- 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 www.earthpulse.com 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- "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
- 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
- SIGHTINGS HOMEPAGE
Site Served by TheHostPros