Joint Economic Committee Hearing – Radio Frequency Weapons and Proliferation

Joint Economic Committee Hearing – Radio Frequency Weapons and Proliferation

28 February 1998
Source: http://www.house.gov/jec/hearings/02-25-8h.htm


Joint Economic Committee Hearing

Radio Frequency Weapons and Proliferation:

Potential Impact on the Economy

Wednesday, February 25, 1998

Witnesses:

James O’Bryon
Department of Defense


David Schriner
Electronic Warfare Association


Dr. Ira Merritt
Missile Defense Space Tech Center


Dr. Alan Kehs
U.S. Army Research Laboratories

Chairman Jim Saxton’s Prepared Statement

Mr. James O’Bryon’s Prepared Statement

Mr. David Schriner’s Prepared Statement

Dr. Ira Merritt’s Prepared Statement

Dr. Alan Kehs’ Prepared Statement


Statement of Chairman Jim Saxton
Joint Economic Committee

Wednesday, February 25, 1998

Radio Frequency Weapons and Proliferation: Potential Impact on the Economy

      Good morning. Thank you very much, everyone, for being here.

      On June 17, 1997, the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) held a hearing called, “Economic Espionage, Technology Transfers and National Security,” in which it heard testimony from Lt. Gen. Robert Schweitzer [below] about a new class of weapons, radio frequency weapons (RF), and the impact of these new weapons on the civilian and military electronic infrastructure of the United States.

      Since the General talked about a terrorist threat and a proliferation threat, the JEC has continued to investigate these potential threats. I am pleased to welcome to the Committee an extremely knowledgeable group of panelists. Let me introduce them.

      Dr. Alan Kehs is with U.S. Army Laboratories and will discuss the overall RF threat. Dr. Kehs has a BS and a MS in Electrical Engineering, and a MS and a PhD in Physics from the University of Maryland. He is a recognized expert on the generation and use of intense relativistic electron beams for the production of high-power microwave radiation. Recent assignments include Chief of the Source Physics Branch and Chief of the Nuclear and High Power Microwave Technology Office. Dr. Kehs chaired the 8th national conference on HPM in April 1997 and currently chairs the tri-service HPM technology coordinating committee.

      Mr. James O’Bryon is the Deputy Director of Operational Testing and the Director of Live Fire Testing with the Office of the Secretary of Defense at the Pentagon. He has received a BS in Mathematics, and he also has graduate degrees from George Washington University in Operations Research/Management Science and from MIT through the Electrical Engineering Department. The Director will discuss the role of Live Fire Testing and how it may play a role in testing our military equipment with RF weapons.

      Mr. David Schriner is the Principal Engineer directed energy studies with Electronic Warfare Associates and a recently retired engineer with the naval weapons testing facility at China Lake. He has numerous patents, has received superior service awards, and given technical presentations over 42 years of civil and military service. He will discuss the difficulty in building a RF weapon and the terrorist threat.

      Dr. Ira Merritt is with the Missile Defense Space Technology Center in Huntsville, Alabama. He has more than 25 years of experience in developing advanced technologies, systems requirements, system designs, and test capabilities for ballistic missile defense systems. He has a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering and advanced degrees in Nuclear Engineering. Dr. Merritt will discuss the proliferation of RF weapons primarily from the former Soviet Union.

      I look forward to the enlightening testimony from our panelists.


Statement of Mr. James F. O’Bryon Deputy Director, Operational Test and
Evaluation Live Fire Testing Office of the Secretary of Defense before the Joint Economic Committee United States Congress Wednesday, February 25, 1998

      Mr. Chairman and other distinguished members of the Committee, it’s an honor for me to appear before the Joint Economic Committee today to discuss the role and mission of Live Fire Testing, and specifically as it relates to the ballistic threat, the threats posed by radio frequency and electro-magnetic pulse and other threats. As your letter of invitation states, these issues “are of great importance to our nation as well as the world.”

      Let me begin by acknowledging the fact that the Congress recognized, starting about a decade ago, that there was a significant and growing need to realistically test our major weapons and weapons platforms to assure that they would withstand the rigors of combat and to inflict the maximum effect on the enemy when used. The Live Fire Test legislation, first authored in Fiscal Year 1986 and strengthened several times since then, including most recently, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA), signed into law by the President in October 1994, requires that this realistic testing be conducted against realistic threats and that an independent report on the test results be prepared and delivered from the Secretary of Defense to the defense committees of both houses of the Congress prior to making any decision to enter full-rate production on each designated system. These systems have included armor systems, missiles, projectiles, aircraft and others. To date, literally thousands of Live Fire Tests have been conducted and evaluated and more than two dozen Live Fire Test and Evaluation reports on both weapons and platforms have been forwarded to the House and Senate in compliance with statute, prior to the decisions to enter full-rate production.

      Live Fire Testing has revealed design flaws which, had they not been found in testing and corrected, would most likely have resulted in the loss of valuable equipment, and more importantly, loss of life of our combat forces. The kind of realistic testing that we require provides the opportunity to learn what otherwise would only be discovered in the first days of actual combat, and that is certainly not the time for surprises.

      Since this is the Joint Economic Committee, I’m confident that your focus would be on how much this testing has cost the American taxpayer and in turn how much has been returned on these investments. I’m happy to report to you that, over the past decade since the inception of this program, although significant improvements have been made to our weapons systems as the result of this testing, not one test program has exceeded 1/3 of one percent of the program’s cost. This small investment has paid significant dividends in not only military equipment saved but also savings in lives from improved combat survivability.

      From its beginning, the LFT&E program has required that not only design threats be tested against our systems but that also emerging threats be tested as well since we need to anticipate what we’ll face at the end of the acquisition cycle and beyond. The System Threat Assessment Reports, or STARs, as they’re known, are prepared by the Service proponents and approved by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). These documents, by DoD regulation, are the primary source document used to establish what these emerging threats will be.

      The threats tend to fall into three categories: classical conventional, emerging conventional threats and unconventional threats. The legislation forming the basis for LFT&E calls for testing against expected conventional threats. The Pentagon’s JCS Publication 1-02 defines a conventional weapon as one which is neither nuclear, biological or chemical. Hence, testing of our chemical, biological and nuclear weapons is not under the aegis of Live Fire Testing. However, LFT&E does include other threats including directed energy threats. The focus of the STARs over the years has been on, what I term, “classical conventional threats.” They have formed the basis of the DIA threat documents outlining projected threats over the years. These traditional threats are certainly the most familiar and they include such things as rockets, bullets, missiles, mines, torpedoes, grenades, shaped charges, kinetic energy penetrators, high explosives and other similar weapons which damage by depositing either kinetic energy, explosive energy or both. We have done significant testing of these threats and these threats will, most likely continue to face us well into the next century.

      There is a second category of threats which, in my opinion, are of increasing importance, the directed energy threats. This category of threats includes low, medium, and high-energy lasers and high powered microwave radio frequency threats. I would like to focus the remainder of my opening statement on them.

      These directed energy threats are included within the official definition of conventional threats, and hence, within the LFT&E mandate for oversight, are receiving increasing attention from the Services.

      Recent defense guidance has made clear that other nations may very well choose to fight the U.S. asymmetrically, thereby avoiding a frontal assault on our forces in the more traditional war of engagement and attrition. Rather, they very well might choose to select a specific area of our potential vulnerability, for example communications, or information warfare, or other selective threat to attack us more effectively and efficiently. Recognizing that our nation, both militarily and commercially, is heavily dependent upon electronically produced, processed and transmitted information, it makes good sense to assume that rogue nations could easily try to exploit this potential niche warfare area to not only disrupt military command, control and communications but also to attempt to defeat our highly sophisticated military systems which rely increasingly on computers and their related software.

      Drawing much of their technology from the commercial world, our military systems, whether they be tanks, ships or aircraft are heavily dependent upon computers or computer components. They use computers to navigate, to communicate and to acquire and home on targets. In fact, some of our new fighter aircraft literally cannot fly without their computer controls. Destroying, disrupting, corrupting or interrupting computer components could be very serious. As our computers become more and more miniaturized, faster and more proliferated, it may become feasible to attack these platforms through their potentially soft electronic components. As Mark Twain once said, “If you put all of your eggs in one basket, you’d better watch that basket.”

      Other technologies, such as the introduction of nonmetallic composite skins for our aircraft and armor, may, while minimizing weight, inadvertently increase vulnerabilities by eliminating the “Faraday cage” which has traditionally provided a degree of protection from external electronic disruption.

      We recently initiated a series of Joint Live Fire Tests (JLF) with the three Military Departments to assess the effects of potential radio frequency weapons against our platforms. While there has been some testing of RF weapons over the years, these JLF tests were particularly interesting for several reasons: First, we were examining the survivability of our systems to such weapons. In contrast to this, most tests done previously had been to asses our lethality against potential adversaries. Second, the source was a transient electro-magnetic broadband threat, making potentially susceptible a much wider range of equipment than the more traditionally tested narrow band systems. Third, the tests were conducted outside, rather than the vast majority of other testing which has been done at short range inside enclosures. Just as one’s voice sounds differently in the shower than it does outside, so does the performance of an RF weapon in the open. Fourth, the tests were done against a fully operational target, not simply a component or series of components as is often done. Just as the human body behaves as a total system, weapons platforms perform differently when tested as a complete operating system. We selected the Army’s Huey Cobra Gunship as the candidate platform to gain insights into not only what the first order effects might be but also to gain insights into how to even test such systems to these threats. Our intent in testing such an older and less sophisticated platform than we are currently developing was that it would not only be less costly and more available for destructive testing but also might indicate that if such an unsophisticated platform were to be vulnerable to such threats, then our newer, more computer dependent platforms could also be. We also were able to place other devices of interest in the path of the threat with significant results.

      Just three weeks ago, I and some 200 others attended a meeting in the Russell Building sponsored by the National Defense Industrial Association, at which time the issues of information security and warfare were discussed. The act that some of our military communications are conducted over commercial lines was noted. Hence, what might first appear to be a civilian problem could also be a military problem.

      Because of the rate of change of technology, in communications, computers and sensors as well as in lasers and radio frequency technology, the complexities of the issues are fast-moving.

      I’m not here to imply that the sky is falling, or that our weapons don’t work. What I am trying to say is that the world is changing, the potential threat is changing, and our approach to designing and testing in this emerging world must change to meet it. We must realistically Live Fire Test to these emerging threats to our military platforms and weapons. It will be a savings not only in real dollars and equipment, but in lives as well.

      Thank you for your invitation to appear here this morning. I’ll be happy to answer any questions you may have at this time.


Statement of Mr. David Schriner before the Joint Economic Committee United States Congress Wednesday, February 25, 1998

“The Design and Fabrication of a Damage
Inflicting RF Weapon by ‘Back Yard’ Methods”

      Note, this paper reflects the personal views and opinion of the author. The material in this paper has been deemed unclassified by those who hold his security clearances but it does not specifically represent their views. This paper is a very brief statement on the subject and it is written from a non-technical point of view to provide an easy look at the subject manner by non-professional people or groups. Further elaboration on any point can be requested in either a technical format or at a classified level with the proper security restrictions in place.

      For many years research activities in different countries have focused on the use of radio frequency (RF) waves as a weapon. Most of this work has been titled or described under the title of High Powered Microwave (HPM). Worldwide, large amounts of money have been invested in this technology to support both the military interests but also the industrial heating needs. Like most technologies, with maturity the applications increase and the costs to use it become lower. One primary point of this paper is that as these technologies mature they also become affordable and usable by criminals and terrorists. Most military programs are classified and the general public knows little concerning their nature but as the technology becomes available to criminals and terrorists, it may be directly applied to the infrastructure elements of our society. This paper addresses the question concerning the possibility of certain types of this technology being used against the society.

      The primary focus of this paper will be on a different and new form of HPM called Transient Electromagnetic Devices (TED) that could, in the hands of enemies, criminals, pranksters, or terrorists pose a significant threat to much of the United States infrastructure components that are based on micro-circuits and computer or micro-processor control. This includes financial institutions, aircraft, security, medical, automotive, and other critical equipment used everyday in our society. The systems necessary for the production of this form of energy are much easier to construct and use than the earlier and more well known conventional HPM narrow-band systems that are currently in development for military use. Millions of dollars have been spent on the conventional HPM, systems and it is the type that DOD managers and their funding offices are well acquainted with. This paper will briefly speak to these but the main focus of it will be on the very different type, the TED systems, which is less well known and may be the RF weapon of choice to the modern cyber or infrastructure RF warrior.

      Conventional HPM systems generate RF wavessimilar to those used for many different purposes including communications, heating, and radio location purposes. We are all very familiar with the term frequency as expressed in mega-hertz (MHz) when we tune our FM radios over the FM band from 88 to 108 MHz. Likewise with the AM radio band from .55 to 1.5 MHz. These expressions of frequency describe how many complete RF cycles occur each second from the radio transmitters that generate them. Radar systems also generate RF signals but these are in thousands of MHz each second (the term Giga-Hertz or GHz applies). This is the type of signal that conventional HPM systems generate or radiate, a sine wave. TED systems do not generate a sine wave and operate entirely differently than narrow-band systems.

      Narrow band HPM systems are similar to microwave ovens in that they use high powered sine waves to cause material placed in their field to generate heat. This is exactly what narrow band HPM systems do, they attempt to use extremely high powered RF sine waves to cause a target system to burn out. Other types of HPM use high powered, but conventional wave-like signals to enter a target system and cause some of the conventional effects that a jammer or countermeasure system might. All of these narrow band HPM systems employ sine waves that are very different than the signals generated and radiated and employed by the TED systems.

      RF power is expressed in Watts and one million Watts is expressed as “megaWatts” or MW. A kitchen microwave oven, for example, uses a magnetron tube to produce a continuous wave (CW) .5 to 1 MW RF signal to provide energy to heat the material placed in its presence. In a simple way of describing the heating, the powerful microwave signals cause the molecules of the material to rub together at the frequency generated by the magnetron and heat results in the material exposed to the field. Materials such as meat, many materials containing carbon molecules, and even water heat well when placed in such a field. Many industrial heating applications require considerably larger power levels than the home microwave oven but the basic principles are the same.

      It is with this view of microwave heating that we have the first notion of the use of microwaves as a weapon. One assumes that if a microwave signal of extremely high power level is aimed at a distant target of some type, then heating and perhaps burnout of some part of the target would occur. If the signal was tuned to the operating frequency of a targeted radio receiver, for example, one would assume that if enough power was provided in the radiated beam directed at the target’s radio antenna, that the radio’s “front-end”, that part directly connected to the antenna, could be heated sufficiently to burn it out. The key here is whether there is an entry point for the high powered signal to enter the targeted system and whether there is enough power to cause burnout.

      The community involved with HPM systems generally describes a “front-door” and a “back-door” entry point. A front-door point might be, as in the above example, an antenna normally used by the target platform, such as an aircraft or a tank, for some RF function such as communication or radar. Here the RF weapon designer would attempt to radiate an RF signal into the target platform’s antenna and cause either a burnout or a disruption effect. A back-door entry point might be an unshielded wire at some point on the targeted platform that would allow the RF weapon signal to enter some part of the platform’s electronic systems and, as before, cause a burnout or disruption of some sort. The weapon designer would like to have a priori knowledge of the target so as to select the right frequency and use the right modulations to accomplish the desired result.

      Since this extremely high-powered RF generation technology also fills the needs of industrial heating applications, essentially very high powered microwave ovens, there is a universal worldwide need for the technology and export controls are confused when it comes to the possible use of this technology as a weapon.

      The New Kid on the block, the Transient Electromagnetic Device (TED):

      There is a new type of source technology currently under development in our country and, very likely, other countries as well. This type of directed RF energy is quite different than the narrow-band systems previously described. This type of directed energy is called transient electromagnetic radiation. Instead of generating a train of smooth sine-waves, as the conventional narrow-band systems do, it generates a single spike-like form of energy. This spike-like burst of potential does not have “cycles” or waves and it may be only one or two hundred pico-seconds (psec) in length. 100 psec is the time that it takes light to travel 1.2 inches and often these short time duration puoses are described in “light-inches”.

      It is very similar to the type of signal that occurs when you rub your feet on the carpet on a dry day and then touch your computer keyboard. An electrostatic discharge (ESD) occurs when you do this. The electrostatic charge on your body discharges onto and into the computer and a very brief amount of very high current flows quickly from your finger into the computer circuits causing a momentary break in the normal flow of signals and bits of information. Because of this momentary break in the “bit-flow” the ESD may cause the computer to crash and in some cases it may cause sensitive electronic circuits to be actually damaged to the point where they are non-functional and must be replaced. This vulnerable item may be just a single semiconductor diode in a single integrated chip in a circuit on the motherboard, and there are hundreds or thousands of these in a desk-top computer. It is often economical to simply replace a whole circuit board of components rather than trying to find the one specific circuit and replacing just it. This type of new weapon source, a transient electromagnetic device (TED), is actually a system that radiates an ESD-like signal that is intended to cause a similar responses, as just described, to the targeted system.

      Let us look at the differences between narrow-band (NB) and TED HPM systems. The NB systems generate sine waves, the TEDs don’t. The NB systems are very costly and go to great lengths to generate very high average powers, the TEDs don’t, the NB systems are very complex systems, the TEDs are not, the NB systems generate very high average powers (microwave heating), the TEDs generate very high peak powers (and are poor RF heaters). They both use an antenna and the larger it is, the more power they can radiate, in a narrow focused beam, at the target.

      In a narrow-band HPM device, high technology vacuum tubes are used that are, in some ways, very similar to those used in our highest-powered TV or FM stations and radar systems. They are very delicate devices, are complex, and very expensive. They require large amounts of primary power and generally require some type of cooling system, either air blowers or liquid types. All of this complexity requires complex engineering and development, and the manufacturing time is great and costly. Not for the amateur or a low-cost, start-up operation. Generally a highly skilled team of various technical experts of numerous engineering specialties is required to manage the development and operation of such devices.

      TEDs, on the other hand, are relatively simple devices that generally use simple spark-gap switches, either in oil or in pressurized gas pulse storage lines. The power supplies are relatively small in size and much lower in average power and cost than for the NB systems. The engineering and mechanical issues are small in comparison to the narrow-band devices. The technology is well described in the various professional Pulse Power references found in good technical libraries. The significant development, engineering, and manufacturing costs are small in comparison to narrow band. Most of the technology required is available and is an outcrop of the various nuclear and flash x-ray work done in the past.

      NB systems operate at some given frequency with a small bandwidth, and you will find them at one spot on the radio dial. The TEDs do not even have a definable frequency but instead, because of their short time duration, they occupy a very large spectrum space, and you will find it everywhere on every radio dial. When a TED pulse is generated it will have the ability to excite responses in systems designed to receive at any frequency from as low as 100 MHz up to several GHz, from the FM band up to the lower microwave bands. A NB system would excite only those systems that were operating at its frequency, say 2.345 GHz, so a narrow band system must be “tuned” to a given target’s known soft spot but a TED system would go after any soft spot of the target platform, back-door or front door.

      So what is the bottom line of this discussion?

      Because of the simplicity of TED systems and the suspicion that they may cause disruptive effects to electronic systems that they are aimed at, they make an attractive approach for RF terrorists to use for various purposes. We see hints of this vulnerability in the many warnings that we get each month about locations where we should not use radios and electronic devices for fear that we will do some damage to something. They make passengers on aircraft, during take off and landing, turn off radios, games, and other electronic devices. Hospitals regularly place signs that electronic devices are not allowed. Many people do not want you using your cellular telephones near their computer. Many repair shops require that wrist-bands attached to ground be used when opening electronic equipment for repair. We have a lot of things out there in the world that either have known or suspected vulnerabilities to RF fields or electrostatic discharge. A TED system provides both of these conditions, an RF electrostatic discharge nature and its output (the number of pulses per second) can be adjusted for maximum disruptive effect. Its peak power output can be made much higher than those fields ordinarily found in everyday systems like cellular radios, radar systems, TV and FM stations, and simple ESD effects.

      It clearly appears, based on testing that has been done as well the information presented at unclassified technical papers and conferences, that the TED would make a good terrorist RF weapon and that, with the proliferation of high technology infrastructure systems that are integral to everyday life in our country, we would be very vulnerable to such systems. It is also clear, because of the extreme cost of repairing all of the vulnerable systems, that until this vulnerability was shown, no one would have much concern or interest in it.

      Considerable discussion and innuendo has recently been made concerning the possibility of building a TED source using “back-yard” methods, a Radio Shack Terrorist RF weapon. Such a system would have to have sufficient power to, with some degree of probability, cause detrimental effects to common infrastructure items such as those found in; financial institutions (banks, ATMs, and stores), medical facilities, airport facilities, general transportation items (auto engine controls, ABS, air-bags, etc.), utility facilities (telephone exchanges, power grid controllers), and other infrastructure entities. This type of source is imagined to be what a criminal, terrorist, or prankster could develop or build in a reasonable time, with reasonable tools and materials and with open literature or reference material.

      The accomplishment of such an effort would require that either some sort of estimate of what power level would be necessary to accomplish a given objective or to simply make all of the power that could be made, and then go out and test the weapon against various target items under either controlled conditions or actual attempts against a family of established targets. Since it is an extremely complex process to even come close to some predicted level of vulnerability, using even the most advanced modeling and analysis techniques, the obvious approach would be to “go for the maximum power and then test” approach. Normal testing would be done under strict safety and security conditions but a terrorist would not have such limitations. Normal tests would be conducted at a test location but a terrorist would simply drive around the block or building until something happened.

