Owning the weather in 2025 - Military Applications of Weather Modification (intro)

WEATHER AS A FORCE MULTIPLIER: OWNING THE WEATHER IN 2025 MILITARY APPLICATIONS OF WEATHER MODIFICATION In 2025 US aerospace forces can "own the weather" by capitalizing on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies to warfighting applications. Such a capability offers the warfighter tools to shape the battlespace in ways never before possible. It provides opportunities to impact operations across the full spectrum of conflict and is pertinent to all possible futures. The purpose of this paper is to outline a strategy for the use of a future weather modification system to achieve military objectives rather than to provide a detailed technical road map. A high risk/high reward endeavor, weather modification offers a dilemma not unlike the splitting of the atom. While some segments of society will always be reluctant to examine controversial issues such as weather modification, the tremendous military capabilities that could result from this field are ignored at our own peril. 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 counter-space control, weather modification offers the warfighter a wide range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary. Technology advancements in five major areas are necessary for an integrated weather modification capability: (1) advanced nonlinear modeling techniques, (2) computational capability, (3) information gathering and transmission, (4) a global sensor array, and (5) weather intervention techniques. Some intervention tools exist today and others may be developed and refined in the future. Current technologies which will mature over the next thirty years will offer anyone who has the necessary resources the ability to modify weather patterns and their corresponding effects, at least on the local scale. Current demographic, economic, and environmental trends will create global stresses that provide the impetus necessary for many countries or groups to turn this weather modification ability into a capability. In the US, 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. These levels could include: unilateral actions, participation in a security framework such as NATO, membership in an international organization such as the UN, or participation in a coalition. Assuming that in 2025 our national security strategy includes weather modification, its use in our national military strategy will naturally follow. Besides the significant benefits an operational capability would provide, another motivation to pursue weather modification is to deter and counter potential adversaries. In this paper we show that appropriate application of weather modification can provide battlespace dominance to a degree never before imagined. In the future, such operations will enhance air and space superiority and provide new options for battlespace shaping and battlespace awareness. "The technology is there, waiting for us to pull it all together;" in 2025 we can "Own the Weather." A RESEARCH PAPER PRESENTED TO AIR FORCE 2025 2025 is a study designed to comply with a directive from the chief of staff of the Air Force to examine the concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space force in the future. Presented on 17 June 1996, this report was produced in the Department of Defense school environment of academic freedom and in the interest of advancing concepts related to national defense. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government. This report contains fictional representations of future situations/scenarios. Any similarities to real people or events, other than those specifically cited, are unintentional and are for purposes of illustration only. This publication has been reviewed by security and policy review authorities, is unclassified, and is cleared for public release. Background - Page 1 - Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4 - Page 5 - Appendix THIS STUDY WAS WRITTEN FOR THE AIR UNIVERSITY MILITARY WEBSITE.

Certainly it is an interesting concept, much like Vonneguts "ice nine." But, what I think it is quite telling is the fact that this concept was put forth in 1995 based on projections of technological advances over the next 30 years.

I think this is an extremely important distinction that is overlooked by many who would hold up this study as proof of anything.

This reminds me of the predictions in the 1939 world's fair "World of Tomorrow."

Or how about the 1964 [url=http://naid.sppsr.ucla.edu/ny64fair/map-docs/technology.htm]Futurama[/ulr] promise of "electricty to cheap to meter?"

THis report is an interesting "what if" excercise, but I think that it's estimation of technological advances and directions is a little myoptic.



Edit: Oh, and why is this being broken up into these separate threads? This strikes me as "spamming the board?"

[edit on 16-6-2004 by HowardRoark]

If I had the money and the time to research the statistics on weather. I garuntee in 5 years. I would ahve created a machine that would control that could not neccesarily control the WEATHER but DEFINATELY Manipulate the weather the only problem I have with this ... is it would only be used to start hurricanes and maybe send hurricanes spinning in opposite directions or in same directions towards hurricanes that are alrady precident; maybe learning how to make hurricanes go away.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Certainly it is an interesting concept, much like Vonneguts "ice nine." But, what I think it is quite telling is the fact that this concept was put forth in 1995 based on projections of technological advances over the next 30 years.

Howard, why did you endlessly try to debunk my theory of weather modification via airplanes, telling me I wasn't using my brain, etc., etc., but when Abovetopsecret publishes papers that it's already being projected you call it "interesting?"

Dotgov's hypothesis:

Theory: Chemtrails are for our benefit.

1) Chemtrails are real. Even twenty years ago when I was a young child my father would take me to air shows to see the Blue Angels, which would spray colorful trails across the sky. This was twenty years ago, folks. Back then you could even rent a plane to spray messages to your loved one. Now flip forward to twenty years later. During the past twenty years we have experienced a technological advancement like no other during humanity. This advancement isn't solely about bigger TV's and smaller cell phones, this advancement also includes government technology and aspirations.

2) I live in an area where the local commerce depends on two things, crops and the military. The food supply and the military are the two utmost things that a government protects, with its citizens a close third (sad but true).

3) The final result of the spraying is an additional, lower cloud cover. This is what leads to my hypothesis.

Hypothesis The government is spraying to protect us, and our crops, from the harmful UV rays that resulted from the current deterioration of our atmosphere. By producing an additional and fake cloud cover they are ensuring that our crops and our citizens do not fry.

Howard Rourke's response:

You observed a phenomena (persistent contrails) and attempted to formulate a theory for their existence (chemtrails) unfortunately, there are stronger theories out there (basic meteorology) which are simpler and are better at explaining the phenomena.

My thread regarding chems.

edited due to editing.

dot.

[edit on 16-9-2004 by dotgov101]

You have obviously never read Vonnegut�s �Cat�s Cradle.�

Besides, your theory on weather modification using airplanes is inherently illogical.

For instance, if the intent of the program is to combat global warming, then a significant portion of your mitigation efforts would be used to counteract the CO2 producted by your mitigation efforts themselves.

If you read the post above it says:

Technology advancements in five major areas are necessary for an integrated weather modification capability: (1) advanced nonlinear modeling techniques, (2) computational capability, (3) information gathering and transmission, (4) a global sensor array, and (5) weather intervention techniques. Some intervention tools exist today and others may be developed and refined in the future.

That is rather like saying �If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had the eggs.�

The only weather modification technique in existence today is cloud seeding, which has proven to be an extremely unreliable process.

If you look at the report, it reads like an undergraduate project report prepared by college students, which it apparently is.

What is also apparent is that the authors of the paper have never heard of Lorenz, chaos theory, or the concept of sensitive dependence to initial conditions. If they had, they would have known that much of what they propose is impractical if not downright impossible under the concepts of chaos theory.
The report was written in 1996, and although these concepts were pretty well known at that time, it is entirely possible that the authors of this report were unfamiliar with these theories at that time.

As for your theory, go back to your post.

awesome older documentary:



archives, uploaded 2 hrs ago: