Mindfully.org  

Home | Air | Energy | Farm | Food | Genetic Engineering | Health | Industry | Nuclear | Pesticides | Plastic
Political | Sustainability | Technology | Water
PCE removal


New Non-Lethal Weapons System 
May Be Used Against U.S. Citizens 

(Parts 1 &2) 

NICK BEGICH, MD interviewed by KENNETH BURKE / Leading Edge News 23may02

Author Dr. Nick Begich,

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Report Presented to the World Foundation for Natural Sciences on October 17,1998, Interlaken Switzerland Dr. Begich is the author of "Angels Don't Play This HAARP", a report on the U.S. Star War's-type weapon in Alaska (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program), and publisher of "Earthpulse Flashpoints" and "Earthpulse Press in Anchorage, Alaska. He can be contacted at www.earthpulse.com or Box 201393, Anchorage, Alaska 99520 USA, Telephone: 907-694-1277. Fax: 907-696-1277.

Earthpulse explores subjects related to improving the human condition and exposes projects which we believe are risky or unnecessary. This presentation is about some of the science being developed and contemplated by military planners and others which could profoundly effect our lives. The intent of this presentation is to focus discussion on these new systems by bringing them into the light of day. Is it possible to trigger earthquakes, volcanic eruptions or weather changes by man-made activities? Is it possible to create and direct balls of energy at lightning speeds, to destroy an enemy? Is it possible to manipulate the behavior, and even the memories, of people using specialized technologies? The United States military and others believe that this is the case. Many of these systems are well on their way to being used in the battlefield. There are many new technologies being explored that will cause people to experience artificial memories, delusions and physical problems. These new technologies are being designed to minimize death (although death is possible) and to be virtually undetectable. Many of these new weapons are being called "non-lethal" in terms of their effect on people. In a February 6, 1998, hearing in a Foreign Affairs Subcommittee of the European Parliament the issue of these new technologies was discussed.

I was one of those called to testify along with a number of other people. One of the most interesting speakers was from the International Red Cross in Geneva, Switzerland, who gave an excellent presentation on "non-lethals". One of the points which he made involved the definition of "non-lethal". Part of the definition involved the idea that such weapons would result in a less than 25% kill factor for those exposed to them. He explained the fallacy in this by noting that land mines would even fit this definition because they did not kill over 25% of their victims. He explained that lasers which could permanently blind a person could also fit the definition. He also gave the example of "sticky foam" being used on an adversary and that this might not kill the person unless it landed on the victim's face and caused a slow and agonizing death by suffocation. The main point made was that non-lethals could indeed be lethal. Many of the panelists concluded that the term non-lethal was not accurate in describing these new systems and seemed more like a ploy by military planners to gain acceptance for the new technology. Another relevant point made in the hearing was the frequency of use of these weapons in non-combat situations or policing actions. Comparisons between Bosnia and Northern Ireland were made. It was pointed out that in conflicts where rubber bullets and other non-lethal systems were available they tended to be used with greater frequency because the troops using them believed that they would not kill. Others in conflict situations using weapons clearly designed for killing used much greater restraint. As of the date of the hearing, "peace keepers" armed with modern weapons had not fired a shot in Bosnia whereas in Northern Ireland there were often injuries and deaths from the use of "non-lethals". One of the most revealing documents I have found regarding these new technologies was produced by the Scientific Advisory Board of the Air Force. The Air Force initiated a significant study to look forward into the next century and see what was possible for new weapons. In one of the volumes published as a result of the study, researchers, scientists and others were encouraged to put together forecasts of what might be possible in the next century. One of those forecasts shockingly revealed the following:

"One can envision the development of electromagnetic energy sources, the output of which can be pulsed, shaped, and focused, that can couple with the human body in a fashion that will allow one to prevent voluntary muscular movements, control emotions (and thus actions), produce sleep, transmit suggestions, interfere with both short-term and long-term memory, produce an experience set, and delete an experience set.

"2 Think about this for a moment - a system which can manipulate emotions, control behavior, put you to sleep, create false memories and wipe old memories clean. Realizing this was a forecast and not necessarily the current state of technology should not cause one to believe that it is not a current issue. These systems are far from speculative. In fact, a great deal of work has already been done in this area with many systems being developed. The forecast went on to say: "It would also appear possible to create high fidelity speech in the human body, raising the possibility of covert suggestion and psychological direction. When a high power microwave pulse in the gigahertz range strikes the human body, a very small temperature perturbation occurs. This is associated with a sudden expansion of the slightly heated tissue. This expansion is fast enough to produce an acoustic wave. If a pulse stream is used, it should be possible to create an internal acoustic field in the 5-15 kilohertz range, which is audible. Thus, it may be possible to "talk" to selected adversaries in a fashion that would be most disturbing to them." Is it possible to talk to a person remotely by projecting a voice into his head? The forecaster suggests that this would be "disturbing" to the victim - what an understatement, it would be pure terror. A weapon which could intrude into the brain of an individual represents a gross invasion of their private life. The idea that these new systems could be created in the next several years should be cause for significant discussion and public debate. On July 21, 1994, Dr. Christopher Lamb, Director of Policy Planning, issued a draft Department of Defense directive which would establish a policy for non-lethal weapons in the United States. The policy was intended to take effect January 1, 1995, and formally connected the military¹s non-lethal research to civilian law enforcement agencies. The government's plan to use pulsed electromagnetic and radio frequency systems as a nonlethal technology for domestic Justice Department use rings the alarm for some observers. Nevertheless, the plan for integrating these systems is moving forward. Coupling these uses with expanded military missions is even more disturbing. This combined mission raises additional constitutional questions for Americans regarding the power of the federal government to use military systems in domestic police actions. In interviews with members of the Defense Department the development of this policy was confirmed. In those February, 1995, discussions, it was discovered that these policies were internal to agencies and were not subject to any public review process.

