New Non-Lethal Weapons
Systems May Be Used
Against US Citizens
Dr. Nick Begich, Interviewed By Kenneth Burke

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.
Dr. Begich can be contacted at or Box 201393, Anchorage, Alaska 99520 907-694-1277 907-696-1277 Fax
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.
"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: "In 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.
Continued in Part II


This Site Served by TheHostPros