      An important criteria for an RF terrorist would be that any of the parts and materials used would have to be those that could be easily found in any city and were not traceable by conventional counter-terrorist agencies such as the local police, insurance investigators, and FBI.

      It is clear that there are four basic configurations that could be used, one the size of a briefcase that could be placed very close to a target system (like a computer at a desk or counter), one that could be mounted into a small van and disguised to appear as ordinary, one that was dedicated to be set up at a remote target location and used for some purpose where appearance was not of any concern, and finally, a system that could be located in one’s back yard such that it could be aimed at over flying aircraft.

      The systems would likely have much in common and the builder would employ a learning curve to go to the next more advanced system. The results or vulnerabilities found with any system could be factored into the use of the next system. This learn-as-you-go process would be a natural approach for such an amateur effort.

      The means of manufacturing the system includes parts and tools that one could purchase at a hardware store or those found in an average garage shop. Tools such as a small lathe with an integral milling machine (available via mail-order at a cost about $2,000), drill press, and general garage tools should be all that were needed, nothing exotic.

      The effort would likely be started with the small briefcase-sized unit. It could use automobile ignition parts and a camcorder ni-cad battery for the power supply. It might use a small dish antenna bought mail-order and some parts picked up at a surplus store. The total cost of such a unit would be about $300 and it could be built in about one week. The development behind its design could be accomplished by doing some basic experiments with stun-guns or other high voltage components found in surplus stores, automotive shops, and parts from a “well equipped electronics junk box”. The unit could easily be tested at close range to the type of computers and hardware found in any home office and if it caused some ill effect, then the terrorist would have proven the effectiveness of the system. Success with step 1.

      The next step would be to refine the technology and increase the voltage and the repetition frequency. An advanced design might use a 6-foot TV dish antenna that could be bought mail-order (for $200) and it might use a more advanced spark-gap unit than was used in the earlier model. Such learn-as-you-go is a natural process in the design of spark-gaps.

      Such a unit using a larger antenna (a mail-order 12-foot TV dish), when finished would look like a simple TV dish system and it (or many like it) could be mounted such that it could easily be pointed at over-flying aircraft.

      In support of the information presented in this testimony and taking advantage of the winter’s need to work indoors, a unit that uses oil spark-gaps was designed, built, and tested. The materials for it were mail-ordered at a cost of about $500 and about one week was needed to fabricate the mechanical hardware. It use two ignition coils and a battery for power, an automobile fuel pump and filter for the oil circulation, and commonly available transformer oil. An additional week was required to work out all of the electrical wiring, the oil lines, and the general finishing details. This unit was ready for testing in two weeks after starting the effort.

      The signal radiated from the unit was measured and found to be a very significant power level that can be compared against available vulnerability and susceptibility levels of military equipment. When the weather permits, this unit will be tested against a set of infrastructure targets at an official test range. From the measurements and known signal levels, this unit is expected to be consistently deadly to many types of infrastructure items at ranges suitable for terrorist usage.

      This quickly-developed low-cost system could easily be placed in a small van and used in a parking lot or directed at buildings that the van was driven past. It is highly likely that this type of device would be a very effective terrorist system and the findings of its design could be factored into another either a larger, higher powered device, or a more advanced design each with significantly greater effectiveness.

      The net result of all of this design, experimentation, fabrication and measurement proves that such a weapon system could be made by anyone with an engineering degree or even a bright technician with good hardware experience. The technical information required can be found in open sources, if not just from good common engineering sense. The materials needed are nothing special and if the effort is made, advanced concepts can be made using everyday hardware such as automotive ignition systems. The testing to date has been very limited but the results of this testing have provided considerable insight to just what is vulnerable in infrastructure systems. This insight and work leads to a firm opinion that a terrorist would have little trouble developing such technology and that he would have a high probability of success in the use as an RF weapon against our infrastructure elements found in any city or near facilities around the country.

      This work has been done within the proper security guidelines since:

  1. The models made in my home laboratory/workshop used off-the-shelf materials and open-source references.
  2. The laboratory tests of this hardware were made in a controlled environment with the proper security in place.
  3. The results of these tests, the data capabilities, and the target set identities are kept in a facility cleared for classified storage.
  4. The development of any of this hardware is reported on a regular basis to those with whom I relate at a classified level to assure that they are informed of the work and are able to apply this to their interests and efforts if necessary. Any of this hardware can be used by them for any determination of utility to military interests.

      Work in this area will be continued and an aggressive test and evaluation of these “back yard” techniques and methods will be accomplished. This process will be done in cooperation, and if requested, under the direction of agencies with an interest in this non-military weapon related process. The author of this report will, if requested, provide to the Committee further details at a classified level in the proper security environment.


Statement of Dr. Ira W. Merritt
Chief, Concepts Identification and Applications Analysis Division
Advanced Technology
Directorate, Missile Defense and Space Technology Center
U. S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command before the Joint Economic Committee United States Congress Wednesday, February 25, 1998

“Proliferation and Significance of Radio Frequency Weapons Technology”

Introduction

      Thank you for your invitation and for this opportunity to offer testimony to the Joint Economic Committee regarding the proliferation of radio frequency (RF) weapons technology and its significance to the operability of our high value assets. I am employed by the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, but some of the opinions and conclusions expressed are based upon my own past experiences and observations and are not necessarily those of the Army.

      I am from the Advanced Technology Directorate (ATD) of the Missile Defense and Space Technology Center, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command. One of our principal responsibilities is to develop innovative and advanced technologies for application to Army projects, joint missile defense projects and other programs of national importance. In particular, ATD evaluates the capabilities of technologies, including radio frequency weapon technologies, to establish their significance to the operability of our sophisticated electronics. Our interest in RF weapon technologies has increased in the last several years as a result of:

  • Rapid advances in RF sources and antennas
  • Increased interest by other countries, and groups, in RF weapons and RF mitigation
  • Increased susceptibility to microwaves of miniature solid state electronics
  • Insights from our travel to Russia and from ongoing technical exchanges with Former Soviet Union scientists and co-workers in United Kingdom, Sweden, and Australia.

      Our work with Russian scientists has been particularly useful in confirming that their approaches to technical problems are often very different from ours. Over the past several years we have visited laboratories developing directed energy weapon technologies, pulsed power systems, high power microwave technologies, high power lasers, and space-based neutral particle beams. In 1992, we visited the Moscow Radio Technical Institute, which was developing high-power microwave (HPM) sources and which had a large test facility for performing susceptibility and effects measurements. In 1994, we visited the Kharkov Physico-Technical Institute in Ukraine, where they were developing: high power microwave sources, such as the magnetically insulated linear oscillator (MILO); neutral particle beam sources; prime power systems; and where they were also performing susceptibility and effects tests. The MILO was invented in the U.S., but we discontinued work on it in the late 1980s. The Soviet Union (SU) picked up the technology and successfully continued its development. Russia also exploited the magnetocumulative generator (MCG) as an explosively driven power supply. The MCG was developed by Dr. Andrei Sakharov in the SU and the Russians have used MCG power supplies extensively to drive ultra wideband (UWB) and HPM sources, lasers, and railguns. In 1995 we visited: the Kurchatov Institute to discuss laser and high current problems, the All-Russian Electrotechnical Institute to discuss high voltage technology, Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute in St. Petersburg to discuss ultra fast switches, and the Institute of Problems of Electrophysics, also in St. Petersburg, to discuss pulse power and plasma technologies. My comments in the rest of this testimony are based upon the results of visits to Russian laboratories, visits to other countries, continued scientific contacts, research reports from contracts, some test results and open source literature.

Background

History: It has long been a concern in the scientific community that Soviet scientists led the world in development of RF weapon technologies. This concern was heightened in 1994 when Gen. Loborev, Director of the Central Institute of Physics and Technology in Moscow, distributed a landmark paper at the EUROEM Conference in Bordeaux, France. In this paper Dr. A. B. Prishchepenko, the Russian inventor of a family of compact explosive driven RF munitions, described how RF munitions might be used against a variety of targets including land mines, sea skimming missiles, and communications systems1, 2, 3. He further popularized these munitions with articles in Russian naval journals and in other professional journals and magazines4.

      The Soviet Union had a large and diverse RF weapons program and remnants of this work continue today within FSU countries. The scope and results of the Soviet program are poorly understood, but ATD personnel have been at the forefront of efforts to gather information and to understand it5 and its accomplishments through Windows on Science and contracts for R&D effort. Our principal objective is to understand requirements and to identify technologies applicable for RF mitigation. Nevertheless, large uncertainties still exist concerning the status of RF weapon development and associated efforts to mitigate their effects on electronics. In spite of these uncertainties, it is clear that many nations continue to aggressively pursue the development of RF weapons and techniques to mitigate their effects6.

Proliferation: Worldwide interest in RF weapons has increased dramatically in the last several years. The collapse of the Soviet Union is probably the most significant factor contributing to this increase in attention and concern about proliferation. A recent study of open source literature dealing with RF weapons6 clearly documented the worldwide interest in RF weapon technologies and my testimony is offered in the context of these conclusions. A few of the report’s key judgments were that:

  1. “…construction of effective explosively-driven Flux Compression Generator devices is entirely feasible for established military powers such as Russia, China, France, Germany, et cetera,…”
  2. “There is no confirmed evidence of employment of such a device to date … available in open sources”.
  3. “Modern Metal Oxide Semiconductor technology, on which most of our critical national infrastructures depend, unless deliberately protected or “hardened”, is extremely vulnerable to even low–power electromagnetic pulses…”
  4. “…it is well understood that the US is disproportionately more vulnerable to RF attack than are less developed nations.”

      Specific examples of interest in RF weapons and the proliferation of this technology follow. The French Gramat Research Center has dedicated significant assets to study the effects of electromagnetic energy on electronics and in 1989 Thompson CSF published brochures in which they stated that they were developing RF weapons7. A 21 January, 1998 newspaper article in the Swedish newspaper SVESNSKA DAGBLADET8 reported that the Swedish National Defense Research Institute purchased a Russian “suitcase bomb” that uses high power microwaves to “knock out” computers and destroy all electronics within the radius of its “detonation”. The article also reported that this device is being sold commercially and that it has been sold to the Australian military. The price was reported to be several hundred thousand Kroner, or about $100,000. Mr. Carlo Kopp, an Australian professor, who claims to have had a relationship with their military, has his own web site (http://www.cs.monash.edu.au/~carlo) and has provided detailed papers on the alleged effects of RF weapons and sketches of design concepts9. A simple search on the Internet recently identified 95 websites that referenced Mr. Kopp’s work. These included 16 sites in the U.S. and 18 sites in other countries, not including Australia. The Internet is becoming a significant factor in enhancing the interest in RF weapons.

Waveforms and Susceptibility: State of the art semiconductors are becoming more vulnerable to the effects of radio frequency energy as semiconductor features become smaller and smaller10, 11, 12. Commercial microelectronics make heavy use of metal oxide semiconductor devices which fail when subjected to voltages that exceed the dielectric strength of the component or when the device melts as a result of heating from currents induced by the RF pulse.

      High-power microwave and ultra wideband signals differ in their pulse length and frequency content (Figure 1). HPM sources produce short, very high power, narrowband pulses, often billions of watts (gigawatts) in billionths of a second (nanoseconds). If HPM waveforms are in-band, they can efficiently couple energy into the target and energy is available to disrupt or to cause damage to sensitive “front door” components that are connected to antennas. However if the HPM frequency is not in-band, the energy must enter through a “back door” and coupling to the target is generally poor. In this case, much less energy enters the target to disrupt or to cause damage. UWB sources generate a much wider band of frequencies than do HPM sources, and thus ensure that some energy is at a frequency to efficiently couple to the target. However, since the energy is spread across a wider band, the power spectral density is lower and the amount of energy available in a waveband is also much lower. As a result, an UWB device is more likely to disrupt than to destroy a target, except at very close range. Many UWB sources can be repetitively pulsed and therefore can continue to disrupt the target as long as the source is functioning and within effective range. Many systems tend to be susceptible to disruption or damage at specific, sometimes unpredictable, frequencies. As a result, UWB weapons are well suited to exploit these susceptibilities, since they produce significant energy over a wide range of frequencies. This area has been aggressively researched by the Soviet Union, Russia, and others.

      Extensive work has been conducted to understand the effects of high-altitude nuclear EMP (HEMP) on systems and components, but these data are mostly for frequencies less than 1 GHz and for pulse widths in the range from 50 nsec to 1usec. The shorter pulses characteristic of HPM and UWB waveforms are significant because current methods for protecting electronics from HEMP, and other anticipated sources of disruption, will not be effective against pulses from RF weapons. High-altitude nuclear EMP does not have significant energy above a few tens of megahertz, whereas HPM spectra are typically in the few gigahertz to tens of gigahertz range and UWB spectra may contain energy in the frequency range from hundreds of megahertz to a few gigahertz. There is extensive information on the effects of lightning and nuclear EMP on electronic devices, but these pulses are significantly longer than the pulses from HPM and UWB sources. Since HPM and UWB pulses tend to be shorter than the response times of most limiters, their RF energy can pass largely unattenuated into the target and cause upset or damage before the limiter can turn on. Tests over the last 10 years have produced data on component responses to pulse widths in the range from 1 to 50 nsec. However little information is available that describes electronic responses for incident pulses having sub-nanosecond pulsewidths. Testing is needed to establish effects of the following general waveforms: very short (nanosecond and sub-nanosecond) single pulses, multiple closely-spaced very-short pulses, and long (millisecond) pulses.

      Much of the existing effects data is from direct drive tests. Such tests produce the most repeatable indication of whether or not the pulse in question will upset or damage the device being tested. However these tests do not help clarify the issue of whether or not the RF waveform in question will actually couple through the walls, openings, filters, cables, and wires that separate components at risk from the external environment. This uncertainty creates a situation in which even the best analysis must be based upon significant assumptions. As a result, our commercial and military systems may be much more, or much less, susceptible to upset or damage than we now assume. As a result, characterization of representative components and circuits and the effects of physical configurations are badly needed for very short pulses.

      A 1996 paper by Bludov, et al12 from the Kharkov Physico-Technical Institute, Ukraine described HPM and UWB testing on electronic components and biological systems. The paper identified three levels of damage: temporary upset, permanent upset, and burnout. It appears that Ukraine has a systematic program to characterize the effects of HPM and UWB waveforms on electronic components.

Example Weapon Related Technologies

      RF weapon-related sources can be classified in several ways, including: HPM or UWB, pulsed or continuous, single shot or repetitively pulsed, and very short pulse (nanosecond) or long pulse (microsecond to millisecond). In addition, the electrical or explosive power source has a significant effect on the output characteristics of the device. For example, the explosive driven munitions described by Mr. Carlo Kopp and the RF munitions described by Dr. Prishchepenko are single shot devices that convert the chemical energy of high explosives first into magnetic energy, then into electrical energy and finally into microwave energy. This multi-step conversion of energy is inherently inefficient, but explosives are very compact sources of energy, modern electronics are not very robust to external sources of energy, and the intent is to place the source/weapon as close to the target as possible. Electrically driven devices have fewer energy conversion steps, but typically they are larger and produce less power per pulse.

Electrically Driven Devices: The electrically driven (non-explosive) devices require an external power supply and energy storage system, which often leads to larger and less self-contained systems than can be produced by explosive-driven approaches. However, two recent technologies that minimize this limitation are the solid state pulsers developed at Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute in St. Petersburg and the RADAN system. These devices are quite compact and can be powered by small hand-carried energy sources.

      Pulsers developed at Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute are based upon very fast (nanosecond and picosecond) solid state “on” and “off” switches developed by Prof. Igor Grekhov and Dr. Alexi Kardo-Syssoev. These switches have recently been used to generate 10 nanosecond, 10 KHz pulses for a prototype ground penetrating sensor that is now being used commercially in St. Petersburg (Figure 2). This 10 kg portable sensor is said to be used routinely to image to depths of 200 meters with an accuracy of 1% of the depth and it is claimed to be able to image down to 1000 meters with slightly lower resolution13. Jammers based upon these switches can be made small enough to fit into a briefcase. A recent version is said to weigh 6.5 kg and to deliver fields of 30 kV per meter at 5 meters. This is comparable to high-altitude EMP (HEMP) field strength. An optimized version is said to deliver 100 kV per meter at 5 meters14, 15 and the pulse width and repetition rate can be tuned to have the maximum effect on the intended target.

      RADAN16 (Figure 3) is a compact high-current electron accelerator that is a little smaller than an attaché case and weighs about 8 kg with its rechargeable 12 volt battery power supply, but not including its antenna. RADAN can be used to stimulate several outputs including lasers, x-rays, wide band RF and high power microwaves that allow RADAN to be used as a jammer. RADAN output parameters are: total output power > 5 MW; repetition rate up to 1 kilohertz; pulse width about 2 nanoseconds; and output pulse bandwidth from 1 MHz to 5 GHz. A directional antenna has been developed and the developer has proposed that RADAN could be used to stop car engines and to destroy the electronic arming and firing circuits of bombs. Limited testing of RADAN has been conducted in the U.S. and it was found to affect calculators and electronic watches.

      The Russian built NAGIRA radar produces short powerful pulses with the following characteristics17: 10 GHz fixed frequency, 5 nanosecond pulse length, 300 MW peak power, 2 Joules per pulse, 150 Hz pulse repetition rate. NAGIRA was purchased by the UK Ministry of Defence and was delivered to Defence Research and Evaluation Agency (DERA) Frazer, near Portsmouth, in November 1995. Indications are that the UK will use NAGIRA to investigate detection of fast moving targets in sea clutter, to study electromagnetic–pulse penetration into equipment and to measure the effectiveness of front-end protection devices. During initial field trials near Nizhny Novgorod, Russia (Figure 4), NAGIRA was able to track a helicopter at more than 150 km range and at altitudes as low as 50 meters. We understand that because of electromagnetic interference (EMI) concerns, Russian helicopters were not allowed to operate within several miles of the radar when it was operating at full power.

Explosively Driven Devices: Compact explosive-driven radio frequency munitions (Figure 5) being developed by Russia have recently received a great deal of attention. These munitions are claimed to range in size from a hand grenade to a 155-mm artillery shell18 and the output may be either a HPM or an UWB pulse. Since these warheads are part of a projectile, they are intended to detonate very near their target, so fratricide is not a problem as it would be with HEMP.

      In June 1997, a U.S. measurements team led by the Advanced Technology Directorate participated in a joint series of measurements on radio frequency munitions (RFM) at a site near Nalchik, Russia5. The purpose of these tests was to verify Russian claims about the output of Dr. Prishchepenko’s compact explosively-driven RFM. The test results left Russian claims unconfirmed, since most U.S. measurement equipment was not allowed by Russian authorities to reach the test site and since Dr. Prishchepenko’s team claimed that the RFM that were tested radiated in a band that could not be measured with equipment at the site.

      ATD engineers continue to evaluate RF weapon technologies, to work closely with other countries, and to identify technologies that can be adopted for military applications and commercialization. We maintain relationships with other scientists through direct personal contact at conferences and site visits, through small research contracts, in collaboration with the U.S. Department of State on International Science and Technology Center (ISTC) and Science and Technology Center of the Ukraine (STCU) projects, and through the U.S. Air Force’s Windows on Science Program. ATD has been extremely effective in identifying and executing joint projects, such as the joint radio frequency munitions test in Russia and briefings on the solid state pulsers developed at the Ioffe Institute in St. Petersburg. We are now working to bring the underground imaging sensor and its developers to the U.S. to test its ability to detect land mines. Solid state switches developed by the Ioffe Institute are now imported by a U.S. company that produces water purification equipment using Russian pulse power hardware. ATD has cooperated in hosting many scientists under the Windows on Science Program, including a scientist from Loughborough University in England, the only university that designs, tests, produces and markets inexpensive MCGs.

      Many source and antenna technologies can be used to produce devices with very different output characteristics. For example, Russia reports that its cylindrical shock wave source generates a single gigawatt pulse about a nanosecond long. However, susceptibility tests in the FSU and U.S. suggest that irradiating a target with a train of nanosecond pulses is more damaging than a single pulse, since multiple pulses lower the damage threshold of the target12. As a result, Russian emphasis has been on devices that produce a train of pulses. Some designs are said to generate 50 to 100 pulses, each about a nanosecond long, in a burst of pulses about 10 microseconds long18.

      The implications of this summary are that there is an increasing variety of equipment capable of generating very short RF pulses that are capable of disrupting sophisticated electronics. These pulses are not addressed by current design standards and will challenge existing front-end RF protection and other forms of EMI protection. New capabilities are needed to reject high-power, very-fast RF pulses and to minimize their effects on systems.

      We believe that common EMI and EMP mitigation techniques will not provide adequate protection against nanosecond and sub-nanosecond pulses from future radio frequency weapons, since active mitigation device response times are typically several nanoseconds to microseconds. Faster solid-state devices do not now have the high power capability needed to protect systems from RFW pulses.

RF RISK MANAGEMENT

      Several fundamental questions must be answered before we can adequately understand the potential risk that radio frequency weapons pose to our military forces and civilian infrastructure. These questions are:

“What are the current and expected capabilities of RF weapon technologies?” “What are the effects of these weapons on potential targets?” and “What is the likelihood that our systems will be exposed to RF weapons as a result of terrorism, conventional conflict, etc.?”