In its draft form, the policy gives highest priority to development of those technologies most likely to get dual use, i.e. law enforcement and military applications. According to this document, non-lethal weapons are to be used on the government's domestic "adversaries'. The definition of "adversary" has been significantly enlarged in the policy: "The term adversary" is used above in its broadest sense, including those who are not declared enemies but who are engaged in activities we wish to stop. This policy does not preclude legally authorized domestic use of the nonlethal weapons by United States military forces in support of law enforcement." This allows use of the military in actions against the citizens of the country that they are supposed to protect. This policy statement begs the question; who are the enemies that are engaged in activities they wish to stop, what are those activities, and who will make the decisions to stop these activities? An important aspect of non-lethal weapon systems is that the name non-lethal is intentionally misleading. The Policy adds, "It is important that the public understand that just as lethal weapons do not achieve perfect lethality, neither will non-lethal weapons always be capable of precluding fatalities and undesired collateral damage". In other words, you might still destroy property and kill people with the use of these new weapons. In press statements, the government continues to downplay the risks associated with such systems, even though the lethal potential is described in the context of their own usage policy. In Orwellian double speak, what is nonlethal can be lethal. In an article published in the Spring 1998 edition of Parameters, US Army War College Quarterly, an article by Timothy L. Thomas appeared - "The Mind Has No Firewall." The article was perhaps the most revealing in terms of what can be expected in the future. For decades the United States, former Soviet Union and others have been involved in developing new sophisticated systems for influencing human physical and mental health. The desire and focus of this research has been to discover ways of manipulating the behavior of humans in meeting political ends in the context of war-making and defense. What is interesting in all of this is the sophistication of external devices which can alter our very nature. In the article "The Mind has No Firewalls" the author states: "A recent Russian military article offered a slightly different slant to the problem, declaring that humanity stands on the brink of a psychotronic war' with mind and body as the focus.

That article discussed Russian and international attempts to control the psycho-physical condition of man and his decision-making processes by the use of VHF-generators, noiseless cassettes, and other technologies. The article goes on to describe that the aim of these new weapons is to control or alter the psyche or interfere with the various parts of the body in such a way as to confuse or destroy the inner-body signals which keep the living system operational. The article describes the way "Information Warfare Theory" neglects the most important factor in information warfare - the human being. Militaries publicly focus on hardware and software neglecting the human "data-processor". In the information warfare theories put forth in the past, discussion was limited to man-made systems and not the human operator. Humans were considered in information warfare scenarios only in that they could be impacted by propaganda, deceit and deception - all tools recognized as part of the military mindset and arsenal. This article publicly explores a more sinister approach, an approach which must be considered in the context of basic human rights and values....fundamentally and foundationally based on our right to think freely. The article went on: "Yet the body is capable not only of being deceived, manipulated, or misinformed but also shut down or destroyed - just as any other data-processing system. The data the body receives from external sources - such as electromagnetic, vortex, or acoustic energy waves - or creates through its own electrical or chemical stimuli can be manipulated or changed just as the data (information) in any hardware system can be altered."

The United States military in Joint Publication 3-13.1 considers the human body in the context of information warfare in addressing "psychological operations (PSYOP)" where it is noted: "the ultimate target of (information warfare) is the information dependent process, whether human or automated...Command and control warfare (C2W) is an application of information warfare in military operations...C2W is the integrated use of PSYOP, military deception, operations security, electronic warfare and physical destruction." The aim of any information war ultimately deals with human beings. The policy of the United States is to target all information dependent systems "whether human or automated" and the definition extends the use of these new technologies to people - as if they were just data-processing hardware.The Parameters article went on to discuss the work of Dr. Victor Solntsev of the Baumann Technical Institute in Moscow. He insists that the human body must be viewed as an open system instead of simply as an organism or closed system. This "open system" approach has been held by many Russian researchers and others going back to at least the early 1970's according to documents held by Earthpulse. What is interesting is that it has taken thirty years to be seen in the open literature as a credible view of reality. Dr. Solntsev goes on to suggest that a person's physical environment can cause changes within the body and mind whether stimulated by electromagnetic, gravitational, acoustic, or other stimuli. The same Russian researcher examined the issue of "information noise" which can create a dense shield between a person and external reality. The "noise could be created as signals, messages, images or other information with the target population the consciousness of the group or individuals.

The purpose would be to overload a person so that they no longer reacted to the external stimulus or information. The overloading would serve to destabilize judgment or modify behavior. According to Solntsev at least one computer virus has been created which will affect a person's psyche - Russian Virus 666. This virus appears in every 25th frame of a computers visual display where a mix of color, pulse and patterns are reported to put computer operators into trance. The subconscious perception of the display can be used to induce a heart attack or to subtly manage or change a computer operators perceptions. This same system could be used in any television or visual broadcast. In a July 7, 1997 U.S. News and World Report article it was revealed that scientists were seeking for specific energy patterns which could be externally applied to the body of individuals for the purpose of modifying their behavior. The article addressed some of the important public revelations about these new systems. These "revelations" represent but a small part of the story. Why has the military begun to present these new systems in the major media? An earlier work quoted by Earthpulse may shine some light on the answer. The "Revolution in Military Affairs" (RMA) encapsulates the idea that technology has changed to such a degree the very foundation of war is altered. The paper on this subject was put forward by the United States Army War College and it suggested that what was coming in new technology could be equated to the introduction of gun powder to Europe a few centuries ago or the discovery of the atom bomb in more recent history. That paper also suggests that these new systems may be contrary to American values and that their introduction would be heatedly opposed in the United States. On the one hand, I am thankful that the writers of that paper recognized that Americans had values; on the other hand, in the same paper the writers proposed that in order to introduce these new weapon systems that American values would have to be changed! It is particularly alarming when military "think-tanks" begin to publish material in which they propose that commonly held national and human values are insufficient to meet the demands of desired military objectives in introducing new technology. What is wrong with this picture? Do these institutions and their extension to other public enterprises reflect popular values or do they create popular values?

Are these public and quasi-public institutions, focused on defense and warfare the right groups to determine values or should they be the reflectors of popular values so that a nation's foundational truths are expressed through their national institutions. Are Americans, our allies and our enemies all targets of a sophisticated PSYOP which makes fiction pail in comparison? The buzzwords haunting the Pentagon today are revolution in military affairs". The idea, simply put, is that the same technologies that have transformed the American workplace may have no less profound an effect on the American way of war." This concept, "revolution in military affairs" (RMA), first emerged in a document issued by the U.S. Army War College in July, 1994 - The Revolution in Military Affairs. This document said a philosophy of "conflict short of war" ("terrorism, insurgency or violence associated with narcotrafficking") requires new weapons and a change in public opinion. It asserts that this change in opinion does not have to evolve naturally, but can be deliberately shaped by the government. The idea is that belief systems of Americans can be slowly altered to allow the military to introduce new weapons technology which, at this time, would be resisted by most Americans. What this book puts forward is: ³In its purest sense, revolution brings change that is permanent, fundamental, and rapid. The basic premise of the revolution in military affairs (RMA) is simple: throughout history, warfare usually developed in an evolutionary fashion, but occasionally ideas and inventions combined to propel dramatic and decisive change.

This not only affected the application of military force, but often altered the geopolitical balance in favor of those who mastered the new form of warfare." The Revolution in Military Affairs describes "people's wars", which it limits to Marxist ideologies. The phrase could be equally applied to what occurred in the Philippines and to Eastern Europe's popular revolutions in the late 1980's. The military's writers say that there is a shift to "spiritual" and "commercial" insurgencies, which they do not define well. They imply that these kinds of "insurgencies" represent national security risks to be defended against. This may be the case but, who will decide what is "spiritually" or "commercially" correct? The military's authors discuss emerging technologies which may go against Americans' beliefs in such things as the presumption of innocence, the right to disagree with the government, and the right to free expression and movement throughout the world. At one point in the document they discuss the need to use new technology to keep track of Americans traveling out of the United States: "While advances in robotics and information technologies may make it possible to perform many commercial activities with fewer employees in dangerous regions, those Americans who are overseas will be more isolated and dispersed. This complicates the main problems of NEOs (noncombatant evacuation operations): identification and notification of the individuals to be evacuated, identification of safe routes, and assessment of threats to the evacuation. Technology could diminish these problems. In the near future every American at risk could be equipped with an electronic individual position locator device (IPLD). The device, derived from the electronic bracelet used to control some criminal offenders or parolees, would continuously inform a central data bank of the individuals locations. Eventually such a device could be permanently implanted under the skin, with automatic remote activation either upon departure from the U.S. territory (while passing through the security screening system at the airport, for example) or by transmission of a NEO alert code to areas of conflict. Implantation would help preclude removal of the device (although, of course, some terrorists might be willing to remove a portion of the hostage's body if they knew where the device was implanted).

