pop stars (faded jeans, Hermes belt, one of those Ralph Lauren polo shirts with the over-sized horse logo, pastel suede Hermes driving shoes, and bronze tint sunglasses) got out.
This is Crown Prince Sheikh Ammar bin Humaid Al Nuaimi, the incredibly glamorous and fun-loving son of the multi-billionaire HRH Sheikh Rashid Bin Humid Al Nuaimi of Ajman.
Ajman, in case you didn’t know, is the smallest emirate in the United Arab Emirates, but has grand plans to become a mini Dubai. RRR is the banner
for the Crown Prince’s vast portfolio of orange and black super cars — the
letters stand for Rich in Real Estate Resources.
‘How do you go about writing tickets to these guys?’ I asked a traffic warden
in Basil Street. ‘It’s impossible,’ he shrugs, showing me the computerised ticket machine he wears around his neck.
'My machine only has numbers and letters on it. Their number plates are just . . .’ He tailed off, struggling for the right word.
‘Squiggles?’ I suggested. ‘Yes. There are no keys on my machine for those.’
Last week, the wardens seemed to arrive at a solution to the problem of ticketing cars with squiggles for number plates; they started clamping them instead.
Early victims were a£1.2 million Koenigsegg CCXR (one of only six ever made) and a £350,000 Lamborghini Murcielago LP670-4 SuperVeloce which were illegally parked outside Harrods.
But the traffic wardens aren’t the only ones ruffled by the fleet of supercars flooding the area.
Residents living near the Knightsbridge store say their night-time peace is being shattered by the owners racing their sports cars through the streets, describing it as being ‘like the starting grid at Le Mans’.
They have now forged a campaign group and aired their grievances to Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, claiming that police and council have failed to act.
Some of the Middle Eastern visitors keep summer-houses in London — there are said to be more than 100 billionaire Saudi families with second homes in the Knightsbridge area alone— while others prefer out-of-town locations such as Bishops Avenue in North London (also known as ‘Millionaires Row’), Coombe Hill in Kingston and St George’s Hill in Weybridge, Surrey.
Next summer, many of them will take up residence at the new Knightsbridge development One Hyde Park that occupies a plum position opposite Harvey Nichols and next to the Mandarin Oriental hotel, where appartments cost up to £100 million.
Here, Arab summertime residents will be able to enjoy the super-luxe environment of heated floors and chilled ceilings, personalised entry systems that can include six levels of access, and a secure underground car park for their Rolls-Royces and Ferraris.
Eyecatching: The £1.2m Koenigsegg and £350,000 Lamborghini clamped outside Harrods
'Our Middle Eastern customers are usually looking for flats with between three to five bedrooms and a 24-hour porter service, usually with a view of Hyde Park or Kensington Gardens,’ says Paul Hyman, sales manager at Kinleigh Folkard & Hayward’s Bayswater branch.
‘Properties of this type are hard to come by, but wealthy Arab businessmen can generally pay over the asking price.’
During August, whole floors of hotels around Hyde Park are block-booked for Middle Eastern oligarchs, while staff up their game by flying in topnotch Arabic entertainers for private shows in the biggest suites, adapting
restaurant menus and parking the guests’ flashest cars out in front.
During the days, the men sleep in, while the women have their drivers drop them in Hyde Park where they walk in giggly groups, stopping to soak up the coolness and cloudy skies on the benches or lying on the grass in large circles with their friends.
To them, London is a welcome vacation from the restrictive, repetitive, stultifyingly predictable drudge of blandly luxurious life back home.
Many of the younger, more frustrated Saudi girls strip themselves free of the restrictive burka altogether, whooping and shrieking with delight as they change into tight jeans and vertiginous heels on the plane, as soon as Gulf state airspace
is cleared.
Once in London, the girls go round either in large groups or chaperoned by Mum, who is normally clad in a headscarf and big shades — think Joan Collins does Jumierah Beach (one of the most exclusive resorts in Dubai).