      As I have stated, Advanced Technology Directorate has initiated high payoff research and development efforts to understand RF weapons technologies and we have also begun to develop broadly applicable RF mitigation techniques that can ensure the operability of our high-value assets in the presence of stressing electronic warfare environments. Our emphasis is on development of near-term, low-cost capabilities that are applicable to a broad range of military and commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) electronics and that are relatively insensitive to the details of RF weapon output. We are achieving success in this effort and believe that superior results can be obtained by selectively involving a relatively small number of highly innovative and skilled researchers and that this can be done without a great commitment of funds. For example, one of our recent $100,000 research efforts provided test results that demonstrated the ability of a low-temperature sinterable liquid to reduce external RF fields by many orders of magnitude over a frequency range from a few megahertz to a few gigahertz. This low-cost material has broad military and commercial applications. It will greatly enhance our ability to use COTS electronics on the digital battlefield and to protect key elements of the national infrastructure.

      In my opinion, a more comprehensive risk mitigation effort should include the following tasks:

  • Characterize expected electromagnetic environments by analyzing and understanding rapidly advancing RF source and antenna technologies. A variety of RF sources have been identified that could be used in RF weapons and that produce environments that can challenge the operability of our systems. We should evaluate these technologies, assess their potential for weaponization, and provide information to guide hardening measures required to mitigate their effects. The results of this task should be:
    1. credible information on the output of electrically-driven and explosively-driven RF sources;
    2. much better understanding of the capability of the rest of the world to threaten the performance of our sophisticated electronic systems,
    3. much stronger technical basis on which to develop broadly effective and low-cost RF countermeasures.
  • Conduct tests to determine the effects of short pulse RF waveforms on representative electronic components, subsystems and systems. This task should establish the effects of anticipated radio frequency weapon waveforms on representative circuits to provide a basis for development of mitigation techniques for COTS and military electronics. It should test representative electronic circuits to RF weapon-like waveforms in a laboratory environment to better predict the coupling of RF energy into targets and to measure the effects on targets. The targets characterized should consist of representative classes of COTS and military electronics, i.e. commercial Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers, radios, computers, satellite communication systems, components from tactical operations centers (TOCs), etc. This effort should leverage ongoing Defense Special Weapons Agency (DSWA) EMP and HPM mitigation activities, which address a part of this problem, and should jointly select synergistic items for testing. This will permit unique insights into the robustness of representative electronics to all types of RF disturbances. The target electronics should be tested in anechoic chambers available at several service facilities and should use appropriate RF sources to ensure repeatable waveforms at the appropriate power levels and with appropriate frequency content. The target electronics should be instrumented so that both the effects of the radiation and the method of coupling can be determined. These results will permit quantification of the specific performance/capability needed for each mitigation technique.
  • Use the results of effects tests to develop front-end limiters and electromagnetic interference (EMI) shields. This task should develop and quantify mitigation capabilities and implementation guidelines for low-cost, low insertion loss, miniature plasma limiters and low-cost, very light-weight films, filters, and software algorithms to reduce internal and external electromagnetic interference produced by either local/friendly emissions or high power hostile emissions. Since RF warfare and EMI spectra cover such a broad range of frequencies and power levels, several mitigation techniques will be required.
    • Traditional methods of EMI isolation often use metal enclosures to prevent unwanted radiation from entering the circuit. These shields provides effective protection, but they add weight and are not applicable to some newer systems that may use COTS with lightweight, nonmetallic enclosures that provide little or no EMI protection. Low-cost, light-weight RF isolation techniques are needed that can be cheaply applied to COTS and military equipment to significantly increase their ability to continuously operate on the electronic battlefield.
    • Analyses are now being performed on miniature plasma limiter front-end protection devices that are compatible with solid state manufacturing processes. Analysis will confirm the feasibility of a low-loss miniature plasma limiter and its essential parameters such as threshold electric fields, gas breakdown and recombination times. This device is intended to be installed in front of sensitive antenna and receiver elements to protect them from damage or disruption by incident high power RF signals.

Conclusions

      We cannot now precisely quantify the risk presented by radio frequency weapons, but we know that the risk is growing. I believe that we can respond to this risk by developing near-term, low-cost, broadly-applicable mitigation techniques. These techniques can greatly reduce our susceptibility to radio frequency weapon environments and thereby reduce the risk to our technological superiority that is essential to our military and economic preeminence.

      I again thank the Committee for the opportunity to appear and to comment on the proliferation of radio frequency weapons and their significance to our critical infrastructures.

ACRONYMS

ATDAdvanced Technology Directorate
CSWSCylindrical Shock Wave Source
COTSCommercial Off-The-Shelf
DSWADefense Special Weapons Agency
EMIElectromagnetic Interference
EMPElectromagnetic Pulse
FCCFederal Communication Commission
FSUFormer Soviet Union
GHzGigahertz
GPSGlobal Positioning System
GWGigawatt
HEMPHigh Altitude EMP
HPMHigh Power Microwave
ISTCInternational Science and Technology Center
kVKilovolt
MCGMagnetocumulative Generator
MHzMegahertz
MILOMagnetically Insulated Linear Oscillator
MWMegawatt
NNEMPNon-Nuclear EMP
RFRadio Frequency
RFMRadio Frequency Munition
STCUScience and Technology Center Ukraine
SUSoviet Union
TOCTactical Operations Center
UWBUltra Wide Band

References

1 Prishchepenko, A.B., V.K. Kiseljov, and I.S. Kudimov. “Radio Frequency Weapon at the Future Battlefield”, Proceedings of the EUROEM Conference, Bordeaux, France, June 1994.

2 Prishchepenko, A.B. and V.P. Zhitnikov. “EM Weapon (EMW) in Air Defense or Some Aspects of Application of EM Radiation in the High-Frequency Band as a Striking Force”,

3 Prishchepenko, A.B. and M.G. Akhmetov. “Radioelectronic Strikes in General Forces Operations (Combat)”, Voyennaya Mysl’, No. 2, March-April 1995, pp. 42-48.

4 Prishchepenko, A.B. “Electromagnetic Munitions”, 96UM0427, Soldat Udachi, Moscow, No. 3, 1996, pp. 45-46.

5 Altgilbers, L.L., I. Merritt, M. Brown, J. Henderson, D. Holder, and Merriwhether. OCONUS Radio Frequency Munitions Test Report, ATD-98-001, 4 December 1998.

6 Linder, J.C., W.R. Graham, M.S. Hewitt, and T.J. Skucas. Radio Frequency, Electromagnetic Pulse, and High-Power Microwave Weapons, National Security Research, Contract No. N39986-97-M-7241, 18 August 1997.

7 Lucien, Vayssie, Communications and Public Relations Supervisor, Centre d’Etudes de Gramat, Gramat, France.

8 Stockholm Daily SVESNSKA DAGBLADET, 21 Jan 1998

9 Kopp, C. “The E-Bomb: A Weapon of Electrical Mass Destruction”, http://www.infowar.com/mil_c4i/mil_c4i8.html-ssi.

10 Taylor, C.D. and D.V. Giri. High Power Microwave Systems and Effects, Taylor and Francis Pub., 1994.

11 Benford, J. and J. Swegle. High Power Microwaves, Artech House, 1992.

12 Bludov, S.B., N.P. Gadetskii, K.A. Kravtsov, Yu. F. Lonin, I.I. Magda, S.I. Naisteter, E.A. Prasol, Yu.V. Prokopenko, S.S. Pushkarev, Yu.V. Tkach, I.F. Kharchenko, and V.I. Chemakov. “Generation of High-Power Ultrashort Microwave Pulses and Their Effect on Electronic Devices”, Plasma Physic Reports, Vol. 20, No. 8, 1994, pp. 643-647.

13 Personal Communication with Moose Hill Enterprises, 22 January 1998.

14 Grekhov, “Semiconductor Switches and Generators of Gigawatt-Range Micro- and Nanosecond Pulses”, 14th IEEE International Pulse Power Conference, Baltimore, MD, June-July, 1997.

15 Kardo-Sysoev, A.F., S.V.Zazulin, V.M. Efanov, Y.S. Lilkov, and A.F. Kriklenko. “High Repetition Frequency Power Nanosecond Pulse Generation”, 14th IEEE International Pulse Power Conference, Baltimore, MD, June-July, 1997.

16 Yalandin, M.I., G.T. Smirnov, V.G. Shpak, and S.A. Shunailov. “High-Power Repetitive Millimeter Range Back-Wave Oscillators with Nanosecond Relativistic Electron Beam”, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on High Power Particle Beams, Vol. 2, Prague, 1996, pp.388-391.

17 Bunkin, B.V., A.V. Gaponov-Grekhov, A.S. Eltchaninov, F.Ya. Zagulov, S.D. Korovin, G.A. Mesyats, M.L. Osipov, E.A. Otlivantchik, M.I. Petelin, A.M. Prokhorov, V.V. Rostov, A.P. Saraev, I.P. Sisakyan, A.V. Smorgonsky, and V.A. Suvorov. “Nanosecond Radar System Based on Repetitive Pulsed Relativistic BWO”, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on High-Power Particle Beams, Washington, DC, May 1992, pp. 195-202.

18 Prishchepenko, A.B. and V.P. Zhitnikov. “Microwave Ammunitions: SUMM CRIQUE”, Proceedings of the AMREM Conference, Albuquerque, NM, May 1996, in publication.


Statement of Dr. R. Alan Kehs Army Research Lab before the Joint Economic Committee United States Congress Wednesday, February 25, 1998

“The Radio Frequency Weapons Threat and Proliferation of Radio Frequency Weapons”

      Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I thank you for the opportunity to help shed some light on the widely ignored topics that you have chosen for these hearings. I have spent most of the last twenty years working on various radio frequency weapons technologies and I am currently serving as chair of the tri-service High Power Microwave (HPM) technology coordination panel.

      In general, our security classification guide prevents us from discussing anything but the most generic concepts and severely limits the depth of discussion if we remain at the unclassified, full public release level. It is not deemed to be in our best interests to provide details on our programs or roadmaps to weapons development that might assist rogue states, terrorists and others who would eventually wish to use these weapons against us.

      However, one does not need to rely on classified reports in order to appreciate the potential impact of radio frequency weapons (RFW) or as they are frequently called, HPM weapons. Everyone in this room has undoubtedly experienced Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) to some piece of household electronics. Some common examples are the effects of lightning strikes or automotive ignition noise on radio transmission, placing two computers too close to one another on a bench, driving under power lines while trying to listen to the radio, and so forth.

      A step up from these minor inconveniences is the warning that we hear each time we take off or land in an airplane. We all wonder “can a Gameboy or calculator really cause serious problems to the airplane electronics?” The answer, of course, is that a Gameboy, calculator or cellular telephone is not usually sufficient to disrupt airplane electronics, but it can happen. As a result, we adopt a policy of “better safe than sorry” and shut down electronics during the more critical take off and landing segments of commercial air flights. We have now asked the question “How much power does it take to create problems?” Realistically, these questions cannot be answered at the unclassified, full public release level. More subtly, the question becomes “At what point do common civilian electronic devices become weapons?”

      Let us shift now from the low power levels (microwatts and milliwatts) of gameboys and cellular telephones to the very high power levels (megawatts) of commercially available radar systems, TV transmitters, and particle accelerator tubes. This is the platform from which HPM weapons programs would be based.

      Conceptually, an HPM weapon looks like a radio transmitter. There is a power source, a tube to generate RF energy, and an antenna to radiate the energy appropriately. The key technologies and final products have been under development for the greater part of this century and are readily available on a broad range of markets. In the Army, we make extensive use of surplus radar and radio equipment.

      Military electronics generally contain some electromagnetic shielding and protection devices — even if they are not specifically designed to withstand an HPM attack. Commercial designers are generally concerned only with FCC limits on EMI and no one knows how susceptible commercial electronic systems might be to a concerted electronic attack. These commercial systems include our banking and telecommunications systems as well as oil and gas distribution and transportation systems, among others. Although these systems are designed to withstand the loss of a critical node, a concerted attack would cause unknown effects.

      HPM technologies appear on the critical technologies list. However, the required special approvals have not slowed the transfer of increasingly powerful and sophisticated HPM technologies to overseas buyers.

      The intelligence community will have to address the threat issues but I believe that they will find existing technology is more than sufficient to support several potential applications and threat scenarios.

      The growing US dependence on sophisticated electronics for warfighting and domestic infrastructure makes us potentially vulnerable to electronic attack. By its nature, the Defense Department is compelled to confront such threats, however, the full range of our technological society is also at risk and much less aware of potential threats. I pray that congress will help all of its agencies and departments to appreciate the increasing seriousness of the questions raised here today and take appropriate actions to evaluate threats and construct appropriate defensive measures.


Source: http://www.house.gov/jec/hearings/espionag/schweitz.htm

Statement by Lieutenant General Robert L. Schweitzer U.S. Army (Retired) before the
Joint Economic Committee United States Congress June 17, 1997

Radio Frequency Weapons and the Infrastructure

      I have been asked to talk to the overall subject of your hearing from a somewhat different perspective. Initially, it was to be from the one of what technology transfer means to a soldier. That part would have been fairly simple to address. Field soldiers are too busy to think much, if at all, about such transfers. That is, until they run across them on a battlefield where U.S. technology or materiel is being used against them. That happened in World War II when the residue of simpler technologies in the form of scrap metal was employed against us in the Pacific. It happened in Vietnam when some of our weaponry was obtained by our adversary. It happened again in Desert Storm when we ran across containers of U.S. materiel in the hands of Saddam Hussein’s soldiers, materiel which had been channeled through Jordan. Then the fleeting reaction is one of anger and “why?” But soldiers–placed as they are since the time of the Roman legions in the sand, mud, rain and snow to fight decisive battles–are really too busy to brood much about such things. They are, however, grateful when Congress acts ahead of time to bar technology transfers, not only the simple ones of which I speak but the more serious, albeit subtle ones, which can affect the outcome of battles and wars.

      Today there is a new class of radically new and important radio frequency weapons (RFW) which merits your attention as it emerges. And in this case, the horse is out of the barn. Transfers have occurred and are occurring. Equally true, however, is the fact that there are things that can be done to protect our nation, which is the underlying objective of today’s hearing. Certainly one of these things is to recognize that export control documents, particularly the Militarily Critical Technologies List, needs to be reviewed to determine if radio frequency technologies should be considered in the same careful way we do nuclear technologies. I respectfully suggest that this is the case; stronger controls are needed. One example is Reltron tubes which went to a friendly nation, one who sells products widely–sometimes to nations who do not like us. These tubes, which can be small or large, generate intense radio frequency pulses and can be used as RF weapons.

      Before we go further I wish to state clearly for you and for the public record that I do not speak for the Department of Defense, for any military service or any government agency. I come before you only as one who has researched this area for the past year and is writing a White Paper on the subject, one which will be offered to DoD for their use and disposition.

      Some of you may know about radio frequency weapons, where they came from, what they can do and what the implications are.

      Although there are a number of groups and individuals concerned with this subject, I have found that somewhat paradoxically the word has not really gotten out in Washington itself. Despite the existence of a Presidential commission, an Infrastructure Protection Task Force, a Critical Infrastructure Working Group, an Information Warfare School at the National Defense University, and other working groups, to include divisions on the Joint Staff in the Pentagon, as well as a few very dedicated and brilliant mid-level people in DoD, a general understanding is lacking. This is true not only of RFW, but of their immediate threat to our DoD and national infrastructure. Indeed the term “infrastructure” is so amorphous that it lacks impact if not meaning. One of our first tasks will be to define what is the military and economic infrastructure and what in it is susceptible and vulnerable to RF weapons.

      Some 90 to 100 references in 26 pages of the 70-page Quadrennial Defense Review speak to this new threat, but only to a discerning reader; the name for the class is not used. On the other hand, a recent search of the Internet found 2,400 to 2,800 references, while yet another, more thorough search found many tens of thousands of documents where the key words “radio frequency weapons” appear. Some very good people have written books and articles on the subject, the first revealing article known to me appeared in 1987 in the Atlantic Monthly, but for many reasons the knowledge is diffused. In the public sector the subject has yet to draw any real attention or concerted action.

      To help set the stage, recognize with experts like a former NSA Director that we are the most vulnerable nation on earth to electronic warfare. This thought is echoed by a former CIA Deputy Director, and a former Deputy Attorney General who forecast that we will have an electronic Pearl Harbor if we do not accept a wake up call. Our vulnerability arises from the fact that we are the most advanced nation electronically and the greatest user of electricity in the world.

      On the military side, as in the civilian sector, our current superiority is based on microelectronics. To prevail against us, an adversary must cripple, destroy or deny access to those same microelectronics. Can an adversary do so? Very likely, as this hearing will bring out. All of our military doctrine assumes extensive use of sophisticated electronics and communication systems to ensure information dominance and overwhelming battlefield success. As is the case with our civilian infrastructure and economy, our current dependence is large and will continue to grow. Because our battlefield success and the well being of our civilian economy–with which this committee is especially charged–-are so dependent upon the effectiveness of our microelectronic-based systems, we should fully understand any technology that might be used to defeat our systems. This is particularly true of the newly emerging threat of radio frequency weapons. And even more importantly, we must develop countermeasures before such weapons are used against us.

      Before going further, let me explain what these weapons are, where the Russian work has gone since 1949 and the applications of these weapons. If you are interested–as I believe you will be–you may wish to bring before you successive panels of our own leading scientists and experts. I have talked to many of them, heard them make presentations at conferences, and read their articles and books. I will be pleased to provide your staff with names of those who could provide this or other committees with a better understanding. I am also willing to assist in any way that might be helpful.

      First of all, an RF weapon is one that uses intense pulses of RF energy to destroy (“burnout”) or degrade (“upset”) the electronics in a target. These weapons can be employed on a narrow beam over a long distance to a point target. They are also able to cover broad targets. They are categorized as high power microwave (HPM) weapons and ultra wide band (UWB) weapons.

      The phrase non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse is sometimes used, because these weapons, which are indeed non-nuclear, project the same type of pulse we first learned of in conjunction with nuclear weapons. As a practical matter, a piece of electronic gear on the ground, in a vehicle, ship or plane does not really care whether it is hit by a nuclear magnetic pulse or a non-nuclear one. The effect is the same. It burns out the electronics. The same is true of the computers in this Senate office building, in industry, or on Wall Street.

      There is another way these weapons can be delivered to a target, military or civilian. Here the term RF munitions, or RFM is used. Yet these too are properly called RF weapons. These small munitions contain high explosives that produce radio frequency energy as their primary kill mechanism. In the hands of the skilled Russian scientists, these munitions come as hand grenades, mortar rounds, or large artillery shells or missiles. Generally, they produce a short but very intense pulse. While not yet fully understood and with some uncertainties argued as to their capabilities, many scientists are convinced the weapons actually exist. Without making any claims as to what they can do, I offer the following list from open source FSU literature of some nine smaller RF munitions or weapons:

  • Magnetohydrodynamic Generator Frequency (MHDGF)
  • Explosive Magnetic Generator of Frequency (EMGF)
  • Implosive Magnetic Generator of Frequency (IMGF)
  • Cylindrical Shock Wave Source (CSWS)
  • Spherical Shock Wave Source (SSWS)
  • Ferromagnetic Generator of Frequency (FMGF)
  • Superconductive Former of Magnetic Field Shock Wave (SFMFSW)
  • Piezoelectric Generator of Frequency (PEGF)
  • Superconducting Ring Burst Generator (SCRBG)

      Some of these weapons are said by the Russians to be now available as a hand grenade, a briefcase-like object, a mortar or artillery round.

      Applications or potential targets (like those of the larger High Power Microwave weapons) would include all military computers, circuit boards, or chips, of any description, and include the following key components of our military and national infrastructure. They would have equal impact on civilian targets with the advantage less power would be required. Recall that the term “infrastructure” lacks clear meaning, but would include things like:

  • The national telecommunications systems
  • The national power grid
  • The national transportation system, to include especially the FAA but also such simple things as our traffic lights (with consequent gridlock)
  • The mass media
  • Oil and gas control and refining
  • Manufacturing processing, inventory control, shipment and tracking
  • Public works
  • Civil emergency service
  • Finance and banking systems (to include bank’s ability to dispense cash)

      This list of potentially vulnerable targets could and should be extended to include airplanes, ships, vehicles and the like. Of interest is the fact that we are doubly vulnerable because we are, and will remain, in an era of dual use of military and civilian systems. For example, 90% of our military communications now passes over public networks. If an electromagnetic pulse takes out the telephone systems, we are in deep double trouble because our military and non-military nets are virtually inseparable. It is almost equally impossible to distinguish between the U.S. national telecommunications network and the global one. What this means is that it is finally becoming possible to do what Sun Tzu wrote about 2000 years ago: to conquer an enemy without fighting. The paradigm of war may well be changing. If you can take out the civilian economic infrastructure of a nation, then that nation in addition to not being able to function internally cannot deploy its military by air or sea, or supply them with any real effectiveness–if at all.

      Since 1949, the intense interest of the former Soviet Union in developing these weapons appears to have resulted from their recognition that they could not match the capability of Western electronics, and their belief that RFW have the potential to be effective against our sophisticated electronics. It is far less clear to me and to others why they are willing to transfer and proliferate the RF technologies they have developed so carefully and so well, but that they are clearly doing so. Should you wish, a future hearing by this or another committee could go into more detail.

      President Yeltsin proposed to President Clinton a joint program for a “plasmoid defense” against ICBM’s. While it is unclear to many scientists what President Yeltsin meant, such a defense, if attainable, might presumably set up a shield which would ionize the atmosphere and cause missiles to fail. Official Russian journals and publications show keen interest and provide many details about these weapons. A great amount of information is flowing continuously from three former Soviet Republics on their past and current programs.

      We do know that the reduction in military spending by the FSU and many Western nations is prompting the defense industries of many countries to offer advanced weaponry to foreign customers to further their own research, development and industrial capabilities. This trend is almost certain to grow over the next 10 years.

      From unclassified sources, we know that Russia, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, China, Australia and France are well ahead in this field, while Germany, Sweden, South Korea, Taiwan and Israel are emerging and have ample details of the Russian work and of the proceedings of more than 20 years of international conferences. Without going into any classified matters one may reasonably infer that the pariah nations have similar interests and some certainly have the financial resources to develop or procure RF weapons.

      Russian and FSU information on RFW has been moving across borders for many years. International conferences beginning in 1949 have been a principal source of technology transfer. Scientists here and abroad have long exchanged papers, letters and, with increasing frequency, telephone calls.

  • The first Megagaussing Conference on the generation of high power electromagnetic pulses took place in 1949 in Frascati, Italy. Russian scientists were key players in what has become a long series of presentations on the generation of electromagnetic power. Present at this and many subsequent conferences was the U.S. inventor of RF weapons, Dr. Max Fowler. His picture was placed over the center of the Moscow desk of one of his Russian counterparts who is a leader in the Russian development of the smaller version of these weapons. The latter is a key figure in the offer to sell RFW and RFM or their technologies to others.
  • EUROEM Conferences have been meeting (with name changes) for perhaps some 20 years at about two-year intervals. At the 1994 conference which was held in Bordeaux, France, the Russians made public many details of their long work in these weapons. Some of their papers deal with the strategy, tactics and techniques for the use of offensive RF weapons. Among nations participating were Iran and Iraq. At this conference the Russians talked about selling their technology and weapons to prospective buyers. I am told that subsequently a large number of nations have engaged them in some form of negotiations. Some of these “buyers” raise legitimate concerns.
  • The BEAMS conference (with name changes) has been meeting about every two years since 1975.
  • The EUROEM Conference met in Albuquerque in 1996; the BEAMS Conference met that same year, I believe in Prague. Attendance was open to all nations.
  • The next EUROEM and BEAMS conferences will meet in 1998 in the Middle East, two weeks apart in Tel Aviv and Haifa, respectively.
  • An International Pulse Power Conference held their tenth conference under that name in 1995, but has existed under other names for a longer period of time.
  • The International Particle Accelerator Conference has also met for more than 20 years.
  • The American Physical Society has a Plasma Physics Division which hosted (for more than 20 years) many conferences. Usually each one has several sessions on microwave generation.
  • And there are more. . .

      Understanding the number, frequency and long standing nature of these conferences, you can perhaps better appreciate why I earlier said that the horse is out of the barn. Of interest, too, is the role of the United States in these conferences. Indisputably, the U.S. is the scientific powerhouse of the world. We have initiated and hosted a number of these conferences, funded many of them to a significant degree, and played a prominent role at all. While we gain some information, our scientists will readily acknowledge the net advantage is always to other attendees.

      Put another way, from a narrow technology transfer standpoint we have thus far lost more than we gained. However, even prior to the Internet no one could control the flow of ideas, especially among scientists. They like to talk especially about what they have achieved, and how they solve theoretical and practical problems. For decades our scientists have found their Russian counterparts to be brilliant, dedicated and creative. Personal relations are important and some have developed, but they are exceptional. For the most part the Russians have been ambiguous about their great work and often are mistrustful of Americans. We should move to change that by closer and warmer contacts as well as by efforts to enter into joint ventures–with all the travails that accompany such efforts. The Russians are intensely interested in our comments and some professional appreciation by their scientific peers of their decades of work on the offensive use of RF weapons. In my humble opinion they would prefer to work with our own distinguished scientists rather than others, but will sell their technology and products to others. I believe there is a real potential for joint ventures which could serve to constrain to some degree the proliferation of these weapons, especially to those who would do us harm.

      To return to the earlier point about the need for better controls of technology transfer, consider these two counterpoints which illustrate the problem:

  • First: Although RF weapon components are on the Critical Technologies List, there are no up to date DoD guidelines or directives on this subject. An attempt to do so was made two years ago when little was known about the subject. As a consequence, decisions within the U.S. scientific community are becoming harder and dicier to make. There is a lack of clear policy guidance and direction.
  • Second: The first point is illustrated by the transfer of the Reltron microwave tubes. These tubes, which generate radio frequency power, cost a great deal of money to produce and test. The U.S. is the leader in high-power tubes and their associated power systems, but the market is really thin. Our tube industry has no current buyers here in the U.S. Without major contracts from foreign countries (France, the United Kingdom, Germany and Israel, among others), our tube industry will die. We will lose contact with real customers and become dependent on foreign hardware for our systems. Ultimately we will increase the difficulties that must be overcome to develop HPM applications for any future DoD use. Almost certainly we would know less–almost nothing–about what was going on in this area. For their part the Europeans and others would not cease to procure; they would simply undertake their own development. So our high power microwave scientific community told the State Department on balance to approve the transfer, which State did. Inevitably one consequence will be to advance the work of others and ultimately the production of RF devices to be used wherever and however by whomever. Note well, however: there is no guarantee that friendly countries will not sell the devices they produce to unfriendly, even hateful people.

      It would also appear that there are other proliferation and transfer concerns of interest to this committee, simply because there is so much accurate how-to-do information in the open literature and on the Internet. Several countries have RFW programs and Russia says it has sold some technologies to these countries. At least one of these countries has acknowledged such a transfer. The crux of the difficulty in controlling these transfers is best illustrated by the fact that High Power Microwave weapons look like ordinary radars. With a dish or horn antenna, and a van with a power source, an RFW would look like a new, used or renovated radar. Used ones are offered for sale today in military surplus and commercial catalogs. Other catalogs offer for sale the components to put together lower power, but also very low cost items, that once assembled could be used effectively against the infrastructure.

      Users of the new weapons can be criminals, individuals or organized gangs of narco or domestic terrorists–or a determined, organized, well-funded foreign adversary, either a group or nation who hates us.

      The Russians, as noted, led with this work starting in 1949 with theory. By 1961, they were doing research, as documented in their numerous unclassified scientific articles. Experiments began in the seventies and proceeded to testing as described in their publications. Many of these weapons appeared in written descriptions, some photographs and diagrams in the nineties. Strategy, doctrine, tactics and techniques are all laid out in rather clear form. Please note all of this is unclassified information.

      There is a legitimate question about the intelligence aspect of all of this. Our intelligence community largely proceeds on the operating principle followed in the Cold War: A threat is not validated until it is fielded. Well and good; hard evidence is essential.

      But the question may fairly be asked: does that principle serve us well in the present day? Suppose we were to take a Russian or FSU-designed weapon, fabricate it in the U.S. and test it here. If the results were to meet the standards of performance and capabilities now claimed by the Russians, would we then have a validated threat? The answer to the capabilities may be forthcoming this month because at an unclassified level one of our national labs is doing just that. Another lab has purchased cheap, off the shelf components and will test its lower power device this month. Their engineers and I believe it will indeed work against infrastructure and light military targets.

      There is a great deal of other corroborating evidence which at least argues for the existence–which is still disputed in some quarters–of these weapons: one minor one is an International Institute for the Prevention of Offensive RF Weapons, located in Philadelphia. Why such an institute if there are no such things? Evidence as to the capabilities of the weapons may be found in such recent statements as China’s declared intention to purchase three RF weapons derived from the Russian technology. Another is the series of reliably reported discussions within the IRA of their intention to seek RF weapons for use against the London financial system in lieu of bombs and explosives. Consider, too, the recent statement by Sweden they have used these devices in experiments to stop cars at 100 yards, as well as their reported claim that RF weapons have been used against their financial institutions. A similar but much disputed statement has been reported by the London Times concerning British financial and banking institutions. The Los Angeles Police Department had done some successful work with vehicles in the interests of public safety and to halt fleeing suspects. Advantages of the larger high power microwave RF weapons include:

  • Low cost per engagement
  • All weather
  • Instantaneous engagement times
  • Simplified pointing and tracking
  • Possible to engage multiple targets
  • Deep magazines–simplified logistics (can “fire” or pulse as long as there is power in the generator)
  • Non-lethal to humans when properly adjusted
  • Well suited to covert operations because of lack of signature; deniability
  • Not able to detect attacks; silent when used without explosive devices

The RFM offer many of the same advantages, offset only by the sound of the explosion that detonates them and produces the rise in pulse energy.

Unless we choose to be, we are not without courses of action. Some of these could be explored at a future hearing. Some preliminary thoughts are offered today:

  • We either fully understand nor control this technology.
  • We have not begun to work on defenses , especially for our vulnerable infrastructure.
  • We need to first scope the problem, determine susceptibilities and vulnerabilities, then test.
  • All of this, to include any appropriate hardening of existing components, will take many years.
  • There are other courses of corrective action, but all will take time to acquire and apply.
  • The first step might well be to bring forward our real RF experts in DoD and the scientific community who know what needs to be done.

We need to go at this problem with a step-by-step sensible approach. No budget buster is proposed. Even if Congress had ready funds, a grandiose national solution is not the way to go.

We can start by scoping the problem and then by applying some of the same low-cost components that are now used in the ever expanding information technologies. Examples are surge-like protectors, plasma limiters, diodes, and metal covers. Parallel or redundant systems are another technique.

We are good at managing risks. We should no longer hesitate to reduce the impact of the threat, or to give our intelligence community the guidance to open up (some would say revise) their approach to this problem. Clearly the United States Congress will play a key role in whatever we do, or choose not to do, and our top leadership should focus on the longer term. But we should begin now in a sensible, modest way.

Three things we want to keep foremost in mind:

  • Do not throw a lot of money at this problem. Funds don’t exist; the best solutions will have to be devised.
  • Do not tell DoD or the Services to take this out of their budgets. They are over stretched now and it would be wrong to tell them to pay for protection of the civilian infrastructure.
  • Do not continue to do what we have been doing and ignore the problem.
Advertisement

Online Press Conference on DEW/Neurotech/Stasi COINTELPRO Targeting Fri, Oct 15, 2021

Online Press Conference                                                            on DEW/Neurotech/Stasi                                    COINTELPRO Targeting                                                       Fri, Oct 15, 2021

I was honored to be a participant at the above conference. Below you will find a transcript of the speech that I gave along with references to the information that I provided. Following each individual presentation there was an open discussion which was very valuable. I will be posting the video of the entire conference as soon as it is released.

As promised here is the video of the entire conference …

My name is Rosanne Schneider and I am the author of two books “Surveillance, Torture and Control in the Modern World”1 and “Notes from an Engineered Life”2. Both of these books document my painful journey from a free and loving human being to the horror and pain of a military industrial complex non-consensual test subject.

In 2011 my life was stolen. I went from a business woman, a Home Hospice volunteer, an animal rescuer and an artist to a crime victim. My businesses were sabotaged, my animal rescue activities turned ugly, my computer was hacked, my relationships were destroyed, my home was broken into, my vehicle was vandalized, all of my electronics started to fail, my possessions were destroyed or stolen, and I was followed around town by police and on foot surveillance like a criminal. This unwanted attention included the infiltration of aggressive and uncooperative people into my home life and social circles. I do not have and have never had a criminal record.

At the time, when I thought that things could not be worse, I began experiencing what some might know as Havana Syndrome symptoms. I began to experience dizziness, loss of balance, vertigo, difficulty sleeping, difficulty concentrating and a constant burning sensation throughout my body. But it was about to get much worse … Symptoms gradually progressed until every bodily function was involved. I couldn’t see properly, or breathe properly, or digest properly, or walk properly and there was unexplained pain that would come and go in every part of my body. At the same time my cognitive abilities began to decline and my behavior began to change. I was no longer a free person and I was being manipulated politically. It felt as if some evil entity had control of my body and my mind, and actually that’s exactly what was happening.

This was a time of terror for me as I watched my natural abilities disintegrate and all of my assets disappear. I now spent my days in the emergency rooms of local hospitals or unconscious or in extreme despair.

I contacted the police, the FBI, and my county supervisors and in the end I was called delusional, which was a lie, and told to keep my mouth shut about all of this or risk a forced hold in a psychiatric hospital.

Eventually, as I did research using my symptoms and experiences, I came across thousands of people experiencing the same things. They called themselves “targeted individuals”. My activism began.

I began to do research about microwave weaponry because I could think of no other reason for the burning of my body and I soon realized that this technology had been around for a long time. The Moscow Signal was a reported microwave transmission varying between 2.5 and 4 gigahertz directed at the Embassy of the United States in Moscow from 1953 to 1976 resulting in an international incident.3 It is said that America allowed these attacks to continue so that they could discover the effects of such weaponry. The development of this invisible stealth technology never ended.

From the article “How Far in the Future is the Ban of Psychotronic Weapons” by Mojmir Babacek4

“In March 2012 Russia’s defense minister Anatoli Serdjukov said, at a meeting with Prime Minister Vladmir Putin “The development of weaponry based on new physics principles, directed energy weapons, geophysical weapons, wave energy weapons, genetic weapons, psychotronic weapons, is part of the state arms procurement program for 2011 – 2020.”

The UK based newspaper, Daily Mail, wrote that research in electro-magnetic weapons had been secretly carried out in the United States and Russia since the 1950s and that low-frequency waves or beams can affect brain cells, alter psychological states and make it possible to transmit suggestions and commands directly into someone’s thought processes. High doses of microwaves can damage the functioning of internal organs, control behavior or even drive victims to suicide.”

That article was written in 2013 – Let’s fast forward to an article that was published on October 8th, 2021 entitled “Behind NATO’s cognitive warfare; Battle for Your Brain waged by Western Militaries” by Ben Norton.5

“Western governments in the NATO military alliance are developing tactics of “cognitive warfare”, using the supposed threats of China and Russia to justify waging a battle for your brain in the human domain to make everyone a weapon.

The US – led NATO military cartel has tested novel modes of hybrid warfare against its self-declared adversaries, including economic warfare, cyber warfare, information warfare, and psychological warfare.

Now, NATO is spinning out an entirely new kind of combat … it has branded cognitive warfare. Described as the weaponization of brain sciences, the new method involves hacking the individual by exploiting the vulnerabilities of the human brain in order to implement more sophisticated social engineering.

A 2020 NATO sponsored study of this new form of warfare clearly explained “Cognitive warfare’s objective is to make everyone a weapon”.  “The brain will be the battlefield of the 21st Century” the report stressed.

In a chilling disclosure, the report said explicitly that “the objective of Cognitive Warfare is to harm societies and not only the military”. The study described this phenomenon as “the militarization of brain science”. But it appears clear that NATO’s development of cognitive warfare will lead to a militarization of all aspects of human society and psychology, from the most intimate of social relationships to the mind itself.

The study makes it clear that those competitors purportedly exploiting the consciousness of Western dissidents are China and Russia.

The Pentagon is among the primary institutions advancing this novel research, as the report highlighted … “Although a number of nations have pursued, and are currently pursuing neuroscientific research and development for military purposes, perhaps the most proactive efforts in this regard have been conducted by the US Department of Defense, with most notable and rapidly maturing research and development by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency ( DARPA ) and Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity ( IARPA ).

The study indicated that the direct weaponisation of neuroscience and neurotechnology can and will be fatal. The research can “be utilized  to mitigate aggression and foster cognitions and emotions of affiliation of passivity; induce morbidity, disability or suffering; and neutralize potential opponents or incur mortality” … in other words, to maim and kill people.

The report nears it’s conclusion with an eerie quote; “Today’s progresses in nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science boosted by the seemingly unstoppable march of Artificial Intelligence, have created a much more ominous prospect where everyone, unbeknownst to him or her, is behaving according to plans”

So now we have the suspected criminals that stole my precious life from me … How did they pull this off legally I wonder? And is any one safe? I got a clue from an ex – police chief that I know who used his security clearance to help one of the victims. He found her listed on the Terrorist Watch List as “Dangerous”. She is a housewife without a criminal record. I hear that once one is listed as a terrorist, one loses all of one’s human rights … Well that would work now, wouldn’t it?  Haven’t many of our dissidents who oppose our fascist regime been thrown on the terrorist watch list by Fushion Centers?

But why were all of my assets stolen I wonder? Oh wait a minute, hasn’t Klaus Schwab, the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum stated publicly “You’ll own nothing and be happy about it?”6

Who’s really behind all of this?

1. https://www.amazon.com/Surveillance-Torture-Control-Modern-World-ebook/dp/B014B4YUDS/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=rosanne+marie+schneider&qid=1634348297&s=digital-text&sr=1-1

2. https://www.amazon.com/Notes-Engineered-Life-Controlled-America-ebook/dp/B08LDSVGDJ/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1KGEEQ36X0M4B&dchild=1&keywords=notes+from+an+engineered+life&qid=1603386994&s=books&sprefix=notes+from+an+engi%2Cstripbooks%2C205&sr=1-1

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Signal

4. https://www.opednews.com/articles/How-Far-in-the-Future-is-t-by-mojmir-Babacek-130117-720.html

5. https://thegrayzone.com/2021/10/08/nato-cognitive-warfare-brain/?fbclid=IwAR3nqged6OoA6opELFrXrirzAmRaMrI6lVI0zvSc3nb8FutHGOrxzuoO5iU

6. https://www.americaoutloud.com/you-will-own-nothing-and-be-happy-klaus-schwab/

Electromagnetic Weapons and Human Rights

Electromagnetic Weapons and Human Rights

I reproduce here a document of major importance. As a ten year non consensual test subject for electromagnetic weaponry I know first hand the dangers that they pose to all creatures on our planet. My experience can only be described as non-stop torture aimed at destroying cognitive liberty, free will, independent action and physical health. These gifts were given to all living creatures by our creator and were not meant to be tampered with. They form the basis of life as we know it and the control and destruction of these basic rights is catastrophic, cruel and tragic.

For ten long years I, along with thousands of other victims, have tried to expose these crimes against humanity. We’ve had limited success which leads me to believe that Dr. Robert Duncan, ex government scientist and whistle blower, was right when he told Jesse Ventura in a program appropriately entitled “Brain Invaders” that it was “too late”.

I am fully aware that these technologies can be used for good but that’s not what’s happening. I have to conclude that this weaponry has fallen into the wrong hands. My torture and programming has been aimed at enforcing Agenda 21 and other programs initiated by the global elite in their quest for total control of society and world domination.

If you care about your world you will read every word of this and when you’re finished please watch this video which was made by the victims.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_0cTGXqzkc&fbclid=IwAR0fdSItiGtBk9_4xzcKoWqgvfcWXEmQ-juitoj3eu3MAxOTyBFiG4ffZT0

Also, I had to reformat this piece to post it here and it’s been difficult because of the placement of the footnotes … If you’d rather read the original PDF without the reformatting you can do so here …

https://www.projectcensored.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/ElectromegnaticWeapons.pdf

A world of thanks to the authors for this amazingly researched piece …

US Electromagnetic Weapons and Human Rights

By Peter Phillips, Lew Brown and Bridget Thornton

As Study of the History of US Intelligence Community Human Rights Violations and Continuing Research in Electromagnetic Weapons

Completed December 2006

Sonoma State University Project Censored

Media Freedom Foundation

Table of Contents

Page

Research Statement                                        3

American Ruling Class                                  5

Neo-Conservatism                                          6

Global Dominance                                         9

Psychological War                                         10

Telsa and EMF                                               13

MK-ULTRA                                                   17

Illegal Experimentation                                 19

The Scientists                                                 20

Exposure of MKULTRA                                22

EMF Weapons Research                                24

Project Sheriff                                                27

Pulsed Energy Projectiles                              27

Directed Acoustics                                         28

Neurological Technology                               29

Implants                                                          31

Expert Interviews:                                          31

Valdimir Lopatin                                            31

Carol Smith                                                    32

Dean Radin                                                     33

Nick Begich                                                    34

DOD Military Contractors                             36

Human Rights and EMF Testing                   38

Directed Energy Prof. Society                       38

Human Rights and Cognitive Liberty            41

Total Surveillance                                          42

Conclusion                                                      43

Appendix                                                        45

US Electromagnetic Weapons and Human Rights

By Peter Phillips, Lew Brown and Bridget Thornton

This research explores the current capabilities of the US military to use electromagnetic (EMF) devices to harass, intimidate, and kill individuals and the continuing possibilities of violations of human rights by the testing and deployment of these weapons. To establish historical precedent in the US for such acts, we document long-term human rights and freedom of thought violations by US military/intelligence organizations. Additionally, we explore contemporary evidence of on-going government research in EMF weapons technologies and examine the potentialities of continuing human rights abuses.

