HAARPingChina.jpg

“Environmental warfare is defined as the intentional modification or manipulation of the natural ecology, such as climate and weather, earth systems such as the ionosphere, magnetosphere, tectonic plate system, and/or the triggering of seismic events (earthquakes) to cause intentional physical, economic, and psycho-social, and physical destruction to an intended target geophysical or population location, as part of strategic or tactical war.”

World renowned scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell confirms that ~ “US military scientists are working on weather systems as a potential weapon. The methods include the enhancing of storms and the diverting of vapor rivers in the Earth’s atmosphere to produce targeted droughts or floods.

In the 1970s, former National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski had foreseen in his book “Between Two Ages” that: “Technology will make available, to the leaders of major nations, techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare minimum of the security forces need be appraised… Techniques of weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storm.

Marc Filterman, a former French military officer, outlined several types of “unconventional weapons” using radio frequencies. He refers to “weather war,” indicating that the U.S. and the Soviet Union had already “mastered the know-how needed to unleash sudden climate changes (hurricanes, drought) in the early 1980s.” These technologies make it “possible to trigger atmospheric disturbances by using Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) radar [waves].”

A study of future defense “scenarios” commissioned for the US Air Force calls for: “US aerospace forces to ‘own the weather’ by capitalizing on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies to war-fighting applications.” From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counterspace control, weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary. In the United States, weather-modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels.

2010_07_28_hf.jpg
HAARP Spectrum Monitor Waterfall Chart showing HAARP was active between 2:30 PM and 5:00 PM UTC July 28, 2010

As stated in previous articles HAARP is the weather modification weapon system that is responsible for climate change as well as recent earthquakes, hurricanes, floodings, drought and even bringing down aircraft. Scientific evidence proves that HAARP is at present fully operational. Using HAARP’s own data from their website the World can see exactly when the US military is using HAARP. What this means is that HAARP is now being used by the US military to selectively modify the climate of foreign states with a view to destabilizing its national economy. All this is being done in violation of the 1976 ENMOD Convention to which the United States is a signatory to.

The ENMOD Convention prohibits use of environmental modification techniques as a method of warfare. States are also prohibited from assisting others in the hostile use of environmental modification. Article II of the Convention defines environmental modification techniques as: “any technique for changing - through deliberate manipulation of natural processes - the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.”

Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques

Adopted by Resolution 31/72 of the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1976.
Signed in Geneva May 18, 1977
Entered into force October 5, 1978
Ratification by U.S. President December 13, 1979
U.S. ratification deposited at New York January 17, 1980

The States Parties to this Convention,

Guided by the interest of consolidating peace, and wishing to contribute to the cause of halting the arms race, and of bringing about general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, and of saving mankind from the danger of using new means of warfare,

Determined to continue negotiations with a view to achieving effective progress towards further measures in the field of disarmament,

Recognizing, however, that military or any other hostile use of such techniques could have effects extremely harmful to human welfare,

Desiring to prohibit effectively military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques in order to eliminate the dangers to mankind from such use, and affirming their willingness to work towards the achievement of this objective,

Desiring also to contribute to the strengthening of trust among nations and to the further improvement of the international situation in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Have agreed as follows:

Article I

1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.

2. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to assist, encourage or induce any State, group of States or international organization to engage in activities contrary to the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article.

Article II

As used in article 1, the term “environmental modification techniques” refers to any technique for changing - through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes - the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.

Article V

3. Any State Party to this Convention which has reason to believe that any other State Party is acting in breach of obligations deriving from the provisions of the Convention may lodge a complaint with the Security Council of the United Nations. Such a complaint should include all relevant information as well as all possible evidence supporting its validity.

Article VII

This Convention shall be of unlimited duration.

UNDERSTANDINGS REGARDING THE CONVENTION

Understanding Relating to Article I

It is the understanding of the Committee that, for the purposes of this Convention, the terms, “widespread”, “long-lasting” and “severe” shall be interpreted as follows:

(a) “widespread”: encompassing an area on the scale of several hundred square kilometres;
(b) “long-lasting”: lasting for a period of months, or approximately a season;
(c) “severe”: involving serious or significant disruption or harm to human life, natural and economic resources or other assets.

It is further understood that the interpretation set forth above is intended exclusively for this Convention and is not intended to prejudice the interpretation of the same or similar terms if used in connexion with any other international agreement.

Understanding Relating to Article II

It is the understanding of the Committee that the following examples are illustrative of phenomena that could be caused by the use of environmental modification techniques as defined in Article II of the Convention: earthquakes, tsunamis; an upset in the ecological balance of a region; changes in weather patterns (clouds, precipitation, cyclones of various types and tornadic storms); changes in climate patterns; changes in ocean currents; changes in the state of the ozone layer; and changes in the state of the ionosphere.

It is further understood that all the phenomena listed above, when produced by military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques, would result, or could reasonably be expected to result, in widespread, long-lasting or severe destruction, damage or injury. Thus, military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques as defined in Article II, so as to cause those phenomena as a means of destruction, damage or injury to another State Party, would be prohibited.

It is recognized, moreover, that the list of examples set out above is not exhaustive. Other phenomena which could result from the use of environmental modification techniques as defined in Article II could also be appropriately included. The absence of such phenomena from the list does not in any way imply that the undertaking contained in Article I would not be applicable to those phenomena, provided the criteria set out in that article were met.