{"id":103808,"date":"2022-12-10T19:58:44","date_gmt":"2022-12-10T19:58:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/?p=103808"},"modified":"2022-12-10T19:58:44","modified_gmt":"2022-12-10T19:58:44","slug":"manipulating-the-weather-is-part-of-the-military-arsenal-it-should-be-part-of-the-climate-discussion-prof-michel-chossudovsky","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/manipulating-the-weather-is-part-of-the-military-arsenal-it-should-be-part-of-the-climate-discussion-prof-michel-chossudovsky\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cManipulating the Weather is Part of the Military Arsenal, It should be Part of the Climate Discussion\u201d: Prof. Michel Chossudovsky"},"content":{"rendered":"

Despite the existence of an extensive literature on weather modification techniques for military purposes, the subject is considered taboo. \u201c<\/em>The U.S. military states in its documents that it can influence the weather, and both the UN and the EU were concerned about this issue,\u201d explains Canadian emeritus professor Michel Chossudovsky in an interview with De Andere Krant.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201c<\/em>Weather modification techniques should at least be part of the discussion on climate change.\u201d The 1977 UN \u2018ENMOD\u2019 convention, on the prohibition of applying weather modification techniques for military purposes, provides a starting point for this.<\/em><\/p>\n

Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, is the author of thirteen books, including \u201c<\/em>The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order,\u201d \u201c<\/em>Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War,\u201d and \u201c<\/em>The Globalization of War, America\u2019s Long War against Humanity\u201d. He is the founder of the Center for Research on Globalization, and editor-in-chief of the highly informative site www.globalresearch.ca<\/a>. Over the years, he has published several articles that demonstrate, using documents from the US government, EU and UN, that the application of weather modification techniques is not an urban legend.<\/em><\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

Elze van Hamelen (De Andere Krant): <\/strong>In several articles you point out the literature on \u2018ENMOD\u2019 \u2013 Environmal Modification Techniques for military purposes. Can you give an example?<\/em><\/p>\n

Michel Chossudovsky:<\/strong> One of the most important documents is titled \u2018Weather as a Force Multiplier. Owning the Weather in 2025<\/em>\u2019. The document is significant because the U.S. Air Force here recognizes that owning the weather as a weapon is a military strategy.<\/p>\n

Owning the weather<\/em> was written in 1996, and they state very clearly, I\u2019ll give a literal quote:<\/p>\n

\u201cModification of the weather will most likely become part of national security policy, with national as well as international applications. Our government will pursue this policy at various levels, including unilateral action, participation in the framework of NATO, within the membership of the UN or through participation in another coalition. It can have offensive and defensive applications, as well as being used as a deterrent<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

Weather modification gives the possibility of generating precipitation, or fog or influencing \u2018space weather\u2019 (electromagnetic disturbances, ed.).<\/p>\n

The paper distinguishes between suppression or intensification of existing weather patterns, and in extreme cases, the creation of totally new patterns, control of storms and even climate change.<\/p>\n

Climate scientists make a distinction between weather patterns and the climate, and that changes in the latter are long-term processes. But the moment you start intervening directly in weather processes, of course that also has an effect on climate. They talk about a set of technologies that can create artificial weather. What\u2019s important is that they indicate that the advantage of influencing the weather is that they can intervene in a hostile country without the enemy realizing it.<\/p>\n

Elze van Hamelen (De Andere Krant): <\/strong>So, it\u2019s a deliberate method of covert warfare.<\/em><\/p>\n

Michel Chossudovsky:<\/strong> Yes, they discuss very openly the characteristics of what weather warfare would look like. By the way, this history goes way back. For example, back during the Vietnam War, \u201cOperation Popeye\u201d was conducted, with the goal of prolonging the monsoon rains, which would have blocked the enemy\u2019s supply routes.<\/p>\n

That was over 50 years ago. Back then, chemicals were sprayed for cloud seeding, since then the technology has evolved, and again is probably mainly influenced by HAARP technology.<\/p>\n

HAARP, the \u201cHigh-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program,\u201d was developed in Alaska in the 1990s. It is a set of antennas that can influence the ionosphere. HAARP is well documented through patents and military documents. So, there is technology that is capable of influencing the ionosphere, and very specifically adapting weather conditions. It is capable of destabilizing agricultural and ecological systems and can cause droughts. This is detailed in the description of the HAARP program. And the climate scientists only focus on carbon and nitrogen emissions in their research!<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Elze van Hamelen (De Andere Krant): <\/strong>What kind of weather effects can HAARP cause?<\/em><\/p>\n

Michel Chossudovsky:<\/strong> If we go by the literature, almost any kind of weather change \u2013 storms, droughts, hurricanes, floods, and even earthquakes are mentioned. In addition, HAARP can also cripple electrical systems and networks, and communications networks. The Airforce report roughly coincided with the publications on the HAARP project. From the documents I have seen, it is clear that HAARP was fully operational in Alaska in the mid-1990s. That particular project was discontinued several years ago, perhaps that technology had become obsolete by now? In the meantime, the installation has most probably been moved other locations.<\/p>\n

Elze van Hamelen (De Andere Krant): <\/strong>The researcher Rosalie Bertell wrote that several such installations exist worldwide.<\/em><\/p>\n

Michel Chossudovsky:<\/strong> I am not aware of any of these. At the moment, all information about these kinds of technologies is kept secret. This is why I think the 1977 UN Convention is so important. In the \u201cConvention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques<\/em>,\u201d or for short, the ENMOD Convention, many countries, including the U.S. and the then Soviet Union, agreed at the time not to use such technologies for military purposes. The existence of this convention implies recognition of the existence of these technologies in the public domain, and this should be the basis for demanding research into artificial influence on weather and climate. Then we can also better assess to what extent ENMOD is applied in practice.<\/p>\n

Elze van Hamelen (De Andere Krant): <\/strong>I read that it is even claimed that the jet-stream can be influenced.<\/em><\/p>\n

Michel Chossudovsky:<\/strong> Yes, that was already known in the 1970s. The ENMOD convention also has a very broad definition of weather modification: \u201cany technique for altering \u2013 by deliberate manipulation of natural processes \u2013 the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere or space<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Elze van Hamelen (De Andere Krant): <\/strong>Do Russia or China possess such weapons?<\/em><\/p>\n

Michel Chossudovsky:<\/strong> Yes, Russia has these weapons as well. I think that is what the UN documents say. Whether China has disposal of these weapons I do not know. But suppose they were to use such weapons against each other, it would be devastating. In many ways, these weather weapons are more damaging than military operations because it can literally flatten agriculture or the electricity grid.<\/p>\n

What is ironic, in 1996 the Canadian Broadcasting Organization<\/em>, CBC<\/em>, aired a special TV program on HAARP, but in this day and age neither the CBC<\/em> nor any other mainstream channel would seriously discuss this issue. (See CBC<\/em> video below).<\/p>\n

Questions about HAARP were also raised in the European Parliament at the time, a committee related to security and defense held a public hearing on the subject in 1998. As a result, a resolution was passed. What I mean to say is, the subject of weather and climate influence for military purposes is a subject that people were concerned about, and that was taken seriously at the UN and in the EU. But in the present context, there is no initiative to discuss or investigate this issue, not even by the IPCC. I suspect that one of the reasons for the IPCC\u2019s silence is the so-called climate consensus, because anyone who dares to go against it is immediately blacklisted.<\/p>\n

CBC News documentary: HAARP \u2013 US military weather weapon<\/strong><\/p>\n