In the 1950s and 60s the CIA began work to find means for influencing human cognition, emotion and behavior. Through the use of the psychological understanding of the human being as a social animal and the ability to manipulate a subject’s environment through isolation, drugs and hypnosis, US funded scientists have long searched for better means of controlling human behavior. This research has included the use of wireless directed electromagnetic energy under the heading of “Information Warfare” and “Non Lethal Weapons.” New technological capabilities have been developed in black budget projects1 over the last few decades— including the ability to influence human emotion, disrupt thought, and present excruciating pain through the manipulation of magnetic fields. The US military and intelligence agencies have at their disposal frightful new weapons, weapons that have likely already been covertly used and/or tested on humans, both here and abroad, and which could be directed against the public in the event of mass protests or civil disturbance.

Human Rights belong to people collectively. To believe in rights for some and not others is a denial of the humanness of people worldwide. Yet, denial is exactly what Congress and George W. Bush did with the signing of the Military Commission Act of 2006. The new official US policy is that torture and suspension of due process are acceptable for anyone the president deems to be a terrorist or supporter. This act is the overt denial of the inalienable rights of human beings propagated in our Declaration of Independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. More so, US actions declared to the world that the US suspends human rights for those it believes are evil.

The precious words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” did not declare that only some men (and women) possess unalienable rights. Our independence was founded on the understanding that all men and women are recognized by this nation as having innate rights derived by their humanity.

Likewise, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, created by the United Nations in 1948, signed and ratified by the US Congress, specifies in its preamble that “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”

1 Black budgets are government funded projects that are classified/secret to Congress and the American people. For an in-depth analysis on the topic, see Weiner, Tim , Blank Check: The Pentagon’s Black Budget, Warner: 1990.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been a guide for international law for most of six decades, and as such binds the United States to its general principles. Article 10 states that “everyone is entitled to full equality, to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him,” and Article 5 specifically prohibits torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Both of these basic human rights have been superceded by the passage the of Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Additionally, the Universal Declaration of Human rights declares that everyone has the right to freedom of thought and freedom of expression and opinion. This means that humans have the inalienable right to be able to freely think their own thoughts and discover their own truths. This paper addresses this most fundamental human right and explores the pending threats to individual freedom of thought posed by new EMF weapons technologies.

Freedom of thought or cognitive liberty is the natural human right of each person to be secure in their ability to perceive the world to the best of their ability. To have true cognitive liberty in a world as complex as ours would mean that first we must have access to truthful and unbiased information about the actions of others and the general state of the world. The Center for Cognitive Liberties defines this as “the right of each individual to think independently and autonomously, to use the full spectrum of his or her mind, and to engage in multiple modes of thought.”2 Without accurate representations we cannot make independently informed choices. It is imperative that the human body and mind be considered sacrosanct. To invade a person’s body without their consent is an egregious human rights crime.

The circumstance may soon arrive in which anti-war or human rights protesters suddenly feel a burning sensation akin to touching a hot skillet over their entire body. Simultaneously they may hear terrifying nauseating screaming, which while not produced externally, fills their brains with overwhelming disruption. Not only are both phenomena currently possible, but designs for more powerful EMF technologies receive continuous funding from the US Government.

We are in a time of extremism, permanent war, and the unilateral manifestation of ethnocentrism and power by a cabal of people in the US government. These power elites have been in operation for decades and are set on nothing less than the total US military domination of the world. They defy the foundational values of the American people to achieve their ends. This is not a new phenomenon.

The repression of human rights has been present within the US Government throughout our history.3

A long thread of sociological research documents the existence of a dominant ruling class in the US that sets policy and determines national political priorities. The American ruling class is complex and inter-competitive, maintaining itself through interacting families of high social standing with similar life styles, corporate affiliations, and memberships in elite social clubs and private schools.4

2 See the Center for Cognitive Liberty at http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/

3 For a full discussion on the Global Dominance Group currently operating in the US see: http://www.projectcensored.org/downloads/Global_Dominance_Group.pdf

This American ruling class is self-perpetuating,5 maintaining its influence through policy-making institutions such as the National Manufacturing Association, National Chamber of Commerce, Business Council, Business Roundtable, Conference Board, American Enterprise Institute, Council on Foreign Relations and other business-centered policy groups.6 C. Wright Mills, in his 1956 book The Power Elite, documents how World War II solidified a trinity of power in the US, comprised of corporate, military and government elites in a centralized power structure motivated by class interests and working in unison through “higher circles” of contact and agreement. Mills described how the power elite were those “who decide whatever is decided” of major consequence.7

With the advent of the military-industrial complex after World War II, President Eisenhower observed that an internal military industrial power faction was consolidating their long-term plans for the domination of America and, eventually, the world. Eisenhower was in no position to fight these men, and history records his feelings on the subject with the text of his short farewell address:

“….But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. Of these, I mention two only…

…This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

4 G. William Domhoff, Who Rules America? (New York: McGraw Hill, 2006 [5th ed.] and Peter Phillips, A Relative Advantage: Sociology of the San Francisco Bohemian Club, 1994, (http://library.sonoma.edu/regional/faculty/phillips/bohemianindex.html)

5 Early studies by Charles Beard in the Economic Interpretations of the Constitution of the United States (1929), established that economic elites formulated the US Constitution to serve their own special interests. Henry Klien (1933) in his book Dynastic America claimed that wealth in America has power never before known in the world and was centered in the top 2% of the population owning some 60% of the country. Ferdinard Lundberg (1937) wrote American’s Sixty Families documenting inter-marring self-perpetuating families where wealth is the “indispensable handmaiden of government. C.Wright Mills determined in 1945 (American Business Elites, Journal of Economic History, Dec. 1945) that nine out of ten business elites from1750 to 1879 came from well to do families.

6 See R. Brady, Business as a System of Power, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1943) and Val Burris, Elite Policy Planning Networks in the United State, American Sociological Association paper 1991.

7 C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956).

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.”8

We now understand that Eisenhower was referring to the conjunction of redirected tax monies to research secret new technology aimed at nothing less than increasing the controlling power of the military industrial elite to a global scale.

One particular faction of ambitious men, the former cold warriors and emerging neo-conservatives, were close followers of philosopher Leo Strauss. This elite group included not just generals and industrialists but philosophers, scientists, academics, and politicians have now become the most powerful public-private war organization ever known.

Strauss espoused an elitist philosophy that fawned over the characteristics of those who inherited wealth and lived lives of leisure to pursue whatever their interests may be. His ideas have been transformed into a cogent ideology in which the media, religion, and government are used to subdue the masses while the real “nobles” follow their own will without regard to the laws designed to control lesser men. Strauss was likewise fond of secrecy, as a necessity for control, because if the lesser men found out what was being done to them they would no doubt be upset.

“The people will not be happy to learn that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior, the master over the slave, the husband over the wife, and the wise few over the vulgar many.” In On Tyranny, Strauss refers to this natural right as the “tyrannical teaching” of his beloved ancients..9

Leo Strauss, Albert Wohlstetter, and others at the University of Chicago’s Committee on Social Thought receive wide credit for promoting the neo-conservative agenda through their students, Paul Wolfowitz, Allan Bloom, and Bloom’s student Richard Perle.

Canadian cultural review magazine Adbusters, defines neo-conservatism as, “The belief that Democracy, however flawed, was best defended by an ignorant public pumped on nationalism and religion. Only a militantly nationalist state could deter human aggression …such nationalism requires an external threat and if one cannot be found it must be manufactured.”10

8 Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040

9 Leo Strauss, “On Tyranny”, Edited by Victor Gourevitch and Michael S. Roth, University Of Chicago Press, 2000.

10 Guy Caron, “Anatomy of a Neo-Conservative White House,” Canadian Dimension, May 1, 2005.

The neo-conservative philosophy emerged as a reaction to the 1960s era of social revolutions. Numerous officials and associates in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush presidencies were strongly influenced by the neo-conservative philosophy including: John Ashcroft, Charles Fairbanks, Richard Cheney, Kenneth Adelman, Elliot Abrams, William Kristol and Douglas Feith.11

Within the Ford administration there was a split between Cold War traditionalists seeking to minimize confrontations through diplomacy and detente and neo-conservatives advocating stronger confrontations with the Soviet’s “Evil Empire.” The latter group became more entrenched when George H.W. Bush became CIA Director. Bush allowed the formation of “Team B” headed by Richard Pipes along with Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Paul Nitze and others, who formed the second Committee on the Present Danger to raise awareness of the Soviet threat and the continuing need for a strong aggressive defense policy. Their efforts led to strong anti-Soviet positioning during the Reagan administration.12

The Committees on the Present Danger (CPD) extend from the 1950s Russian threat to the present. The current CPD proudly boasts on their website;

“In times of great challenge to the security of the United States, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents have traditionally joined to make an assertive defense of American interests.

Twice before in American history, The Committee on the Present Danger has risen to this challenge. It emerged in 1950 as a bipartisan education and advocacy organization dedicated to building a national consensus for a strong defense against Soviet expansionism. In 1976, the Committee on the Present Danger reemerged, with leadership from the labor movement, bipartisan representatives of the foreign policy community and academia, all of whom were concerned about strategic drift in US security policy. With victory in the Cold War, the mission of the Committee on the Present Danger was considered complete and consequently was deactivated.

Today, the current CPD promotes radical Islamists as the primary threat to the American people and millions of others who prize liberty. They claim that the threat is global. They also claim that they operate from cells in a number of countries. Rogue regimes seek power by making common cause with terrorist groups. The prospect that this deadly collusion may include weapons of mass murder was the justification for the invasion of Iraq.”13

11 Alain Frachon and Daniel Vernet, “The Strategist and the Philosopher: Leo Strauss and Albert Wlhlestetter,” Le Monde, April 16, 2003, English translation: Counterpunch 6/2/03.

12 Anne Hessing Cahn, Team B; The Trillion-dollar Experiment, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, April 1993, Volume 49, No. 03

13 The Committee on the Present Danger mission statement can be accessed at http://www.fightingterror.org/whoweare/index.cfm

Journalist John Pilger recalls his interview with neo-conservative Richard Perle during the Reagan administration: “I interviewed Perle when he was advising Reagan; and when he spoke about ‘total war,’ I mistakenly dismissed him as mad. He recently used the term again in describing America’s ‘war on terror’, “No stages, This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don’t try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from now.”14

There is ample evidence available to show that some individuals within government and industry have little problem with violating the public trust and using their positions to kill, maim, torture and destroy. It is of the utmost importance to our traditional American values of human rights and cognitive liberty that we recognize this threat from within. We must move to identify those who show these proclivities and ensure that their activities have adequate oversight.

Stanley Milgram’s famous experiment involving obedience to authority proved that individuals are fairly easily cowed into submitting to anyone who has a claim of authority, and that on average 61 percent of people will administer pain to another person if instructed to do so.15 Both test groups in these experiments rationalized their behavior by appealing to “the greater good.” Because it was for the “advancement of science” they were able to be convinced they should ignore personal judgment and obey the instructions given to them by the experimenters.16

Martin Orne, who was one of those paid by the CIA to conduct experiments on obedience, showed in 1962 that people would go to tremendous lengths to please a person in authority. Orne conducted research that involved presenting subjects with a stack of 2,000 pages of random numbers and instructing them to add each two adjacent numbers until he returned. Over 90 percent of the test subjects continued in this meaningless task for up to five hours.17

Today the combination of political climate and technological capability presents a condition in which widespread manipulation of, not only the flow of information through the media, but also the manipulation of the emotional states and cognitive ability in large populations could be achieved. If policy elites are unaccountable to the public for their actions, and the public has been emotionally manipulated to support them, we can assume that they will certainly abuse their positions in the pursuit of their agendas.

14 John Pilger, “The World Will Know The Truth,” New Statesman (London) (December 16 2002).

15 Stanley Milgram “Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View”, New York: HarperCollins, 2004.

16 “Obedience as a determinant of behavior is of particular relevance to our time,” Behavioral Study of Obedience, Stanley Milgram, Yale University, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 67, No. 4, p. 371

17 See Martin Orne-Orne, Martin T., “On The Social Psychology of the Psychological Experiment: With Particular Reference to Demand Characteristics and Their Implications,”Am. Psychol. 17 (1962): 776-783, Orne, M.T. The potential uses of hypnosis in interrogation. In A.D. Biderman (Ed.), The Manipulation of Human Behavior (pp. 169- 215). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1961

Previous human rights and cognitive liberty violations are evidenced in CIA and FBI records pertaining to the infamous MK-ULTRA project and the grim record of harassment and subversion uncovered in the COINTELPRO program in force through the 1950s and into the 1970s. We also examined some of the cases of illegal experimentation on the public dating back to the 1930s. We consider, in depth, the forms of electromagnetic weapons entering the battlefield today that trace their origins back through the secret projects of the Defense Department in the 1950s and 1960s.

Psychological Warfare, Information War, and mind control may seem to be exotic topics, but the impact of these technologies and techniques is profound. Our minds are being impacted through a longstanding series of programs aimed at manipulating public opinion through intelligence agencies, think tanks, corporate media and a host of non-governmental organizations designed to engender fear, division and uncertainty in the public.18 Media manipulation involving the artificial framing of our collective reality is often a hit or miss proposition, but psychological operations have been carried out in the past, and are being carried out even today, through the practices of “Information Warfare,” directed at enemies abroad and at the American people.19

According to Mary C. FitzGerald of the Hudson Institute, New-concept weapons, such as laser, electromagnetic, plasma, climatic, genetic and biotechnological are the central principle driving the modernization of national defense. The potential for these weapons to be used for both good and bad deserves a great deal of attention, but there is little to be found in the media or discussed by our administration.20

The US is a system of many institutions including those whose sole function is to provide government oversight. When problems arise that threaten the stability of the country or the safety of the people, the US government is designed to have checks and balances that allow the people to challenge misconduct either directly or through congressional representatives. Increasingly, oversight is disintegrating. According to a 2006 report in the Boston Globe, the intelligence committee does not read most intelligence reports in their entirety.21

The media is complicit in omitting information necessary to make democratic decisions.22 A global dominance agenda includes penetration into the boardrooms of the corporate media in the US. A research team at Sonoma State University recently finished conducting a network analysis of the boards of directors of the ten big media organizations in the US. The team determined that only 118 people comprise the membership on the boards of director of the ten big media giants. These 118 individuals in turn sit on the corporate boards of 288 national and international corporations. Four of the top 10 media corporations in the US have DOD contractors on their boards of directors including:

William Kennard: New York Times, Carlyle Group Douglas Warner III, GE (NBC), Bechtel

John Bryson: Disney (ABC), Boeing Alwyn Lewis: Disney (ABC), Halliburton

Douglas McCorkindale: Gannett, Lockheed-Martin

18 For an analysis on the interlocking of the corporate media, think tanks and government organizations, see Peter Phillips, Bridget Thornton and Lew Brown “ The Global Dominance Group and the US Corporate Media” in Censored 2007, Seven Stories Press.

19 See: Snow, Nancy, Information War American Propaganda, Free Speech, and Opinion Control Since 9/11, 2004 Seven Stories Press and Chomsky, Noam Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda, 2002 Seven Stories Press

20 In researching this article, there are no instances of remarks by senior White House, Pentagon, or Congressional officials that specifically address the human effects of non-lethal EMF weapons. A search in Lexis Nexis from 2001- 2006 returned no results in American mainstream media.

21 Classified Intelligence Bills Often Are Unread: Secret Process Can Discourage House Debate, Susan Milligan, Boston Globe August 6, 2006.

22 The Global Dominance Group and the US Corporate media, by Peter Phillips, Bridget Thornton and Lew Brown, published in Censored 2007, Seven Stories Press, 2006, Chapter 10,

Given an interlocked media network, big media in the US effectively represent corporate America’s interests. The media elite, a key component of policy elites in the US, are the watchdogs of acceptable ideological messages, the controllers of news and information content, and the decision makers regarding media resources

It is not suggested that everyone in the government believes in global domination, nor that it is the intent of every government official to ‘cover up’ misconduct.23 Scientists involved in potentially harmful technology are not ‘mad scientists.’ In fact, there are many reports in the public sphere addressing government and military misconduct that are put forth by people within these very institutions. The problem is when the government threatens whistleblowers, intimidates officials with job loss, infiltrates activist organizations, and increases surveillance24.

PSYCHOLOGICAL WAR

Modern Psychological Operations (Psy-Ops) were significantly advanced in the Second World War25 and were brought to bear on the American public during the 1950s with the formation of a widespread network of social scientists, journalists, politicians, military specialists and intelligence operatives. Psy-Ops were used to promote a variety of programs in cooperation with the Industrial Military Complex. Their key piece of information warfare was the Communist Red Menace.26

23 Remarks on Classification, The Hon. Lee Hamilton, Information Security Oversight Office, October 18, 2005. “At a time when the US intelligence community is under intense scrutiny in the aftermath of 9/11 and the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, we only increase public skepticism about our government by denying the public information.”

24 See: Valerie Plame, the Richard Leiby, Spy Who Got Shoved Out Into the Cold, Washington Post, October 29, 2005; Page C01; Amended 2006 surveillance bill by Bush; The FBI and the Engineering of Consent, Noam Chomsky, From Public Eye Magazine, Volume One, Number Two; and Demian Bulwa, Oakland: Police spies chosen to lead war protest, San Francisco Chronicle, Friday, July 28, 2006.

25 See William E. Daugherty and Morris Janowitz, A Psychological Warfare Casebook, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1958. In particular, see Daugherty’s article on “US Psychological Warfare Organizations in World War II,” pp. 126-136.

26 For a current view of these kinds of operations and how they are outsourced see James Bamford’s article in the Rolling Stone, The Man Who Sold the War Meet John Rendon, Bush’s General In The Propaganda War, November 17, 2005. For more information on CIA control of the media refer to Carl Bernstein, “The CIA and the Media —

One of the opening salvos in this war of deception was fired by George Kennan, the American ambassador to Moscow, describing the Soviet threat in a “long cable” sent to Washington in 1946. Kennan spent decades studying the Russian political scene. He became convinced that there would be little chance of cooperation with the Soviets and recommended a number of actions, most notably the institution of “political war” through the newly formed CIA – a decision he later regretted, even arguing for the elimination of the CIA in 1997.27

In the late 1950s, a right-wing cadre of men within the new CIA was busy building secret armies, planning assassinations, and generally devising plans for world domination that still play out today. Operation Gladio was one example, well documented and international in scope, in which right-wing members of the US intelligence community created “stay-behind” armies in many of the nations of Europe. Those armies managed to infiltrate the highest levels of politics (most notably in Italy where the term “Gladio” refers to a double edged sword) and have been held responsible for numerous false-flag terrorist acts through the 1980s and 1990s. Terror and propaganda often go hand-in-hand in the extremist elements within our military and intelligence communities.28

To counter the divisions within the intelligence community, a greater voice was given to organizations formal and informal. In the 1950s, one such group, the first Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), promulgated a series of “gap crises.” The Bomber Gap, the Missile Gap, the Space Gap, and the Brainwashing and Psychotronic Gap were used to justify increased military technology spending. Congress was led to believe that the Soviets were a much greater threat than they actually were, and that a terrifying new weapon was being developed that threatened America. They were thus convinced to vote for virtually any black budget proposal that came their way. The CPD ran a series of broadcasts to the public through the Mutual Broadcasting Network that spread fear in the minds of the public.

Under the first civilian CIA Director, Allen Welsh Dulles, the Company began to push forward with its agenda of manufacturing consent from the American people for a new state of perpetual war industrialization. Dulles was a well-connected individual, a successful spy for the OSS in Switzerland during the war, related to three secretaries of state, and the chief advisor to Dewey when he ran for President in 1948. Dulles had access to the highest echelons of policy making and his

Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central IntelligenceAgency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up”, Rolling Stone, October 20, 1977, p.63.-the title of the original operation was “Mockingbird” 27 George F. Kennan. “Spy and Counterspy.” The New York Times, May 18, 1997. For a sympathetic biography see George F. Kennan and The Making of American Foreign Policy, 1947-1950, Wilson D. Miscamble, C.S.C, 1993 Princeton University Press. George F. Kennan. “Policy Planning Staff memorandum on the inauguration of organized political warfare“, May 4, 1948. Published in Foreign Relations of the United States, 1945-1950: Emergence of the Intelligence Establishment. Discusses the need for political warfare: that is, measures short of war, such as propaganda and covert operations.

28 History News Network, USA 13 June 2005, Terrorism in Western Europe: An Approach to NATO’s Secret Stay- Behind Armies, by Daniele Ganser, The Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations 1 June 2005, Kennan published his analysis anonymously in Foreign Affairs, the official magazine of the Council for Foreign Relations (CFR). [Mr. X (Alias ‘George C. Kennan): “The Sources of Soviet Conduct”, in Foreign Affairs, July 1947.] (http://www.isn.ethz.ch/php/documents/collection_gladio/Terrorism_Western_Europe.pdf.)

influence was global in scope, counting among his close friends Henry Luce, publisher of Newsweek. Relying heavily upon established circles of contacts within the nation’s media elites, Dulles recruited key members of the media to work directly for the CIA under Operation Mockingbird. Mockingbird was a psychological information campaign against the American people. In a campaign that would lead to acceptance of blanket secrecy for “national security”, “the Red Scare” became the excuse for spending vast sums of money on weapon systems and an increase in covert operations both in foreign countries and within the United States. In the 1950s and 1960s, movies, news articles, books, radio and television programs were carefully laced with anti- communist messages and images designed to produce an acceptance of the policies being promoted by the defense elite’s propaganda machine.29

“Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were William Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Time Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry Bingham Sr. of the Louisville Courier-Journal and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, The Miami Herald, and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald-Tribune. By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with The New York Times, CBS, and Time Inc.”30

One of the engineers of this deception was a former head of the stay-behind network, Edward W. Barrett, director of the Interdepartmental Psychological Strategy Board (IPSB) and, not coincidentally an editor at Newsweek. Barrett was seen as being very effective in his efforts to manipulate public opinion. At the same time, CPD was a “non-political group of citizens of the western coast” and launched a media campaign in favor of the urgent reinforcement of the national defense. Among the organizers of the Committee were Frank Altschul (Director of the Council for Foreign Relations), William Donovan (former head of the OSS during WWII) and General Dwight D. Eisenhower.31

All of this activity was more than enough to stoke the fears of the public and encourage policy makers to accept the Cold War view of the world. This allowed Truman to convince Congress to approve a tripled military budget that provided funding for secret research and development and turn a blind eye (in the name of National Security) to “black operations” programs authorized under the new Cold War rubric of “containment” and aimed at undermining otherwise peaceful nations and fomenting war, torture and assassination in countries as diverse as Iran, Guatemala and Indochina.32

29 Victor Marchetti and John D. Marks, The CIA and The Cult of Intelligence, Dell Books,1975 (as a matter of general interest this is reportedly the first book the Government went to court to have censored. There are 168 missing pages as a result of the courts ruling but the spaces were retained in the first edition.)

30 “The CIA and the Media”, Carl Bernstein Rolling Stone, Oct. 20, 1977

31 David F. Krugler, Will It Play in Peoria? The 1950 Campaign of Truth and the Reconstruction of Cold War Propaganda, British Association of American Studies Annual Conference April 1997 University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England

Post-war developments in Europe, especially the British withdrawal from Greece, led Truman to decide it was necessary to have a permanent American presence in the old continent to counteract the Communist influence.33 General George C. Marshall, Secretary of State, designed a vast plan that mixed economic assistance and secret actions aimed at establishing democracies and making sure that voters in foreign countries made “the right choice.” National Security Council directive NSC 10/2, essentially written by Kennan, made official the creation of an anti-Communist interference network.34

The US intelligence community had an ace in the hole, Reinhardt Gehlen, a Nazi spymaster with an existing network of agents became the front man in Eastern Europe for American intelligence.

General Reinhardt Gehlen proved to be troublesome for the CIA over the years. Communist counter- spies infiltrated his network, his information was often incorrect, and he had downplayed his eagerness to serve the Reich. But Gehlen was only one of thousands of Nazis recruited to assist in the new “Cold War” through Operation Paperclip.35 In fact, the intelligence assets acquired by bringing the Gestapo onto the US public payroll was overshadowed by the acquisition of dozens of brilliant Nazi scientists and researchers.

At this juncture, Truman, through the application of the 1947 National Security Act and the newly formed National Security Council36, authorized a vast number of secret projects involving chemical, biological, nuclear and electromagnetic experiments. Former Nazis were put in charge of many of the most sensitive programs and facilities. The Army Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA) was entrusted to the former SS officer Wernher von Braun.37 Kurt Debus, another ex-SS officer, directed Cape Canaveral. At this time scientists began working on “black” projects in earnest, including attempts at finally developing the “lost” theories of Nicola Tesla, the Serbian-born American physicist, into military and intelligence applications.38

TESLA AND EMF

32 William Blum, Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995; Ralph McGehee, Deadly Deceits: My 25 years in the CIA, New York: Sheridan Square Publications, 1983. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=CIA Footnote on Ops)

33 Daniele Ganser, NATO’s Secret Armies. Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe, Frank Cass Publishers, 2004.

34 See the Federation of American Scientists Intelligence resource program, National Security Council [NSC] Truman Administration [1947-1953] at http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsc-hst/index.html.

35 Linda Hunt, Secret Agenda: The United States Government, Nazi Scientists and Project Paperclip, 1945-1990, St. Martin’s Press, 1991.

36 The National Security Act of 1947 can be accessed at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/cwr/17603.htm

37 Biography of Werner VonBraun produced by NASA: ww.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/sputnik/braun.html and at the Marshall Space Flight Center located at http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/vonbraun/index.html

38 Hunt, L. Secret Agenda. The United States Government, Nazi Scientists, and Project Paperclip, 1945 to 1990. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991. Simpson, C. “Blowback. The First Full Account of America’s Recruitment of Nazis, and the Disastrous Effect on Our Domestic and Foreign Policy”. New York: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1988

Military interest into the weaponization of the electromagnetic spectrum has a long history, based on the theoretical work of Nikola Tesla. Radar, in its early inception, was seen not only as a means of tracking the position and speed of enemy targets, but as a potential weapon in its own right. There are very real problems however with overcoming the normal decrease in effect of an electromagnetic field over distance. This effect is a natural function of the laws of physics and applies to both electrical and magnetic fields39. In short, the strength of a field drops off in inverse proportion to the distance of the target from the source. Without a means of concentrating and directing a beam of energy across long distances, any effect that an EMF weapon may have would be limited to its immediate vicinity. From 1900 until his death in 1943, Nikola Tesla worked to develop just such a weapon.

In a letter to the New York Times editor in 1908 Telsa wrote,

“When I spoke of future warfare I meant that it should be conducted by direct application of electrical waves without the use of aerial engines or other implements of destruction…What I said in regard to the greatest achievement of the man of science whose mind is bent upon the mastery of the physical universe, was nothing more than what I stated in one of my unpublished addresses, from which I quote: “According to an adopted theory, every ponderable atom is differentiated from a tenuous fluid, filling all space merely by spinning motion, as a whirl of water in a calm lake. By being set in movement this fluid, the ether, becomes gross matter. Its movement arrested, the primary substance reverts to its normal state. It appears, then, possible for man through harnessed energy of the medium and suitable agencies for starting and stopping ether whirls to cause matter to form and disappear. At his command, almost without effort on his part, old worlds would vanish and new ones would spring into being. He could alter the size of this planet, control its seasons, adjust its distance from the sun, guide it on its eternal journey along any path he might choose, through the depths of the universe. He could make planets collide and produce his suns and stars, his heat and light; he could originate life in all its infinite forms. To cause at will the birth and death of matter would be man’s grandest deed, which would give him the mastery of physical creation, make him fulfill his ultimate destiny.”40

Tesla made several claims during the latter years of his life, published by the New York Times in what became an annual event. His theory of the hidden nature of our universe supplants those of many of his contemporaries in that he was able to infer a multidimensional model of the universe that is only now being investigated through the theoretical mathematics of our leading physicists.41

39 There are two laws of note here: the inverse square law, which relates to forces such as gravity, and the inverse cube law, which relates to electromagnetic forces. Both equations describe the relationship between the power of the force and the decrease in that forces effect over distance. In regards to magnetism we refer to the work of Maxwell. One easily accessible online source for his equations is: http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/maxwell.htm A good place to start for understanding the man and his work is the James Clerk Maxwell Foundation at: http://www.clerkmaxwellfoundation.org/html/links.html

40 New York Times, April 21st, 1908 (p.5 column 6) Tesla Letter to the Editor :.

41 “The Cosmic Triangle: Revealing the State of the Universe,” in the May 28, 1999 issue of the journal Science

Tesla also developed means of remotely controlling aircraft as early as 1915, foreshadowing the Unmanned Ariel Vehicles (UAVs) of today’s battlefields. In 1934 Tesla offers to build a “Death Ray” that would make the power of an opponents air force obsolete. This was one of the earliest recorded statements regarding directed energy weapons.42 Tesla’s offer to build this device for the US government for a bargain price, but with many caveats, was refused by officials who, preferred instead to pump money into the new Army Air Corp, which in turn gave rise to the military aviation complex that we have today.43

Before the war the airline industry was not a major part of the economic life of the nation.44 With huge wartime contracts, however, corporations such as Hughes, McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed, and Northrop quickly grew in power commensurate with the financial bonanza that was unearthed in the battlefields of Europe and the Pacific.45 These companies formed the core of the “military-industrial complex.” Their investors and managers began to consolidate their clout in political circles to keep the nation on a wartime economic footing, a simple and vastly powerful weapon that would make aircraft, bombs, missiles and attendant industries irrelevant would certainly be seen as a direct threat to the growing power of military arsenal. Instead, a “black budget” program was put into motion, which exploited the work of Robert Oppenheimer, Albert Einstein and others. The Manhattan Project, developed by the DOD in 1942, generated a vastly destructive weapon that required a well- established and unbelievably expensive aerospace industry, along with unprecedented levels of secrecy and autonomy from Congress and the public.46

The US government also ignored Tesla’s offer to produce a “city killing machine,” which was composed of an electromagnetic shield and a wireless torpedo. Tesla made several proposals during the 1930s, none of which received funding. Among Tesla’s claims, published annually on his birthday in the New York Times, were methods of harnessing the power of the sun to electrify the earth and provide free electrical power to anybody, anywhere.

discusses Dark Energy and Margaret Cheney, Tesla: A Man Out of Time, Dell Publishing, 1983.

42 Front page New York Times, July 11 1934 was entitled, “TESLA, AT 78, BARES NEW ‘DEATH BEAM'” and told of the inventor’s proposal that would “send concentrated beams of particles through the free air, of such tremendous energy that they will bring down a fleet of 10,000 enemy airplanes at a distance of 250 miles…”

43 To illustrate the control of science for corporate profit, Tesla’s practical applications all shared one thing in common, the were devoid of any profitable application. As a result, Tesla’s development of wireless electricity has never borne fruit, leaving us still in the 21st century surrounded by a landscape of transmission wires, faulty electrical grids, destructive (though profitable) electrical generation systems, wars for oil, and a suffering environment. See Marc J. Seifer, The Life and Times of Nikola Tesla, Citadel Press, 1998.

44 John B. Rae, Climb to Greatness: The American Aircraft Industry, 1920-1960, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1968. Roger E. Bilstein, The American Aerospace Industry: From Workshop to Global Enterprise, New York: Twayne Publishers, 1996. 45 Carol L. Cook, The Aerospace Industry: Its History and How it Affects the US Economy, Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute, 2005.

46 See the National Atomic Museum’s archives concerning the Manhattan Project at http://www.atomicmuseum.com/tour/manhattanproject.cfm and the Brookings Institute’s archives at http://www.brook.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/MANHATTN.HTM

Tesla did, however, conceive of at least one device that became a major part of our nation’s arsenal -radar. As early as 1917 he published his theory and developed the first prototype in 1934. It is from the basis of this technology that future research into weaponizing the electromagnetic spectrum proceeded. At the same time Tesla was working on methods of transmitting and receiving communication signals through interplanetary space and reading the images on a sleeping person’s retina (by extension mind reading). His prediction that future wars would be fought with electromagnetic means foreshadowed the rise of electronic warfare and the non-lethal weapons technology being deployed today.47

At first glance, it would seem probable that the military had taken over the management of Tesla’s material. In fact, a number of projects related to his life’s work were in development. For instance, the building of beam weapons at Wright Patterson Air Force Base under the code name “Project Nick”48 headed by Brigadier General L.C. Craigie. This project was however, cancelled due to an apparent lack of understanding of Tesla’s means of transmitting high-energy waves without a loss of power over great distances. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) began another project in 1958 codenamed “Seesaw” at Lawrence Livermore Labs49 aimed at combating reported Soviet advances in electromagnetic weapons and defenses, advances that many believe came about after 1952 when the bulk of Tesla’s research and personal effects were turned over to his nephew, Sava Kosanovic, who promptly whisked them away to Yugoslavia. Eight years later Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev would state that, “A new and fantastic weapon is in the hatching stage,”50 horrifying many and prompting calls for more effective means of using EMF, espionage and counter-espionage.

On February 9, 1981, the office of the Undersecretary of Defense Research and Engineering department sent a letter to the FBI that requested the papers of Tesla, stating, “We believe that certain of Tesla’s papers may contain basic principles which would be of considerable value to certain ongoing research within the DOD. It would be very helpful to have access to these papers. The letter was signed by Lt. Col. Allan J. Mclaren, an R.O.T.C. graduate from M.I.T. in 1960, who later went on to become a project director with Lockheed Martin Space Systems from which he retired in 2003.51

This section of his memo to the FBI was not declassified until 1993. In response, the FBI issued the same response as to all of the other inquiries with one exception, this time they identified who it was that examined the stored effects; it was the Office of Scientific Research and Development from MIT, a breeding ground of CIA. technical types the Office of Naval Intelligence and agents from US Naval Research.52 What they may have been looking for had likely already been taken, according to a recent PBS special entitled Tesla: Life and Legacy, Tesla’s nephew reported that Tesla’s most recent journal was missing from the bulk of material stored by the OAP.53 In recent years high profile projects such as the High Altitude Auroral Project (“HAARP”), the Strategic Defense Initiative (“Star Wars”), and many of the devices promoted by proponents of “Non-Lethal Weapons” have Tesla’s intellectual fingerprints all over them.54

47 New York Times, 1937 “…will send concentrated beams of particles through the free air, of such tremendous energy that they will bring down a fleet of 10,000 enemy airplanes at a distance of 250 miles from the defending nation’s border and will cause armies of millions to drop dead in their tracks When put into operation, Dr. Tesla said, this latest invention of his would make war impossible. This death-beam, he asserted, would surround each country like an invisible Chinese wall, only a million times more impenetrable. It would make every nation impregnable against attack by airplanes or by large invading armies.” For an interesting article about Tesla’s “Death Ray” and the relationship to Tunguska see: http://www.viewzone.com/tesla.ray.html)

48 Tesla: Master of Lightning, archived at PBS: www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_mispapers.html

49 Tesla: Life and Legacy, Missing Papers, archived at PBS: http://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_mispapers.html.

50 Max Frankel, “Khrushchev Says Soviets Will Cut Forces a Third; Sees ‘Fantastic Weapon’, New York Times, January 15,1960.

51 See Tesla’s FBI files at the FBI FOIA site located at http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/tesla.htm.

MK-ULTRA

In terms of mind-control and the breaking down of prisoners for military interrogations, the events at Abu-Ghraib, Guantanamo, and in the CIA network of secret prisons dotting the globe, all have their intellectual origin in the work carried out by a network of scientists under the behest of the intelligence community beginning in the World War II period. Mind-control, per se, refers to a well- funded, broad based series of programs designed to explore the furthest reaches of human cognitive ability. The Nazis, as well as the Japanese, had been experimenting on prisoners throughout the war. Recovery of the records of these experiments led the US to proceed with investigations into new means of interrogations and the building of resistance to interrogations of US personnel..55

The CIA, in association with various other agencies, undertook a long series of experiments on unsuspecting prisoners, students, military personnel and others recruited into one of the at least 162 subprojects of what became known as MKULTRA.56 Interest was certainly piqued by the case of Cardinal Mindseztny and the reports of brainwashing techniques used on American soldiers in prisoner of war camps in Korea57. But even prior to the Korean War the resiliency of the human mind was being tested by researchers on the black budget. These projects reportedly at times violated every conceivable notion of human rights and dignity.58

52 Tesla: Life and Legacy, Missing Papers, archived at PBS: http://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_mispapers.html.

53 Tesla: Master of Lightning PBS documentary Dec. 12th, 2000.

54 Box#8 of Declassified CIA documents pertaining to MKULTRA contains the following fragment: The Application of Tesla’s Technology in Today’s World. Obtain, online, through the National Security Archives at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

55 Harris, S. (1994) Factories Of Death: Japanese Biological Warfare, 1932-45, And The American Cover-Up. London: Routledge.Tanaka, Y. 1998. Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes in World War II. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, Michalczyk, J. J. 1994. Medicine, ethics, and the Third Reich: Historical and Contemporary Issues (METR). Kansas City, Missouri: Sheed & Ward

56 This site provides a selection of memorandum from within the CIA, in which funding is discussed. http://cryptome.org/mkultra-0003.htm Digital MK-Ultra files can be found at: http://www.intellnet.org/mkultra/general note about MK-ULTRA funding)

57 Stephen Budiansky, Erica E. Goode and Ted Gest, “The Cold War Experiments”, U.S News and World Report January 24, 1994.

58 Patricia Greenfield, CIA’s Behavior Caper, APA Monitor, December 1977, pp. 1, 10-11

Frank Olson, a mid-level CIA operative, worked on the development of aerosol delivery of drugs and poisons at Ft. Detrick, Maryland. His work, which is still classified, was. funded through MKULTRA. Olson took a trip to England where MI6 and the CIA were working together on ways to prevent allied spies and servicemen from yielding to interrogation. Olson also traveled to Frankfurt, where the two agencies conducted fatal experiments on prisoners of war and others considered to be “expendable.” Olson had an ethical dilemma with the research and, after voicing his concerns, returned to the United States. On November 28, 1953, Olson was in room 1018A of the Hotel Statler in New York. At 2 a.m., Olson fell from the 10th floor window of his room to his death on the sidewalk below. The headline reported his death as an accident or suicide. This report was discredited when, in 1975, another official lie was issued to ease his family’s suffering and deflect public scrutiny. This time Olson was called the victim of an LSD experiment.59 Media reports cited in the New York Times focused on the sensational aspects of LSD use and psychic warfare, but did not dwell on the more egregious violations of human rights and dignity inherent in the programs overseen by the CIA.60

The truth was not revealed until 1994 when his son finally had his body exhumed and examined. The autopsy showed that Olson’s left temple had been fractured before he fell. According to the New York Times Magazine CIA tradecraft books from 1953, that have since been released teach that “one of the surest methods of killing somebody without a trace involves impairing their reflexes with alcohol (or drugs) and then stepping up behind them and stunning them with a blow to the temple.

After that you quickly grab their ankles and in a single motion flip them over a bridge, balcony or out of a window more than 70 feet off of the ground.”61 What Olson saw, and what cost him his life and his family their peace of mind for 30 years, was the beginning of a long term strategy to develop means of making individual both resistant to “brainwashing” and to control the actions of individuals.62 The cover story that was used to justify the beginning of the project was that there was a “brainwashing gap” with the Koreans.63

Experimenters used college students, servicemen, mental patients, the poor and, in several instances, children as young as four years old, in attempts to create untraceable assassins, couriers and other operatives. MKULTRA sub-projects involved the services of many notable universities and used a number of false front corporations such as the Foundation for the Study of Human Ecology and think tanks such as RAND, to shield the source of funding from those with ethical “problems.”64 We would still know nothing of these activities had it not been for the release of 16,000 pages of documents in 1977 through the FOIA request filed by the surviving family of Frank Olson.

59 Thomas O’Toole, “CIA Infiltrated 17 Area Groups, Gave out LSD Suicide Revealed”, front-page story Washington Post, June 11, 1975.

60 Carl Bernstein, “The CIA and the Media: How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up”, Rolling Stone, October 20, 1977.

61 Michael Ignatieff, “What did the C.I.A. Do to Eric Olson’s Father?” New York Times Magazine, April 1, 2001.

62 ibid. and The Frank Olson Project at http://www.frankolsonproject.org/Contents.htmlhttp://www.frankolsonproject.org/Statements/FamilyStatement2002.htm l. Dr. Eric Olson continues to do what he can to bring to light the truth of his father’s death. At the above website there are memorandum written by Dick Cheney to Donald Rumsfeld in regards to the families lawsuit during the Ford administration in 1975

63 Reported in the New York Times as “Mind Control Studies had Origin in Trial of Mindszenty”, Aug. 2, 1977, p.16. 64 See Athan G. Theoharis, “Researching the Intelligence Agencies: The Problem of Covert Activities”, The Public Historian, 1984 National Council on Public History, University of California Press.

Unfortunately CIA Director Richard Helms ordered the destruction of any MKULTRA records shortly before the order came in to his office65, leaving an incomplete picture of a concerted effort by various agencies to create new and better means of controlling the thoughts, emotions and thus behavior, of unsuspecting individuals.

ILLEGAL EXPERIMENTATION

MKULTRA was, however, neither the first nor the last project funded by government or industry to experiment on people in the name of some greater good. A quick review of the history of secret experimentation and medical atrocities reveals a pattern of deadly behavior.

The Tuskegee Experiments in 1932 cruelly condemned scores of black men to death from syphilis.66

The Pellagra Incident, in which millions died over two decades, in spite of the fact that the US Public Health Service knew at the time that these deaths were caused by little more than a niacin deficiency.67

In 1940 scientists exposed four-hundred prisoners in Chicago with malaria (a US experiment Nazis cited at the Nuremberg trials to defend their own experimentation).68

During WWII, Seventh Day Adventist conscientious objectors were enlisted into Operation Whitecoat by the US Army and the Adventist Church. They were told that they were being tested for defensive research purposes while the government was in fact testing offensive chemical and biological weapons.69

After WWII, matters became far worse for those who were caught up in the web of illegal scientific testing. In 1947 Colonel E.E. Kirkpatrick of the US Atomic Energy Commission issued a secret document stating that the agency would begin administering intravenous doses of radioactive substances to human subjects. At the same time atomic tests in which the residents of Utah and Nevada were purposely exposed to radioactive fallout. There were also a series of operations during the 1940s and 1950s in which US cities were attacked secretly by the military through the spread of biological agents in order to track their propagation through a real population.70

65 Project MKULTRA, The CIA’s Program of Research in Behavioral Modification, August 3, 1977, US Senate, Select Committee on Intelligence, and Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of the Committee on Human Resources.

66 Jean Heller (Associated Press), “Syphilis Victims in the US Study Went Untreated for 40 Years” New York Times, July 26, 1972: and VN Gamble, “Under the Shadow of Tuskegee: African Americans and Health Care.” American Journal of Public Health 7(1997):1773-1778.

67 Jon M. Harkness, “Prisoners and Pellagra”, Public Health Reports, Sep/Oct96, Vol. 111 Issue 5, p 463.

68 “They Were Cheap and Available: Prisoners as Research Subjects in Twentieth Century America.” British Medical Journal 315:1437.

69 Krista Thompson Smith, “Adventists and Biological Warfare”, Spectrum Magazine, Vol 25, no. 3, March 1996 and David R. Franz, DVM, PhD, Cheryl D. Parrott, Ernest T. Takafuji, MD, MPH, “The US Biological Warfare and Biological Defense Programs” in Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological Warfare, Part 1; The Textbook of Military Medicine, Office of Surgeon General, Borden Institute 1997; p. 425-436.

70 Atomic Energy Commission Secret Memo by Kirkpatrick, E. E. Col. A January 8, 1947, This was a draft memo from

THE SCIENTISTS

Dr. Ewen Cameron71

Once the details of MKULTRA came to light, the focus in the media and in the Senate, was on the use of drugs, especially LSD. While the researchers within the project did indeed concentrate on developing a variety of hallucinogenic concoctions, they did so with an end in mind. The goal was to devise means and methods of enabling undercover operatives, soldiers, contractors or anyone who was involved in secret projects, to be able to keep those secrets if they were captured or interrogated. Hypnosis, combined with drugs, sensory deprivation and systematic abuse were seen as a means to that end. The leader in this pharmaceutical and psychological research was Dr. Ewen Cameron.

Cameron was at the time, one of the most esteemed psychiatrists in the world. As president of the American Psychiatric Association, Canadian Psychiatric Association, and one of the founders of the World Psychiatric Association, Dr. Cameron began experimenting on brainwashing techniques as early as the 1930s with schizophrenic patients. At this time lobotomies were not yet in common use, though the procedure would begin to be implemented in 1936 on a wide scale. Electroshock therapy was some years from being accepted as a primary means of changing behavior.72

Cameron relied on torturous and highly stressful techniques for breaking down the personality of his patients. Schizophrenics would be stripped down naked beneath red lights for eight hours a day, sometimes for up to eight months with repeated messages inundating their senses. In other experiments Cameron would attempt to induce the delirium associated with a high fever by cooking his patients in an electric cage until their body temperature reached 102 degrees.

Colonel Kirkpatrick, Acting Manager, Field Operations of AEC, to the AEC Berkeley Area Engineer, puts the AEC stamp on termination of human testing, while simultaneously revealing it was going on under the Manhattan Project-at the request of Oppenhiemer: “Until the Atomic Energy Commission is able to consider sponsoring this type of experimentation, authorization cannot be given for the use of radioactive materials in human subjects under this contract.” A more current report from the National Security Archives that clearly lays out the timeline and the assault by researchers on “subjects” can be found at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/radiation/dir/mstreet/commeet/meet12/brief12/tab_f/br12f1d.txt————————————————————————————————————- “ Personal Statement

from Elizabeth Zitrin, Attorney at Law Public Member of the Ad Hoc Committee on Radiation Experiments”. For information on biological warfare experiments a good starting place is : Biological Warfare: A Historical Perspective, by LTC George W. Christopher, USAF, MC; LTC Theodore J. Cieslak, MC, USA, MAJ Julie A. Pavlin, MC, USA, and LTC (P) Edward M. Eitzen Jr., MC, USA. — Operational Medicine Division, United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, Fort Detrick, Maryland, as posted at http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/bw.htm

71 This section about Dr. Cameron is based on Orlikow Vs. United States, CIA Settlement of Some Complaints. Ewen Cameron and the Allan Memorial Institute – Subproject 68 funded by CIA from March 18, 1957 to June 30, 1960 Without conceding liability, in 1988 the CIA agreed to pay $750,000 to settle a case brought on behalf of nine plaintiffs who were subjected to federally funded mind control experiments sponsored by the CIA and conducted by prominent psychiatrist Ewen Cameron, M.D. The experiments included heavy does of LSD, electroshock and psychic driving.

72 See “CIA Brainwashing Experiments”, MacLean’s; January 28, 1985, Vol. 98 Issue 6, p46, 1/3p and “A cold-war horror show’s last act”, US News & World Report; October 17, 88, Vol. 105 Issue 15, p13, 1/3p.

From January of 1957 until September of 1960 Cameron became one of the promising researchers the CIA turned to in order to develop means and methods of “brainwashing” and programming human beings to do the will of the agency. Cameron received $64,242.4473 from the CIA. to develop a combination of techniques that would destroy an individual’s memory of an event and enable the programmer to control their behavior through post-hypnotic commands. Cameron used a variety of drug combinations coupled with prolonged sleep deprivation, isolation, hypnosis, and electro convulsive therapy in order to “ wipe” an individual’s memory. His techniques worked, to a certain extent, but ethical considerations led the CIA to cut Cameron’s funding in the US, prompting Cameron to move to Canada to continue his work with funding channeled through the Canadian Government.

He continued his work, officially, from 1961 until 1964 in Montreal where he received an additional $57,750.74 During this time Cameron combined his techniques (in a “therapy” he called de- patterning) with electroconvulsive therapy in which the voltage introduced into one subjects brain, Linda Macdonald, exceeded the APA’s guidelines by 76.5 times. He succeeded in wiping her memory and to this day, she cannot remember anything prior to 1963. In a January 17, 1984 broadcast of the Canadian Broadcasting System, a program called “The Fifth Estate” detailed the experiments of Cameron, prompting a burst of investigative journalism culminating in a class-action suit brought against the CIA by former subjects. In 1988, the case was settled out of court for $750,000, divided between 8 plaintiffs. Linda Macdonald received $100,000 and legal fees from the Canadian government, but Cameron himself, faced no punishment.75

Dr. Jose Delgado

Whereas Cameron focused on creating traumatized individuals through intense psychological pressure, Dr. Jose Delgado was investigating the direct route to control of “human subjects.” Delgado physically invaded the brains of subjects with electrodes in order to create emotions and control actions with the push of a button. As he stated himself,

“We need a program of psychosurgery for political control of our society. The purpose is physical control of the mind. Everyone who deviates from the given norm can be surgically mutilated. The individual may think that the most important reality is his own existence, but this is only his personal point of view. This lacks historical perspective. Man does not have the right to develop his own mind. This kind of liberal orientation has great appeal. We must electrically control the brain. Some day armies and generals will be controlled by electric stimulation of the brain.” 76

In his paper “Intracerebral Radio Stimulation and Recording in Completely Free Patients,” Delgado observed that:

“Radio Stimulation on different points in the amygdala and hippocampus in the four patients produced a variety of effect, including pleasant sensations, elation, deep thoughtful concentration, odd feelings, super relaxation (an essential precursor for deep hypnosis) colored visions, and other responses.”77

73 CIA MORI ID 17468: www.wanttoknow.info/mindcontrol

74 Collins, Anne. In the Sleep Room. The Story of CIA Brainwashing in Canada. Ken Porter Books, 1988

75 Tyner, Arlene. Mind-Control Part 1: Canadian and US Survivors Seek Justice, PROBE Magazine, March-April, 2000

76 Dr. Jose M.R. Delgado Director of Neuropsychiatry, Yale University Medical School. Congressional Record, No. 26, Vol. 118 February 24, 1974.

Delgado, to his credit, did make great strides toward a better understanding the physiology of brain structures and their attendant behavioral and emotional correlates, strides that did not go unnoticed by the intelligence community and the military.

While Delgado worked in an area of specific interest, the direct stimulation of brain structures through implanted electronics, other researchers explored means of creating multiple personalities and programming the alternate personalities that emerged to do a variety of intelligence related work as operatives, still others explored the effects of various drug combinations and other “programming” and interrogation techniques aimed at creating super spies and breaking down enemy agents.

THE EXPOSURE OF WATERGATE/MKULTRA/COINTELPRO

According to testimony by Senator Edward Kennedy in 1977,

“Some 2 years ago, the Senate Health Subcommittee heard chilling testimony about the human experimentation activities of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Deputy Director of the CIA revealed that over 30 universities and institutions were involved in an ‘extensive testing and experimentation’ program which included covert drug tests on unwitting citizens ‘at all social levels, [high and low], native Americans and foreign.’ Several of these [tests involved] the administration of LSD to ‘unwitting subjects in [social] situations.’ … The Central Intelligence Agency drugged American citizens without their knowledge or consent. It used university facilities and personnel without their knowledge.” 78

As an example of the hubris wrought by institutions veiled in secrecy, given unlimited funds and staffed with amoral people we can only refer to the statement made by George White in a letter to MKUltra director Sidney Gottleib: “I toiled wholeheartedly in the vineyards because it was fun, fun, fun! Where else could an American boy lie, cheat, rape and pillage with the sanction and blessing of the All Highest?” 79

After Watergate, more information hit the papers, COINTELPRO was uncovered by a group of people who have never been apprehended, in spite of a six-year FBI investigation. The COINTELPRO program was secret until 1971, when an FBI field office was burglarized by a group calling themselves the Citizens’ Commission to Investigate the FBI. These people broke into an FBI office in Pennsylvania, rifled through the filing cabinets and leaked to the press documents detailing the abuses suffered by a wide variety of activists, including a long-term plan to destroy Martin Luther King Jr.:

77 “Intracerebral Radio Stimulation and Recording in Completely Free Patients,”, The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, October, 1968.

78 Testimony of US Senator Edward Kennedy, Joint Hearing before the Select Committee on Intelligence, US Senate, 95th Congress, 1977.

79 (letter to Sidney Gottleib) See also Sex, drugs and the CIA, by Douglas Valentine posted at http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine0621.html

“Agents tapped his phone, bugged his rooms, trumpeted his supposed commie connections, and his sexual proclivities, and sicced the Internal Revenue Service on him. When it was announced in 1964 that King would receive a Nobel Peace Prize, the FBI grew desperate. Hoping to prevent King from accepting the award, the Bureau mailed him a package containing a tape of phone calls documenting King’s extramarital affairs and an anonymous, threatening letter (shown here in censored form). In barely concealed language, King was told to commit suicide before the award ceremony or risk seeing his “filthy, abnormal fraudulent self” exposed to the nation. Fortunately, King ignored the FBI’s advice. He accepted the award and lived four more years until his assassination.” 80

Some of the largest COINTELPRO campaigns targeted the Socialist Worker’s Party, the Ku Klux Klan, the “New Left” (including several anti-war groups such as the Students for a Democratic Society and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee), Black Liberation groups (such as the Black Panthers and the Republic of New Africa), Puerto Rican independence groups, the American Indian Movement, and the Weather Underground. Later, Director Hoover declared that the centralized COINTELPRO was over, and that all future counterintelligence operations would be handled on a case-by-case basis.81

In addition, the MKULTRA documents hit the press and a number of books were written about the subject, most notable were’ “The Search for the Manchurian Candidate” by John Marks, “Bluebird” by Colin A. Ross MD, and “A Nation Betrayed” by Carol Rutz. At this point victims began to come forward with claims of being horribly abused in these programs, one of the most famous is a woman named Candy Jones who described in stunning detail a tale of corruption and abuse.82

When Jimmy Carter became President in 1976 he promptly moved to introduce a modicum of control, he instituted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act establishing an 11 member secret court to oversee the surveillance activities of our covert agencies. As an example of the limited reporting requirements for the court we have the first report issued to Vice President Mondale from Attorney General Benjamin R. Civiletti in 1979:

80 Martin Luther King, Jr., “Statement on Joseph Alsop and J. Edgar Hoover’s charge of alleged Communist infiltration of the Civil Rights Movement,” 23 April 1964 and Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, United States Senate, Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports on Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans, Book III, Final Report. 14 April 1976

81 “Me and My Shadow”: A History of the FBI’s Covert Operations and COINTELPRO – Part 1. Produced by Adi Gevins, Pacifica Radio. 1976. Rebroadcast by Democracy Now! Wednesday, June 5, 2002. See also Paul Wolf’s website for a detailed archive of official COINTELPRO documents and transcripts of the Church Committee hearings:http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm

82 Donald Bain, . The Control of Candy Jones. Chicago, Playboy Press, 1976. (Reissued in 2002 by Barricade books as The CIA’s Control of Candy Jones with a new introduction by Bain)

This report is submitted pursuant to Section 107 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, Title 50, United States Code Section 1807.

During calendar year 1979, 199 applications were made for orders and extensions of orders approving electronic surveillance under the Act. The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court issued 207 orders granting authority for the requested electronic surveillances. No orders were entered which modified or denied the requested authority.83

Pointedly Carter’s reform measure did not do anything to insure that the American public would be protected in the future from abuse and testing at the hands of the intelligence arm of the military- industrial complex. Carter’s move to reform the CIA was to appoint an outsider as head of the agency, Admiral Stansfield Turner. After Turner took over as Director of the CIA 800 “rogue” agents were let go, though most all of them found work in various false front companies that had been set up in the previous years. 84

Both the Rockefeller Commission and the Church Committee revealed a long standing pattern of both developing new psychological, pharmaceutical and radiological technologies, to influence individuals and groups and long standing pattern of behavior whereby politically disruptive citizens were systematically targeted, harassed and destroyed. Yet there have, to date, been no provisions instituted which would stop this behavior, nor is there any guarantee that these kinds of covert programs ever actually ceased. The only practical change engendered by the disclosures of the 1970s was to drive these kinds of operations further into the shadows. That such research and experimentation may still be occurring is evidenced by a DOD directive, issued by the Secretary of the Navy on November 6, 2006 that specifically requires prior approval of the Under Secretary of the Navy before conducting “severe or unusual intrusions, either physical or psychological, on human subjects (such as consciousness altering drugs, or mind-control techniques).”85

Non-Lethal Weapons Research Today

There is a long history that illustrates US Intelligence operations had tragic results for many involved. There was, however, no public debate surrounding these black operations because they were classified under the guise of national security. MKULTRA, Project PANDORA, plutonium testing, and many more projects conducted by the DOD and the CIA were exposed by committees led by Senators Rockefeller and Church in the 1970s.86 However, tighter restrictions on human experiment including accountability and transparency did not occur until 1997, when President Clinton instituted revised protocols on human experiments.87

83 1979 FISA report can be obtained at the Federation of American Scientists website: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/1979rept.html.

84 William Blum, The CIA: A Forgotten History, Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey, Zed Books Ltd. 1986; Alan Moore Bill Sienkewitz, Shadowplay-The Secret Team, Forestville CA, Eclipse Books, 1987 and Leslie Cockburn, Out of Control, New York, Atlantic Monthly Press 1987.

85 SECNAV Instruction 3900.39D, Subj: “Human Research Protection Program”, November 6, 2006. www.fas.org/irp/DODdir/navy/secnavinst/3900_39d.pdf

Official reports insist that the research involving experiments during the 1950s through the 1970s was destroyed. Yet, the scientists involved went without punishment, free to continue their careers.88 Given the levels of ongoing EMF technology research today, and the recent retroactive approval of torture approved by the Military Commissions Act, it may be that human testing is occurring under post-9/11 national security protocols. Can we accept that all the psychological research conducted with government funding up to the 1970s was simply destroyed? At this time, the American public has no way to answer this question. The current administration classifies more information than any previous US administration.89 Unclassified documents have even been recalled and re-classified.90

In the 1980s nuclear radiation experiments on humans became public knowledge and Russian tests making use of the electromagnetic spectrum were exposed.91 Countries around the world passed laws and signed treaties in response to the danger of weapons that could adversely effect human behavior or manipulate human cognition. The Russians banned all EMF weapons in 2001.

These treaties have roots in the human radiation experiments of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. In effect, these treaties declared a basic tenant of human rights and cognitive liberties.92

In the quest for global military superiority, the US stepped up funding for the concept of the “Future Warrior” beginning in the late 1990s with the use of advanced nano-technology.93 The idea was to streamline the military, improve soldier performance, control the fighting in real-time and avoid soldier mortality. Toward this end, the concept was to enhance the ability of soldiers in the field to interface with computer systems by using their own brain waves.94 The US began to fund research into decoding the brain as well as other neurological research. President George H.W. Bush declared the 1990s “The Decade of the Brain”.95 At the same time, funding for computer to human interface poured into universities and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) stepped up their research and development. In the universities, the field became “cognitive science” and within DARPA, the term “augmented cognition” was born.96 While developments in brain research are touted for their amazing therapeutic advances in the medical field, they primarily serve the purposes of the US military.97

86 The Church and Rockefeller Committee reports can be accessed through the Assassination Archives and Research Center: http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/contents.htm

87 Memorandum of March 27, 1997–Strengthened Protections for Human Subjects of Classified Research. [Federal Register: May 13, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 92)] [Page 26367-26372].

88Scientific American talks about the work of Jose Delgado and states that Dr. Delgado stopped doing research as late as the 1990’s, see: John Horgan, “The Forgotten Era of the Brain”, Scientific American, September 26, 2005.

89 Declassification in Reverse: The US Intelligence Community’s Secret Historical Document Reclassification Program, Matthew M. Aid. Located at the George Washington University National Security Archive, http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB179/#report.

90 Executive Order 12958, originally signed by Clinton after Wen Ho Lee, a Los Alamos scientist was accused of giving the Chinese information, was amended by George W. Bush pm March 25, 2003. The amendment can be accessed at the White House website, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030325-11.html.

91 The United Nations and Disarmament: 1945-1985 by the UN Department for Disarmament Affairs. (1985) New York, UN Publication Sales

92 For a comprehensive listing of treaties and international conferences surrounding these concerns, see the Sunshine Project at http://www.sunshine-project.org/, See Also: Human Rights: Beyond the Liberal Vision, Judith Blau and Alberto Moncada, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2005

93 Amy Kruse, Program Manager at Defense Sciences Office, DARPA “Defense and Biology: Fundamentals for the Future”. MIT also has The Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies established in 2002 with a five-year, $50 million contract from the US Army, http://web.mit.edu/isn/index.html.

94 See DARPA, “Neurotechnology for Intelligence Analysts”, http://www.darpa.mil/dso/thrust/biosci/nia.htm.

Americans have little idea about the research concerning the capabilities of electromagnetism, directed acoustics, or computer-human interfacing. The majority of Americans do not know that we are currently using these new-concept weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan. Indiana University law professor David Fidler stated to the Economist, “because these weapons are most likely to be used on civilians, it is not clear that using them is legal under the international rules governing armed conflict…if they are used in conjunction with conventional weapons, they could end up making war more deadly, rather than less.”98

A peek into the US arsenal of weapons is like a look into a science fiction film. DARPA and various military research labs provide a view of the current technology available to enhance US soldiers in the field and manipulate the emotions and behaviors of the perceived enemy. As American sentiment toward the Iraq war spirals downward, along with the approval ratings of the US president, domestic civil disobedience is likely to rise, as it has in many countries in response to US foreign policy.

Are new electromagnetic weapons in the possession of the government be used on American citizens? The issue at hand is whether the research and technology currently being developed will benefit or harm us and how much liberty we are willing to sacrifice for a possibly skewed sense of national security and protection.

In September 2006, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne announced that crowd control weapons should be tested on Americans first. “If we’re not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation,” said Wynne. “(Because) if I hit somebody with a non-lethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press.”99

95 The proclamation declaring the 1990’s the “Decade of the Brain” was signed by President George H.W. Bush on July 17, 1990, which can be accessed at the Library of Congress, http://www.loc.gov/loc/brain/proclaim.html.

96 See the Augmented Cognition International Society, http://www.augmentedcognition.org/history.htm. 97 Fronteirs in Neuroscience- Artificial Intelligence in the Pentagon and Beyond. http://www.neuropsychiatryreviews.com/mar06/android.html

98 “Electromagnetic weapons: Come fry with me”, The Economist, January 30, 2003.

99 Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press, 9/12/2006. In addition to this comment, the Air Force released a declassified document located at the website of the Federation of American Scientists, ( http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/hamilton.pdf directing the acquisitions team from the media. The author is the USAF principal deputy assistant secretary for acquisition, management and logistics, Darlene Druyun:Effective immediately, I do not want anyone within the Air Force acquisition community discussing any of our programs with the media (on or off the record). This includes presenting program briefings in any forums at which the media may be present.”

Non-lethal weapons sound harmless in relation to guns and bombs. However, non-lethal weapons are not just tazers and annoying sounds. Nor are they harmless. In fact, NLWs are such a concern that many countries have treaties demanding transparency. Beginning in the 1990s, groups have formed to provide oversight of NLW research, including international committees, concerned scientists, and citizens’ groups including the Federation of American Scientists and the Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics.100 The proliferation of NLWs have raised concern within the EU, Russia, and other countries, as records of Cold War abuses come to light and people come forward with complaints of illegal testing.101

The concern is more than a political issue and stretches beyond civil liberties into human rights as they relate to a person’s cognitive liberties. The following section highlights technologies with the capability to control and manipulate individuals or large groups of people.