The IPLD could also act as a form of IFFN (identification friend, foe or neutral) if U.S. military personnel were equipped with appropriate challenge/response devices. The most likely people to receive the implants are military personnel who will be told that this will help rescue them if they are captured. They may be the first, setting the stage for the rest of the country. Will our military personnel object seeing this as an invasion of their private lives? Another technology mentioned is a method for interfering with activities the government judges to be wrong. In the examples given (drug traffickers and terrorists), most of us would agree intervention should take place at some level. However, the methods contemplated are extreme. Will those with the power to invade the privacy of individuals do so and without just cause? Will the holders of the power be trusted by the rest of the population? The military planners anticipate a resounding - "NO"! Therefore, they propose a series of events to shift the popular view to the opposite extreme. They propose a revolution of society which will allow for a Revolution in Military Affairs. At this point, they lay out a fictional scenario where the illusion of the need for this kind of control could be created. In the scenario, a plan to desensitize the population to increasing control and, introduction of the new technology, through systematic manipulation and disinformation by the government is initiated. What they have put forward might even be underway. Under their nonfiction scenario the military's writers say: "For example, remote intrusive monitoring of the financial computer networks of offshore banks could identify the deposits associated with money laundering. If desired, such accounts could be electronically emptied." In another section, the document emphasizes behavior and attitude alteration.

This is the very heart of an RMA. "Greatly improved intelligence gathering and fusion is a primary component of the RMA, and proposed information warfare capabilities might be ideally suited for helping develop desired emotions, attitudes, or behavior." The entire text of this little book will leave readers wondering - If this is the kind of material the military is letting out for public review, what are they hiding in those billion dollar "black budgets"? In another section The Revolution in Military Affairs discusses the reality of the RMA: "Even with all the constraints and countermeasures, there is some value in applying emerging technology using existing strategy, doctrine, organization, force structure, objectives, concepts, attitudes and norms. But there is another alternative: we could deliberately engineer a comprehensive revolution, seeking utter transformation rather than simply an expeditious use of new technology. However alluring, such a program is rife with hidden dangers and unintended consequences. Unlike the Manhattan Project, we are not forced to pursue revolution without considering the implications. In conflict short of war, RMA is a Pandora's box desperately in need of careful scrutiny before opening. Questions are not just being raised just by Earthpulse, they are being raised by the International Committee of the Red Cross. In their report from mid-1994,10 a number of points were raised. The idea of "war without death" is not new but began in the 1950's, according to the report. The military interest in these systems originally dealt with chemical weapons, later advancing to electronic systems.

The report looked at the ramifications of international law regarding use of these new technologies. It pointed out weaknesses in the international conventions regarding the use of chemical weapons which can be extended to these other emerging technologies: "Therefore, when the Convention (Chemical Weapons Convention) comes into force next year, activities involving them - activities such as development, production, stockpiling and use - will become illegal, unless their purpose is a purpose that is expressly not prohibited under the Convention. One such purpose is law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes. Unfortunately, the Convention does not define what it means by law enforcement (whose law? what law? enforcement where? by whom?), though it does define what it means by riot control agent, namely any chemical...which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure. States parties are enjoined not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare". In other words, we can use on our own citizens what we cannot use in warfare with real enemies who are threats to national security. This explains why the development of some types of non-lethals has moved out of the Department of Defense into the Department of Justice. For the Department of Defense to continue to work on some of these weapons, as instruments of war, is now illegal under international law. The Red Cross report went on to discuss the shift from weapons of war to police tools which they called - "riot control agents". What does this mean for people? This places Americans, and citizens of other countries, in a lesser protected class than individuals seeking to destroy our countries - our real adversaries. This language really represents a way for countries to continue to develop these weapons. This is a loop-hole in the agreement. So while the treaty looks good on the surface, it is hollow rhetoric underneath.

Part II

In a section of the report, "Future Weapons Using High Power Microwaves" are discussed at length. This section describes microwave frequencies developed for use in weapons against machines and people. One of the uses described is an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) weapon which gives an operator the same ability to wipe out electronic circuits as a nuclear blast would provide. The main difference is that this new technology is controllable, and can be used without violating nuclear weapons treaties. This section of the report then described energy levels needed for the following to occur:

The effects are based on radio frequency radiation. The report confirmed that non-thermal effects were being researched. These non-thermal effects included damage to human health when the effects occurred "within so-called modulation frequency windows (Hertz is one such window) or power density windows". The way these weapons work was clearly described when the report noted their effect on machines: "A HPM (High Power Microwave) weapon employs a high power, rapidly pulsating microwave beam that penetrates electronic components. The pulsing action internally excites the components, rapidly generating intense heat which causes them to fuse or melt, thus destroying the circuit...HPM (weapons) attack at the speed of light thus making avoidance of the beam impossible, consequently negating the advantage of weapon systems such as high velocity tactical missiles." In other words, with this kind of weapon there is no machine which could get by this invisible wall of directed energy. Another report on non-lethal technologies, issued by the Council on Foreign Relations points out that, "The Nairobi Convention, to which the United States is a signatory, prohibits the broadcast of electronic signals into a sovereign state without its consent in peacetime." This report opens discussion of the use of these weapons against terrorists and drug traffickers. The CFR report recommends this be done secretly so the victims do not know where the attack is from, or if there even is an attack. There is a problem with this approach. The use of these weapons, even against these kinds of individuals, may be in violation of United States law in that it presumes guilt rather than innocence. In other words the police, CIA, DEA or other enforcement organizations become the judge, jury and executioner. Going to another document by a Captain Paul Tyler, we can look at the debate between classical theories and recent research. There is a gulf of conflict between these two schools of thought. The debate centers on the classical idea that only ionizing radiation (that which generates heat in tissue) can cause reactions in the body, while new research indicates that subtle, small, amounts of energy can cause reactions as well. What Tyler wrote in 1984, as an officer in the Air Force, puts the debate simply. He said, "Even though the body is basically an electrochemical system, modern science has almost exclusively studied the chemical aspects of the body and to date has largely neglected the electrical aspects. However, over the past decade researchers have devised many mathematical models to approximate the internal fields in animals and humans. Some of the later models have shown general agreement with experimental measurements made with the phantom models and animals. Presently most scientists in the field use the concept of specific absorption rate for determining the Dosimetry (dosages) of electromagnetic radiation. Specific absorption rate is the intensity of the internal electric field or quantity of energy absorbed...However, the use of these classical concepts of electrodynamics does not explain some experimental results and clinical findings. For example, according to classical physics, the frequency of visible light would indicate that it is reflected or totally absorbed within the first few millimeters of tissue and thus no light should pass through significant amounts of tissue. But it does. Also, classical theory indicates that the body should be completely invisible to extremely low frequencies of light where a single wave length is thousands of miles long. However, visible light has been used in clinical medicine to transilluminate various body tissues." In other words, the classical theories are partially wrong in that they do not fully explain all of the reactions which are observed in the body. The Navy has abstracted over a thousand international professional papers by private and government scientists which explore these issues. Tyler continues, "A second area where classical theory fails to provide an adequate explanation for observed effects is in the clinical use of extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields. Researchers have found that pulsed external magnetic fields at frequencies below 100 Hertz (pulses/cycles per second) will stimulate the healing of nonunion fractures, congenital pseudarthroses, and failed arthroses. The effects of these pulsed magnetic fields have been extremely impressive, and their use in orthopaedic conditions has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration." Even the FDA, one of the most vigorous regulatory authorities in the country, accepts these non-thermal effects. Tyler adds, "Recently, pulsed electromagnetic fields have been reported to induce cellular transcription (this has to do with the duplication or copying of information from DNA, a process important to life). At the other end of the non-ionizing spectrum, research reports are also showing biological effects that are not predicted in classical theories. For example, Kremer and others have published several papers showing that low intensity millimeter waves produce biological effects. They have also shown that not only are the effects seen at very low power, but they are also frequency-specific." 

Tyler goes on to discuss the results of this new thinking and the possible effects of these low energy radiations in terms of information transfer and storage, and their effects on the nervous system. Research has shown that very specific frequencies cause very specific reactions, and, once a critical threshold is passed, negative reactions occur. It has been fourteen years since Tyler’s paper was delivered and the controversy began to take form. Now there is even more energy being pressed into the anchoring of the newest means of killing and maiming one another. "Imagine a world where land mines don’t blow up but give off an eerie sound that makes intruders feel sick. Or a war where attackers don’t use missiles to stop tanks but microwaves to shut down engines." The Institute for Non-Lethal Defense Technologies at Penn State College has been established in cooperation with the United States Marines. The institute was created to evaluate weapons created by organizations outside the military. The new institute will look at legal, ethical, political, environmental and physical effects of these new technologies. There has been a good deal of speculation about the possibilities of creating artificial weather and of controlling the weather. This it not new and has been the subject of on-going military research for decades. Moreover, in 1976 the United States signed international treaties calling for a ban on "geophysical warfare". The use of new weapons is not limited to governments and sophisticated science laboratories. In April, 1997, the United States Secretary of Defense, William Cohen made the following comment: "Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter climate, set off earthquakes and volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves." This is not new either but has its roots in 1960-70's era research by American scientists and continues to appear in numerous articles and reports. The idea of creating artificial weather including cyclones is being explored. In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal it was reported that "a Malaysian company, BioCure Sdn. Bhd., will sign a memorandum of understanding soon with a government-owned Russian party to produce the Cyclone." The deal with the Russians was set up so that if the technology did not work the Malaysians did not have to pay for the attempt. There have been other reports of Russian research into this area. What else might be on the way? In a 1989 patent a most interesting bit of science is revealed. The development of new energy weapons has occupied the imaginations and resources of our national and private laboratories. One such weapon idea is owned by the United States Department of Energy. It is a new kind of weapon which allows electromagnetic or acoustic energy to be focused into a tight package of energy which can be projected over great distances without dissipating. When scientists thought of this energy being projected through the air it was always assumed that the energy would dissipate, dispersing at such a rapid rate that no weapon’s effect could be realized. What has been discovered is that there is a way to create such a system. In a U. S. patent the following summary appears: "The invention relates generally to transmission of pulses of energy, and more particularly to the propagation of localized pulses of electromagnetic or acoustic energy over long distances without divergence." "As the Klingon battle cruiser attacks the Starship Enterprise, Captain Kirk commands "Fire photon torpedoes". Two darts or blobs of light speed toward their target to destroy the enemy spaceship. Stardate 1989, Star Trek reruns, or 3189, somewhere in intergalactic space. Fantasy or reality. The ability to launch localized packets of light or other energy which do not diverge as they travel great distances through space may incredibly be at hand." The patent describes the energy effect as "electromagnetic missiles or bullets" which could destroy almost any object in their path. Remember Star Wars? That weapon concept would move the theater of war to space. In 1995, the funding for Star Wars was widely reported as a dead issue when full funding was defeated by the United States Congress. Star Wars did not end. As many unpopular programs do - they just get new names. "This year the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (once called the Strategic Defense Initiative) got $3.7 billion. That’s up from $2.8 billion in 1995, and is very near the peak level spent during the Cold War." What is interesting is that - the billions spent on Star Wars systems, which these became known as, were only for "research" according to the military’s mission statement. The technology is being advanced in the hope that a system might be developed early in the next century. The external threats are now being characterized as rogue states and terrorist organizations which might gain delivery technologies. While the threats are not imagined and need to be addressed, it is not responsible to create word games which end public debate and allow systems thought to be discontinued the latitude to proceed. In several recent news reports in Alaska the issue of a new defense initiative has begun to surface. United States Senator Ted Stevens, the Chairman of the most powerful committee in the Congress, is insisting that a new system be created which protects Alaska and Hawaii. The current defense system for intercontinental ballistic missiles does not protect these regions. Additionally, President Clinton has made statements that the problem of Alaska and Hawaii should be addressed. The suggestions now being filed include basing the new 11 billion dollar system in Alaska. What is also interesting is the discussion surrounding agreements with the former Soviet Union which preclude such an initiative. The rationale of some elected officials suggests that "if the Soviet Union no longer exists then these agreements are no longer in effect". Earthpulse takes the position that this approach is highly destabilizing and provocative particularly given the state of domestic policy and ideological shifts taking place in Russia. In another "offshoot of the Reagan administration’s Strategic Defense Initiative" satellite-disabling lasers have been developed. A test, at less than full power, was performed at the end of 1997 to demonstrate the ability of the system to hit its target. The demonstration was a success and now many are concerned that this may provoke an arms race in space. This is the same concern which was raised when this technology was first discussed in public forums. There was a good deal of objection and yet here we are two decades later delivering on the "impossible" technology. New energy weapons have been described as being capable of creating symptoms of sea sickness, signals can be used to resonate the inner organs to cause pain and spasms, induce epileptic-like seizures or cause cardiac arrest. Other weapons include, according to the article, those which cause or prevent sleep, override voluntary muscle movements or otherwise affect the brain. The "Black Widow" overrides muscle movement with 100,000 units being added to the Russian government’s arsenal in recent years. "The term Œpsycho-terrorism’ was coined by Russian writer N. Anisimov of the Moscow Anti-Psychotronic Center. According to Anisimov psychotronic weapons are those that act to Œtake away a part of the information which is stored in a man’s brain. It is sent to a computer, which reworks it to the level needed for those who need to control a man, and the modified information is then reinserted into the brain.’ These weapons are used against the mind to induce hallucinations, sickness, mutations in human cells, zombification,’ or even death. Included in the arsenal are VHF generators, X-rays, ultrasound, and radio waves. Russian army Major I. Chernishev, writing in the military journal Orienteer in February 1997, asserted that psy’ weapons are under development all over the globe. Specific types of weapons noted by Chernishev (not all of which have prototypes) were:

