This one caught my eye, and apparently quite a few of yours as well, since many of you emailed it to me:
Now, for me, in the process of writing and researching a book titled Covert Wars and Breakaway Civilizations, this was intriguing, for weather warfare, and, for that matter, "geodetic" warfare (to coin an expression), i.e., modifying or exploiting geographic or deodetic feature of the Earth itself as weapons of war, is the utmost in "covert wars", for as my late colleage Jerry Smith put it in his book Weather Warfare, mother nature provides the perfect plausible deniability, not the least because few people actually believe the technology exists to do it. After all, to engineer the weather over an entire country implies nothing less than engineering on a planetary scale.
But I hope you caught that one key sentence just sort of "squatting there" like a big ugly toad in the middle of an article about something as paltry as engineering a draught in an entire country:
"In 2005, the Air Force said it has the ability to 'generate precipitation, fog, and storms on earth or to modify space weather' and that 'the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of technologies.'”
Now, I just had to check that one out, and it led me to this
And sure enough, there it was again, only this time, quoted in a very different way:
"Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally... It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog, and storms on earth or to modify space weather, ... and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of technologies which can provide substantial increase in US, or degraded capability in an adversary, to achieve global awareness, reach, and power."
Then there was this statement:
"Ironically, the Pentagon, while recognizing its ability to modify the World's climate for military use, has joined the global warming consensus. In a major study (pdf) , the Pentagon has analyzed in detail the implications of various global warming scenarios."
(Now, for those of you wondering just who this Michel Chossudovsky is, I'll just let you read what Wikipedia says, without further comment: Michel Chossudovsky)
What I find intriguing to speculate about here is (1) why the Pentagon would be engaging in global warming studies as threats to US National security, and (2) why it would be talking about acquiring technologies to "modify space weather." Now, the most obvious source for "space weather" is the Sun, and the implications of the statement (considered in the context of the global warming concern) are therefore horrific: the acquisition of a technology capable of manipulating the Sun is a goal (and if you're thinking what I'm thinking), and thus a possible cause for having a technology that can modify space weather and cause draughts. Would the Pentagon study such a thing therefore as a threat to national security?
Certainly, for if such technologies could be attained - or have already been attained - then one would want to know the detailed signatures of the use of such a technology (in order to detect its possible use by some other power on us), and one would also want to know the environmental effects of deploying such technologies on someone else...
Now here's where it gets interesting, for if we should see, say, the Russians reporting on this possibility, or even, say, doing a odcumentary on it, then that will indicate that they have seen the Pentagon's bet, and called it....
Don't forget your sunscreen...
See you on the flip side.