The boys like to sit outside Knightsbridge cafes all gussied up in Arabpreppy finery, two or three mobile phones each, keys to Ferraris and Lamborghinis chucked down next to their napkins.
The young females from the more liberated countries, such as Bahrain and Dubai, are dolled up like big-eyed, honey-skinned Jennifer Lopez lookalikes.
The girls who choose to keep wearing their burkas — mostly Saudi Arabians — I am told often sport the kind of make-up that hasn’t been in fashion in the West since the end of the silent movie era. Bright red lipstick, generous helpings of cranberry rouge, eyes kohl-lined in the style of Dusty Springfield.
A spokesperson for luxury concierge service Quintessentially says: ‘About 20 per cent of our clients are from the Middle East. ‘One member requested Quintessentially Travel arrange a weekend break to Ibiza on a private jet, with a fully chartered yacht waiting for their use. Another wanted a personal shopping experience requesting that two designer stores be closed for their private viewing.’ Many others prefer to shop at home.
‘During August, we will often be asked to take a selection of our most expensive diamond necklaces, rings and bracelets to a suite at a hotel in Knightsbridge,’ says jeweller Stephen Webster, whose shop is on Mount Street, in nearby Mayfair.
‘Arab customers like to shop late, but our store isn’t permitted to have late-night opening . . . so we are happy to take the store to them.’
Another famous London jeweller, who would not be named, said: ‘They like big pieces and coloured stones. The sums they are prepared to pay for them are incredible. It is not unusual for Middle Eastern customers to spend £20 million in a single visit.’
When they are not shopping or tearing around in their cars, the Arab billionaires go to the Derby, Royal Ascot and the Berkshire Festival of Falconry, sponsored by the Abu Dhabibased Emirates Falconers’ Club and attended by His Highness Sheikh Sultan Bin Tahnoon Al Nahyan.
Of course, London — especially during these credit-crunched times — falls over itself to court Arab business.
Middle-Eastern shoppers are expected to spend £250 million in London this summer, an increase of 11 per cent on last year.
When the people at Harvey Nichols discovered that the amount of money Middle Eastern people in London were spending was rising so dramatically, the department store decided to start using Arabic advertisements
in-store. Summer opening hours were extended to 9pm all week, and all cafe menus were modified to
include Arabic translations and a Halal food offering.
Harvey Nichols’ Fifth Floor food hall now even offers a smoking terrace for customers that comes with the shisha pipes so beloved of Middle Eastern people. One Harvey Nichols advert showed a picture of a single Lanvin shoe. The words, written in Arabic, read, ‘The English are known for having bad teeth, that is why they need beautiful shoes’.
It doesn’t matter. Very few Londoners can read Arabic, and very few Middle Eastern people fraternise with British people anyway. They’re just here for August, then they disappear, like ghosts.
Other cars, in a display that could rival anything in Monaco or Goodwood, drive round and round the block, pausing at the rear each time to see if their masters are ready for collection.
In the cafes surrounding the department store, every single table is taken by people from the Gulf states and the Middle East — Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Dubai.
A young Arabic man leaving his vehicle outside the Berkley Hotel in Central London
Welcome to Knightsbridge — or, as it is better known to locals, ‘Little Kuwait’.
For British residents, the summer is all about anescape to the sun; a fortnight in the South of France, the Italian Riviera or Spain. We Brits want sand, sangria, heat and a swimming pool. Anywhere but the sticky, filthy city.
For the mega-wealthy billionaire families of the Gulf states over here this summer
will tell you that they come to London because, unlike in the U.S. or France, they are made to feel welcome,’ says Hussam Baramo, the Syria-born features editor at Al Quds newspaper, a daily paper widely-read by Middle Eastern people in London. ‘They like London because they think it’s safe and friendly.’
And here, they can bring their cars with them. Around the corner from Harrods, I
saw one Veyron with every inch of its bodywork coated in gold; another, chromed all over.
Behind it, I watched a Veyron in pearlised white with shiny chromium wings making a noise like a scalded Rottweiler.
The Saudi number plate on this car was ‘999’. I watched the driver get out. He was around 25 and dressed like an off-duty Lewis Hamilton. I complimented him on his car and asked how he got it over to London. ‘In my plane,’ he said, grinning.
The car was parked in a pay-and-display’ bay, but its driver did neither. The auto show continued with a Rolls-Royce Phantom customised with a stainless steel bonnet. The number plate on this car is simply ‘1’. Later that day I Googled this vehicle and discovered that a couple of years ago its Dubai-based owner paid £9 million for the registration number alone.
Ajman Crown Prince Sheikh Ammar
A long Maybach limousine, painted in distinct orange and matt black, purred through the melee. The letters ‘RRR’ are picked out on the vehicle’s boot in a diamond-studded font.
A handsome young man and his friend, both dressed like aspirant R&B pop stars (faded jeans, Hermes belt, one of those Ralph Lauren polo shirts with the over-sized horse logo, pastel suede Hermes driving shoes, and bronze tint sunglasses) got out.
This is Crown Prince Sheikh Ammar bin Humaid Al Nuaimi, the incredibly glamorous and fun-loving son of the multi-billionaire HRH Sheikh Rashid Bin Humid Al Nuaimi of Ajman.
Ajman, in case you didn’t know, is the smallest emirate in the United Arab Emirates, but has grand plans to become a mini Dubai. RRR is the banner
for the Crown Prince’s vast portfolio of orange and black super cars — the
letters stand for Rich in Real Estate Resources.
‘How do you go about writing tickets to these guys?’ I asked a traffic warden
in Basil Street. ‘It’s impossible,’ he shrugs, showing me the computerised ticket machine he wears around his neck.
'My machine only has numbers and letters on it. Their number plates are just . . .’ He tailed off, struggling for the right word.
‘Squiggles?’ I suggested. ‘Yes. There are no keys on my machine for those.’
Last week, the wardens seemed to arrive at a solution to the problem of ticketing cars with squiggles for number plates; they started clamping them instead.
Early victims were a£1.2 million Koenigsegg CCXR (one of only six ever made) and a £350,000 Lamborghini Murcielago LP670-4 SuperVeloce which were illegally parked outside Harrods.
But the traffic wardens aren’t the only ones ruffled by the fleet of supercars flooding the area.
Residents living near the Knightsbridge store say their night-time peace is being shattered by the owners racing their sports cars through the streets, describing it as being ‘like the starting grid at Le Mans’.
They have now forged a campaign group and aired their grievances to Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, claiming that police and council have failed to act.
Some of the Middle Eastern visitors keep summer-houses in London — there are said to be more than 100 billionaire Saudi families with second homes in the Knightsbridge area alone— while others prefer out-of-town locations such as Bishops Avenue in North London (also known as ‘Millionaires Row’), Coombe Hill in Kingston and St George’s Hill in Weybridge, Surrey.
Next summer, many of them will take up residence at the new Knightsbridge development One Hyde Park that occupies a plum position opposite Harvey Nichols and next to the Mandarin Oriental hotel, where appartments cost up to £100 million.
Here, Arab summertime residents will be able to enjoy the super-luxe environment of heated floors and chilled ceilings, personalised entry systems that can include six levels of access, and a secure underground car park for their Rolls-Royces and Ferraris.
Eyecatching: The £1.2m Koenigsegg and £350,000 Lamborghini clamped outside Harrods
'Our Middle Eastern customers are usually looking for flats with between three to five bedrooms and a 24-hour porter service, usually with a view of Hyde Park or Kensington Gardens,’ says Paul Hyman, sales manager at Kinleigh Folkard & Hayward’s Bayswater branch.
‘Properties of this type are hard to come by, but wealthy Arab businessmen can generally pay over the asking price.’
During August, whole floors of hotels around Hyde Park are block-booked for Middle Eastern oligarchs, while staff up their game by flying in topnotch Arabic entertainers for private shows in the biggest suites, adapting
restaurant menus and parking the guests’ flashest cars out in front.
During the days, the men sleep in, while the women have their drivers drop them in Hyde Park where they walk in giggly groups, stopping to soak up the coolness and cloudy skies on the benches or lying on the grass in large circles with their friends.
To them, London is a welcome vacation from the restrictive, repetitive, stultifyingly predictable drudge of blandly luxurious life back home.
Many of the younger, more frustrated Saudi girls strip themselves free of the restrictive burka altogether, whooping and shrieking with delight as they change into tight jeans and vertiginous heels on the plane, as soon as Gulf state airspace
is cleared.
Once in London, the girls go round either in large groups or chaperoned by Mum, who is normally clad in a headscarf and big shades — think Joan Collins does Jumierah Beach (one of the most exclusive resorts in Dubai).
The boys like to sit outside Knightsbridge cafes all gussied up in Arabpreppy finery, two or three mobile phones each, keys to Ferraris and Lamborghinis chucked down next to their napkins.
The young females from the more liberated countries, such as Bahrain and Dubai, are dolled up like big-eyed, honey-skinned Jennifer Lopez lookalikes.
The girls who choose to keep wearing their burkas — mostly Saudi Arabians — I am told often sport the kind of make-up that hasn’t been in fashion in the West since the end of the silent movie era. Bright red lipstick, generous helpings of cranberry rouge, eyes kohl-lined in the style of Dusty Springfield.
A spokesperson for luxury concierge service Quintessentially says: ‘About 20 per cent of our clients are from the Middle East. ‘One member requested Quintessentially Travel arrange a weekend break to Ibiza on a private jet, with a fully chartered yacht waiting for their use. Another wanted a personal shopping experience requesting that two designer stores be closed for their private viewing.’ Many others prefer to shop at home.
‘During August, we will often be asked to take a selection of our most expensive diamond necklaces, rings and bracelets to a suite at a hotel in Knightsbridge,’ says jeweller Stephen Webster, whose shop is on Mount Street, in nearby Mayfair.
‘Arab customers like to shop late, but our store isn’t permitted to have late-night opening . . . so we are happy to take the store to them.’
Another famous London jeweller, who would not be named, said: ‘They like big pieces and coloured stones. The sums they are prepared to pay for them are incredible. It is not unusual for Middle Eastern customers to spend £20 million in a single visit.’
When they are not shopping or tearing around in their cars, the Arab billionaires go to the Derby, Royal Ascot and the Berkshire Festival of Falconry, sponsored by the Abu Dhabibased Emirates Falconers’ Club and attended by His Highness Sheikh Sultan Bin Tahnoon Al Nahyan.
Of course, London — especially during these credit-crunched times — falls over itself to court Arab business.
Middle-Eastern shoppers are expected to spend £250 million in London this summer, an increase of 11 per cent on last year.
When the people at Harvey Nichols discovered that the amount of money Middle Eastern people in London were spending was rising so dramatically, the department store decided to start using Arabic advertisements
in-store. Summer opening hours were extended to 9pm all week, and all cafe menus were modified to
include Arabic translations and a Halal food offering.
Harvey Nichols’ Fifth Floor food hall now even offers a smoking terrace for customers that comes with the shisha pipes so beloved of Middle Eastern people. One Harvey Nichols advert showed a picture of a single Lanvin shoe. The words, written in Arabic, read, ‘The English are known for having bad teeth, that is why they need beautiful shoes’.
It doesn’t matter. Very few Londoners can read Arabic, and very few Middle Eastern people fraternise with British people anyway. They’re just here for August, then they disappear, like ghosts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