In the course of research by Dr. Janet Morris, coauthor of The Warriors Edge, in 1991 was given a tour of the Russian Department of Psycho-Correction at the Moscow Medical Academy where she was shown a method whereby researchers could monitor the human mind of an individual and then using infra-sound, very low frequency transmissions, a message could be transmitted subliminally to the brain. Earthpulse has a device designed for behavior modification and other applications which can demonstrate this "infra-sound" effect. The Russian research suggested the vigorous exploration also of the military possibilities of ESP research including reading human thoughts, influencing objects at a distance, moving objects with the mind or directly interfering with the thoughts of other people. The U.S. has also followed this research and engaged in its own explorations. The main point here is that other countries are engaging in this kind of research with the expressed purpose of attacking the physical bodies of their adversaries. Research efforts by private and government labs continue to be advanced. The issue of acoustic or sound transfer to the human brain of radio frequency radiation (RFR) in the public literature was summarized in June 1996 in a document Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation: A Review Pertinent to Air Force Operations (Al/OE-TR-1996-0035). This document was prepared by the Air Force Materiel Command located at Brooks Air Force Base, Texas. The report summarized a number of the studies on the effect of RFR for military applications. This information builds on the earlier efforts of the military in RFR research, specifically the call for weapons research in this area. An earlier work prepared to advance this research was put together by the same organization - Radiofrequency Radiation Dosimetry Handbook, United States Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, October 1986. This publication is an index to research and a summary of findings into the specific radio frequency effects on the various parts of the human body. In "Radical Destabilizing Effects of New Technologies" written by Thomas Adams for the U.S. Army War College’s publication, Parameters (Autumn 1998), three areas continue to grow in importance in both civilian and military environments. Information systems, biotechnology and nanotechnology are mutually reinforcing in their development and are changing the very nature of knowledge disbursement. The advances in these areas, according to the article, are transferring enormous power and potential to the general public. Technology is advancing in a way which is creating a diffusion of power best exemplified by the Internet. The Internet places huge research resources at the fingertips of anyone willing to ask a question and pursue a line of thinking. The results can be incredible. While for many individuals it represents an opportunity to expand and advance knowledge, for military planners the idea that knowledge allowing access to powerful technologies can not be restricted creates a great deal of fear. The article expressed concern that the availability of the technology emerging from these three areas could shift power in a way which could create greater breakups of composite states such as the former Soviet Union and increase the possibility in China and other parts of the world. One of the primary concerns in this article dealt with access to this new technology becoming a destabilizing force within regions. Specifically, the article suggested that organized crime, private armies, urban gangs, insurgents, regional separatists, conspiracy theory terrorists, radical cults, neo-Luddites, and violent environmentalists together with anti-government militias and "hobbyists" who disrupt information systems as a form of recreation, will gain access to this new technology. The future, to a great extent, is already here. What remains of this predicted future to occur has probably already been designed or will be in the next few years. Already the privacy of individuals is compromised by every purchase we make where the information is digitized. From the list of goods purchased at the store with a scanner and charged to a debit or credit card to all telephone calls and other forms of communication - all are transparent to those who have access to the systems. In the future, given the pace of miniaturization and information processing, it will soon be possible to monitor all forms of communication, create miniature surveillance equipment at a cost where the monitoring of inner cities, then whole cites and regions will be possible. In March 1998 a paper, "Non-Lethal Technologies: Implications for Military Strategy", was authored by U.S. Air Force Colonel Joseph Siniscalchi and published by the Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. The paper suggests that a "focus on Global Management" is the direction of militaries because the overriding unifying force of the great powers of the United States, Europe, Japan, China and Russia is now a shared and interdependent economic system driven by expansion and growth. The lack of competing ideologies with the exception of China removes the primary threats to global security and replaces them with new ones. These new military threats are groups or "non-state actors" motivated by religious causes, nationalism, ethnic rivalries and narco-interests. Dealing with these groups in the territorial boundaries of other countries limits military intervention or, at least it was assumed so, until the United States attacked a suspected terrorist organization inside Afghanistan. The distance from adversaries is also increasing primarily because of the accuracy and range of conventional arms and because of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. War will resemble more of a video game for those countries using the most sophisticated technologies, removing the fighting person from the conflict entirely. What does this do? In the past when wars were fought there was always the distaste for conflict based on the actual experience of war on the battlefield. Returning men and women had a high motivation for guarding against future conflict because of the emotional impact of warfare. Not so now. With these new systems a few operators can level a region without any contact with those they kill. The military insists that because of the changes in the nature of the conflicts that there is greater need to bring forward the newest weapons with the hope that these new systems will minimize noncombatant casualties, reduce property destruction and increase control in areas judged to be a threat. The proliferation of first and second generation non-lethal weapons will occur quickly because the technologies and equipment are not uniue and are widely available to those with the knowledge to use and assemble them. These same advances make possible the use of these new technologies against governments, with the increases in electronic sophistication making developed countries’ systems even more vulnerable to attack. An additional risk with the use of these new non-lethal systems is the risk of conflict escalation. If a country is unable to counterattack in kind it will likely resort to conventional war fighting methods, terrorism or weapons of mass destruction. The idea that non-lethal weapons could be used in conflicts with the emerging threats of "non-state" actors presupposes that all of the conflict participants are operating at the same "logic or rational thought basis" or that they make decisions based on similar value-sets. This is a bad and inaccurate assumption given the history of conflicts involving these players. The fact is they do not react in predictable ways and to expect them to be coerced by new systems is probably unrealistic and may serve to only increase the combatants resolve. The newer technologies offer militaries and states the possibility of non-visible combat. The idea that a country’s communications, power generation and transfer systems, and all forms of electronic data processing can be shut down is mind boggling. The paper suggests that adding this factor to economic sanctions would increase the immediacy of the effect of such sanctions and eliminate all access to supply. As an example: "...disrupting television, radio, and commercial communications can isolate a state’s leadership, or denying electrical production can grind an economy to a halt." "...The following are examples of non-lethal technologies that are employed to augment sanctions. To enforce sanctions, EMP munitions, delivered via cruise or air launched missiles, can disable suspect shipping within a designated restricted area. EMP sea mines may be employed in the restricted area to deter any maritime traffic. The port activities can be disrupted via air-launched EMP weapons to disable electronic components of infrastructure equipment and the electronic ignition of transportation vehicles at selected port areas." One of the things which has always bothered me as a researcher is how the little guy is always held to a high standard of accountability while big organizations get away with murder. I am not suggesting that individuals should be held to a lesser standard - quite to the contrary. Organizations responsible for the security of our nation should be held to the highest standards. We must ask ourselves what these agencies are charged with protecting and whether their actions follow the values expressed in law. Are there reasons that the government should be excused from meeting the requirements of the law? Is there good cause for hiding behind laws which allow for the exploitation of other laws? An article appeared recently which illustrates the point, as follows:

"A former CIA officer from the agency’s top secret black bag’ unit that breaks into foreign embassies to steal code books was charged with espionage Friday for tipping off two countries about the CIA’s success in compromising their communications." Douglas Groat was fired in 1996 from the CIA’s Science and Technology Directorate and could now face the death penalty. These super secret teams are sent around the world to break into embassies and other locations to steal codes and other information so that the National Security Agency (NSA) can intercept a country’s classified communications and know their contents. The article concluded, "The CIA has never publicly acknowledged the existence of its Œblack-bag’ teams because their operations, are by their nature, illegal. And they not only target America’s adversaries but embassies of friendly powers." Consider the contents of this article from the perspective of one of our allies. Remember a few years ago the outrage of our government when we discovered that the State of Israel was using its intelligence gathering resources in the U.S. It was an outrage - or was it just the game we all play? Why should we expect anything less of our allies then we expect of ourselves? One of the hidden aspects of these new systems as well as a major complication for all countries relying on complex computer systems to operate their war making and civilian systems is the Y2K computer bug. This is a situation where certain computer programs and hardware circuits have been designed to interpret which year it is, based on the last two digits of the year. We can all think of the forms we have completed or the times when for a date we just give the last two numbers such as Œ98' when indicating the date. In the August 6, 1998 issue of Computer Weekly an article titled "G8 Triggers Date Bug Fear" appeared. In the article it was disclosed that: "Minutes from a closed door meeting of officials from the G8 group...show that the nuclear industries have been identified as being at risk from the date bug." The article went on to describe some of the potential problems with only a few hundred days remaining until the calendar turns over to the next millennium. The third world and even industrialized countries, particularly Eastern Europe, are a particular "worry" according to the report. The potential for problems in the nuclear industry, financial sectors, and military forces relying on communication, information and transportation systems which may be adversely effected are huge and, for the most part, full of risks which have not been assessed. The reliance on these systems is causing bleak forecasts for the future and may even, in the most extreme scenarios being put forward by experts from around the world, push the planet into a large scale recession or possibly depression. The potential risks are growing and government assurances of being able to resolve the problem are unrealistic according to the experts in the field. In the United States, audits conducted by the government on military systems reported to be compliant and ready for the calendar change have in many instances indicated their non-compliance. For weapon systems, communications and transportation the impact could be devastating. The HAARP story provided an opportunity for Earthpulse as a beginning point of our investigations into new weapon system developments. Of particular interest, given my background, was the public policy considerations of the deployment of these new weapons in the context of democratic and free societies. The ethical and moral questions which are not being adequately debated and addressed has become the greater focus of our work. HAARP, although it occupies the majority of our time, represents a very small fraction of our work. In this presentation I hoped to disclose some of the technology which is here now and advancing rapidly. More than this, I am hopeful that the information would be useful in assessing the state of technology from what appears in some of the open literature. What has happened in the United States, which has allowed segments of our government to set agendas which run counter to the values most of us hold? The transparency of government - the idea that we should be able to look into our government and see clearly the values of the population reflected there is an absolute expectation. Are there risks in transparent government? Yes, an open society necessitates that certain risks be taken. As technology advances, the ability to control populations and manipulate outcomes also advances. Because we know how to control the weather, create earthquakes, force behavioral changes and manipulate the physiology of people does not mean that we should do so. The age we are in requires even greater safeguards of personal freedoms, not further constraints upon them. If freedom is what is being defended then maintaining the values which form the basis of freedom is what must be inherent in the actions our governments take in creating aspects of our reality. The Cold War is not over, but has changed. We know that there are concerns which, being a free people, we must address and bring to the attention of others. We believe that the greatest threat to freedom is an over-oppressive and increasingly secretive government. To many, the government has shifted from one "of the people, by the people and for the people" to a government "of special interests, for their own benefit, at the peoples’ expense". What went wrong, and where it went wrong, to a large extent, is a product of the intelligence bureaucracies which thrive through one administration to the next with unrestrained growth. These secretive bureaucracies hide more and more of their agendas under a cloak of "national security", while drifting further from the principles which have allowed democratic states to exist. Secret government policy is not sanctioned by the free will of the population, and threatens the core beliefs of liberty, honest government and public responsibility. The only truly free people are those who live in an open society, a society which cherishes above all the right of men and women to control and set the values that their government should reflect. These are the popularly set values which must be pressed into the philosophy of all projects, policies and programs our governments seek to institute. No program should be permitted to grow out of democratic governments which does not reflect the values and will of those governed. Our military and economic policies are increasingly empty of the values upon which our democratic forms of government rest. What then is our calling in terms of what we do with the information presented today? It is time to put human values ahead of other agendas. It is time to drag our military institutions out of their veil of secrecy to higher levels of accountability. It is time for all people to recognize, and demand, that increases in security are not made at the expense of freedom. The rights to privacy, free speech and most importantly free.

original source: http://www.leadingedgenews.com/Nonlethalwarfare.htm 
source: http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/non_lethal_weapons.htm 12jun04

To send us your comments, questions, and suggestions click here
The home page of this website is www.mindfully.org
Please see our Fair Use Notice