Crowd Control using the Electromagnetic Spectrum

The electromagnetic spectrum has provided the military with an expanse of weapons, which are operational and in military and private use today in the form of millimeter waves,102 pulsed energy projectiles, and high power magnetic weapons.

Project Sheriff

The US has deployed the Project Sheriff active denial weapon in Iraq. Raytheon outfitted Humvees with their Silent Guardian Protection System, a device capable of heating the skin to 1/64 of an inch, causing instant pain similar to intense sunburn, 103 with the goal to facilitate dispersing a crowd.

According to a report released by the Air Force on the human effects of this weapon, people with contact lenses and those wearing metal suffered greater effects. An imprint of a coin was discovered on the skin of a test subject and death or severe heart problems may occur.104

Pulsed Energy Projectiles

100 For a list of these groups see, Non Lethal Weapons, July 2005, compiled by Terry Kiss, Bibliographer, Air University Library, Maxwell AFB, AL accessed at the Maxwell Internet site, http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/bibs/soft/nonlethal.htm and Appendix A of this paper.

101 For further reading on these treaties, see The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists , September/October 1994 pp. 40-45 (vol. 50, no. 05), “The Soft Kill Fallacy” by Steven Aftergood and Barbara Hatch Rosenberg’s in the same issue, “Sidebar: A non-lethal laundry list”. Rosenberg cites the Conference on Disarmament, Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Chemical Weapons to the Conference on Disarmament, Aug. 26, 1992, Nos. 22, 25, 34 (CD/1170) as well as the treaty, “Convention on Prohibition or Restriction of the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects.”

102 A detailed study conducted by Andrei G. Pakhomov, Yahya Akyel, Olga N. Pakhomova, Bruce E. Stuck, and Michael R. Murphy with the Brooks Air Force Base, Human Effectiveness Directorate, offers a scientific analysis of the effects of millimeter waves, “Current State and Implications of Research on Biological Effects of Millimeter Waves: A Literature Review”, McKesson BioServices (A.G.P., Y.A., O.N.P.), U. S. Army Medical Research Detachment of the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (B.E.S.), and Directed Energy Bioeffects Division, Human Effectiveness Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory (M.R.M.), Brooks Air Force Base, San Antonio, TX.

103 US Non Lethal Weapons for Iraq http://www.oft.osd.mil/library/library_files/article_461_Boston%20Globe.doc

104 “Rumsfeld’s Ray Gun,” By Kelly Hearn, AlterNet. Posted August 19, 2005, http://www.alternet.org/story/24044/

Pulsed Energy Projectiles (PEPs) are another form of weaponry that is used to paralyze a victim with pain. According to New Scientist magazine, the expanding plasma effects nerve cells, but the long- term effects remain a public mystery.105 The Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program reports that, PEPs create a flash bang effect that startles and distracts.106 However, the effects are much greater than just startling an individual. A 2001 Time magazine article states that the PEP “superheats the surface moisture around a target so rapidly that it literally explodes, producing a bright flash of light and a loud bang. The effect is like a stun grenade, but unlike a grenade the pep travels at nearly the speed of light and can take out a target with pinpoint accuracy…as far away as 2 km.”107

While the effects of these weapons appear to be short-term and topical in nature, there is evidence that electromagnetic weapons have effects on the brain, including sleep disruption and behavior changes.108 They can produce anxiety and fear or compliance in humans. It is possible to use these weapons as a means of torture, yet without knowing exactly when, where, and how the weapons are used, we are left to speculate.109 An article by David Hambling in New Scientist magazine, March 2005, was titled, “Maximum pain is aim of new US weapons.” In 2006, Dr. Brian Martin, associate professor in Science, Technology and Society, University of Wollongong, Australia, co-authored a paper entitled “Looming struggles over technology for border control,” which describes the potential catastrophes that would lead to an extreme border protection plan. In the event of a natural disaster, or the rapid reduction of resources, or a major climactic change such as drought, rich countries will have a need to reinforce their borders against a massive influx of refugees. This scenario is often described in the nation-state context but it is possible to imagine such a perceived need in the event of internal civil unrest.

Directed Acoustics

In Maoist China, cities were equipped with megaphones, bombarding the people with on-going propaganda. The megaphones were in full vision of the people, yet there was no way to escape the sound. Today technology exists that fills a similar purpose. Voice to Skull directed acoustic devices are neuro-electromagnetic non-lethal weapons that can produce sounds within the skull of a human.110

A similar technology, known as Hypersonic Sound, is used in a similar fashion. According to its inventor, Elwood Norris of American Technology Corporation (ATC), the handheld speaker can focus sound waves directly at a person without anyone else hearing the sound. The technology is being tested by corporations such as McDonald’s and Wal Mart to direct advertisements into a consumer’s head.

105 See government contract M67854-04-C-5074, University of Florida, Division of Sponsored Research, July 1, 2004. Also located at http://www.defensetech.org/peoplezapping.pdf

106 According to a 2002 Joint Non Lethal Weapons Program document: www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002infantry/swenson.pdf

107 Lev Grossman, “Beyond the Rubber Bullet”, Time Magazine, July 21, 2002.

108 David S. Walonick, “Effects of 6-10 Hz ELF on Brain Waves, www.borderlands.com/archives/arch/elf.htm

109 David Hambling, Maximum Pain is Aim Of New US Weapons, New Scientist, March 2005.

110 Definition from the Center for Army Lessons Learned, Fort Leavenworth, KS: “Nonlethal weapon which includes (1) a neuro-electromagnetic device which uses microwave transmission of sound into the skull of persons or animals by way of pulse-modulated microwave radiation; and (2) a silent sound device which can transmit sound into the skull of person or animals. NOTE: The sound modulation may be voice or audio subliminal messages. One application of V2K is use as an electronic scarecrow to frighten birds in the vicinity of airports.”http://call.army.mil/products/thesaur/00016275.htm

The Long Rage Acoustical Device (LRAD),111 is used by the military in situations such as crowd control, mass notification, and perimeter enforcement. For instance, an unruly mob may not hear a warning to disperse with traditional acoustic technology, or border enforcement agents may need to warn an approaching intruder to turn away or face bodily harm. The technology has advantages over lethal force, yet it also has the potential to inflict physical harm, emotional manipulation, and death. According to Defense Update, the LRAD can produce a 150-decibel acoustic beam from 300 meters away. The human threshold for pain is between 120 to 140 decibels.112 In a 2003 New York Times article Mr. Norris demonstrates his technology to the reporter. At 1% of capacity, the reporter’s eyes hurt, and hours later still experienced a headache.113

This technology can inflict permanent damage and death despite its classification as a non-lethal weapon. While the LRAD may be seen as a way to save lives in times of disaster or to avoid civilian casualties, the LRAD and similar directed acoustics may be cause for concern to those who exercise their right to assemble and conduct peaceful demonstrations and protests. The New York City police used the LRAD at the Republican National Convention and it was also used in Miami at a WTO Free Trade protests.114 Covering one’s ears will not protect a person and given, the long-range capabilities, fleeing from the beam may not help either (as evidenced in the use of directed acoustics against Jewish settlers in Gaza). The Associated Press (AP) reported that a device called “the scream” was used in a 2005 protest against Palestinians who “covered their ears and grabbed their heads, overcome by dizziness and nausea, after the vehicle-mounted device began sending out bursts of audible, but not loud, sound at intervals of about 10 seconds. An AP photographer at the scene said that even after he covered his ears, he continued to hear the sound ringing in his head.”115

Neurological Technology

Neurobiology has many facets including therapeutic applications with Alzheimer’s, epilepsy, depression, and stroke victims using Trancranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS). Bush’s Decade of the Brain produced outstanding advances for those with spinal cord injuries as well, which allows a paralyzed person to control a computer screen or a limb with a brain implant. There is also a new field in neurological research, Augmented Cognition. From universities to private business to the military, advances in neuro-technology can be used for amazing good. However, as we learned from the history of the Cold War, technology that has the capacity to heal also has the capacity to harm.

Of great concern is the research being conducted at DARPA, which is trying to revolutionize the way soldiers receive information, respond to orders, adapt to stress, and perform while sleep deprived.

111 The LRAD is another invention of Elwood Norris of American Technology Corporation.

112 Jurgen Altmann, “Acoustic Weapons: A Prospective Assessment,” Science and Global Security, Vol. 9, p. 13.

113 Marshall Sella, “The Sound of Things to Come”, New York Times, March 23, 2003.

114 Amanda Onion, “RNC to Feature Unusual Forms of Sound”, Aug. 25, 2004, ABC News 115 Associated Press, “Israel May Use Sound Weapon On Settlers”, 6/10/2005. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/06/10/israel-may-use-sound-weap_n_2444.html

TMS is being developed for military purposes using electrical impulses at close proximity to the skull to enhance mood, affect sleep patterns, and increase creativity.116 This technology is beginning to replace electro-shock therapy. DARPA granted a contract to the Medical University of South Carolina to research now to improve a soldier’s performance. A soldier’s reaction to stress may be less intense, or a 40-hour flight will allow for the soldier to remain awake without the side effects of sleep deprivation.117 Few, if any, understand the long-term effects of TMS, given its relative infancy in the overall field of Augmented Cognition. Does TMS produce unknown neurological effects ten, twenty, fifty years down the road? To what extent is TMS being researched? TMS is part of the overall field of Augmented Cognition. In essence, Augmented Cognition allows a human to interact with a computer through brain waves. The idea is to enhance a person’s cognitive capabilities in the area of memory, learning, attention, visualization, and decision-making.

One application of augmented cognition allows a user to monitor a person’s brain functions and send anticipatory commands to the person being monitored. For instance, a military command unit will be able to monitor a pilot in a cockpit, and based on the sensory output of the soldier, the base command can input messages directly into the pilot’s brain to improve performance. DARPA describes this as a human computer symbiosis whereby, “This research will enable development of closed loop human-computer technologies, where the state of the user is measured, analyzed, and automatically adapted to by the computational system.”118 The increase in human-computer relations and the ability to manipulate and control a person’s senses, memory, and neural output has wide implications.

The basic ability to enter a person’s mind is not a futuristic fantasy. This is real and in prototype. DARPA began this research in 1983.119 The Internet has become a focal point in our lives with reliance for information and communication. Our interaction and intimacy with computers is increasingly pervasive, as is our exposure to the field of augmented cognition. DARPA does not address the implications of such symbiosis, or the dilemma of he extent to which a person can or should be manipulated. The use of this technology is used for military purposes but it may not be long until it is used to “improve” the factory worker, prisoners, or the mentally ill.

116 “Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: An Introduction”, Grant Balfour, v1.0 – May 6, 2002 available at: www.cognitiveliberty.org/issues/TMS_index.html

117 MUSC To Develop Brain Stimulation Device For Military, Charleston, SC, May 9, 2002, www.musc.edu/pr/darpa.htm, “The overall goal of the project is to use the unique resources at MUSC’s Brain Stimulation Laboratory and Center for Advanced Imaging Research to determine if: 1. non-invasive stimulation of the brain can improve a soldier’s performance, 2. and then design, manufacture and test a prototype of a system that would be capable of delivering this technology in the field.”

118 Improving Human Performance Through Advanced Cognitive System Technology, Dylan D Schmorrow and Amy A Kruse, LCDR MSC USN, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Arlington, VA, Strategic Analysis Inc., Arlington, VA, Available at: http://ntsa.metapress.com/(2pq1al55mfylqgf0n3cvjc45)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,91,16 7;journal,5,7;linkingpublicationresults,1:113340,1

119 New Generation Technology: A strategic plan for its Development and Application to Critical Problems in Defense, DARPA, 1983.

The Implant

Another realm of brain research is the field of neural implants. Until recently, implants were a futuristic fantasy. Current advances in the private and military sectors have produced an implant that can allow a victim of a spinal cord injury to walk again or give an amputee the ability to control her leg with her mind. In the private sector, Cyberkinetics is leading the way to liberating some people from wheelchairs. This technology is a path to a more functional way of life, but it is also possible that the use of implants could be used for malevolence.

John Donohoe, founder, chief scientific officer, and director of Cyberkinetics, addressed the issue of mind control and neural implants. When asked if creating a brain-machine interface will open the door to mind control Donohoe responded, “We do that all the time already. Advertising is mind control. Even pharmaceutical agents are a form of mind control. When people have behaviors that deviate far from the norm, they are given medications that bring their mind back into the realm of behavior that we call normal. If a child were to have a seizure and became unconscious because of the seizure, and we controlled his mind so that he did not have seizures, that would be a wonderful thing. We want to do that.”120

The Experts121

Many scientists, philosophers, psychologists, and military analysts have written on the possibilities of accumulating information directly from the human brain as well as controlling human beings for various governmental and militaristic purposes using the aforementioned technologies. What follows are excerpts from recent interviews conducted by the authors with notable experts focusing on the capabilities of US EMF technologies and concerns about human rights and cognitive liberty. We contacted twenty-two experts in the fields of EMF technologies, many would not comment. The following are quotes from four experts who were willing to publicly address the subject.

Vladimir Nikolaevich Lopatin

Director of The Republican Scientific Research Institute of Intellectual Property, Moscow, former Deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation on the Vologda from 1995 to 1999, and Senior Assistant to the General Public Prosecutor of the Russian Federation. During the 1990s Lopatin was active in the Russian Federation’s banning of EMF technologies for military purposes.122

120 Neuroscience: John Donoghue By Aaron J. Sender, Discover Vol. 25 No. 11, November 2004, Mind & Brain

121 Gaining interviews with DARPA scientists and officials at the Human Effectiveness Directorate at Brooks proved troublesome. For information about current projects, see DARPA Defense Science Program, specifically COL Geoffrey Ling, M.D., PhD’s program “Human-Assisted Neural Devices” and Amy Kruse’s Improving War fighter Information Intake Under Stress (AugCog) and Neurotechnology for Intelligence Analysts. At the Human Effectiveness Directorate see Andrei G. Pakhomov , Yahya Akyel , Olga N. Pakhomova , Bruce E. Stuck , Michael R. Murphy, “Current state and implications of research on biological effects of millimeter waves: A review of the literature”, in Bioelectromagnetics, Volume 19, Issue 7 , Pages 393 – 413.

122 The following are excerpts of an interview with Lopatin translated by U.C. Davis student, Tatiana Kanare.

The following are quotes from Lopatin:

“At the same time, the necessity of protection from information weapons, information terrorism and information war is being discussed more often during the last years.”

“…according to the Security Department of the Russian Federation, directors of Russian Special Services and the Ministry of Defense of Russia. Based on the data of special services, by the beginning of the 21st century expenses for purchasing means of information war increased within the last 15 years in the USA in four times and are ahead of all armament programs. Information confrontation during the times of a regular war began to change to a new, higher level – information war.”

“According to article 6 of the Federal Law “On weapons,” as of July 30, 2001, on the territory of the Russian Federation it is forbidden to circulate as means of civil and service weapons: ‘weapons and other objects, destructive ability of which is based on the use of electro-magnetic, light, heat, infrasound and ultrasound radiation and which have output parameters that exceed the amounts, set by state standards of the Russian Federation and norms of the federal body of executive power responsible for healthcare, and also mentioned above weapons and objects, manufactured outside of the territory of the Russian Federation’.”

Carol Smith

British psychoanalyst, private practice in London, member of The College of Psychoanalysts and the Institute for Psychotherapy and Social Studies and member of their Ethics Committee.

Asked if there are human rights concerns associated with these particular non-lethal weapons, Smith answered, “Yes – it depends though by what is meant by ‘the wrong hands’. For people who are targeted for experimentation – all such devices need testing – all hands are the wrong hands, be they government, private commercial, or sadistic/commercial. Ionatron, a large company based in Arizona, developed plasma channel directed energy weapons and state in their website: ‘What are LIPC laser-guided directed-energy weapons? Laser-guided directed-energy weapons work like “man-made lightning” to disable people or things. LIPC technology is Ionatron’s proprietary type of laser-guided directed-energy weapon. LIPC stands for laser-induced plasma channel; the plasma channel is how the energy is directed through the air at the target. Extremely fast femto-second lasers cause light to break into filaments, which form a plasma channel that conducts the energy like a virtual wire. This technology can be adjusted for non-lethal or lethal use’.”

Discussing neurotechnology, Smith adds, “Brain mapping indicated to us the pleasure centers of the brain. TMS is the accessing these with rapidly changing magnetic fields to produce electrical fields.

If the right hand rule is operative, the effect of inducing electrical fields by changing magnetic fields improves mood.

(Lenz’s law, however, gives the direction of the induced electromotive force (EMF) resulting from electromagnetic induction, thus: The EMF induced in an electric circuit always acts in such a

direction that the current it drives around a closed circuit produces a magnetic field which opposes the change in magnetic flux.) In other words, it would be possible to create depression and a feeling of overwhelming hopelessness by the induction of a current into the electrical circuit of the brain, which opposed the change in magnetic flux.123

“In 2004, The US Air Force Directorate: Controlled Effects gives a clear picture of objectives: “The Controlled Effects long-term challenge focuses technology developments in three primary areas Measured Global Force Projection looks at the exploitation of electromagnetic and other non- conventional force capabilities against facilities and equipment to achieve strategic, tactical, and lethal and non lethal force projection around the world. Controlled Personnel Effects investigates technologies to make selected adversaries think and act according to our needs. Dominant Remote Control seeks to control, at a distance, an enemy’s vehicles, sensors, communications, and information systems and manipulate them for military purposes. The S&T Planning Review panel looked first at extending the applications of advanced military technologies currently under development and then at new, revolutionary technologies for their military significance.”

“For the Controlled Personnel Effects capability, the S&T panel explored the potential for targeting individuals with non lethal force, from a militarily useful range, to make selected adversaries think or act according to our needs. Through the application of non-lethal force, it is possible to physically influence or incapacitate personnel. Advanced technologies could enable the war fighter to remotely create physical sensations such as pressure or temperature changes. A current example of this technology is Active Denial, a non-lethal counter-personnel millimeter wave system that creates a skin heating sensation to repel an individual or group of people without harm. By studying and modeling the human brain and nervous system, the ability to mentally influence or confuse personnel is also possible. Through sensory deception, it may be possible to create synthetic images, or holograms, to confuse an individual’s visual sense or, in a similar manner, confuse his senses of sound, taste, touch, or smell. Through cognitive engineering, scientists can develop a better understanding of how an individual’s cognitive processes (pattern recognition, visual conditioning, and difference detection) affect his decision-making processes. Once understood, scientists could use these cognitive models to predict a person’s behavior under a variety of conditions with the potential to affect an adversary’s mission accomplishment via a wide range of personnel effects.”124

Dr. Dean Radin

Former positions at AT&T Bell Labs and GTE Labs on advanced telecommunications R&D, appointments at Princeton University, University of Edinburgh, University of Nevada, SRI International and Interval Research Corporation, co-founder of the Boundary Institute, Senior Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences. Adjunct appointment at Sonoma State University, Distinguished Consulting Faculty for Saybrook Graduate School.

“I have spoken with experts in this area (extremely low frequency) about health effects in general

123 To access Lenz’s Law online, go to: http://www.launc.tased.edu.au/online/sciences/physics/ Lenz’s.html 124 For the complete briefing see the Air Force Research Lab website at http://www.afrlhorizons.com/Briefs/Jun04/DE0401.html.

and the consensus seems to be that non-ionizing EM radiation definitely does have effects on living systems, from individual cells to human behavior. The principle health concern is childhood leukemia associated with proximity to high-tension lines. There the epidemiological evidence is fairly clear. On other sources of EM, like cell phones and microwaves, the jury still seems to be out, although I strongly suspect that directed microwaves at non-ionizing strength can induce all sorts of behavioral changes through direct influence of the nervous system. This comes from my contacts in the non-lethal weapons arena, which is often lumped in with the hysteria over supposed psychic mind-control. All things being equal, I’d rather see development of non-lethal weapons than lethal ones. How such weapons are actually used is another matter, of course.”

“The question is, were there ever elements of the intel/military world engaged in experiments on human behavior (not mind) control? Yes, many decades ago, during the cold war. But is such work still taking place? I don’t know, because if it is it would be a black project and then by definition only those involved would know of it. I hope no such projects are underway, because I do believe that EMF, used in nefarious ways, can destabilize the brain, and potentially generate feelings of violence or apathy. But I very strongly doubt that specific thoughts or intentions or actions can be induced”

Dr. Nick Begich

He is the editor of Earthpulse Flashpoints, a new-science book series and published articles in science, politics and education and is a well known lecturer, having presented throughout the United States and in nineteen countries. Begich has served as an expert witness and speaker before the European Parliament and has spoken on various issues for groups representing citizen concerns, statesmen and elected officials, scientists and others. He is the publisher and co-owner of Earthpulse Press and Executive Director of The Lay Institute of Technology, Inc. a Texas non-profit corporation.

“There are several ways that microwaves can affect humans. For instance, the Sheriff and weapons that can heat the skin for crowd control do what the military states but they are capable of much more. The thermal heating weapons act like a car radio; you can change the frequencies to get different effects. The electromagnetic weapons send an impulse through the nervous system. They can transfer sounds, like Woody Norris’ directed acoustic weapons, which is contracted to the US government. It modulates a signal that is a radio frequency, which can be changed to affect certain organs. It can override an organ like the heart or the liver. So changing the perimeter is like changing the broadcast on the radio. These extremely low frequencies also have the capability to send messages directly into the head when only the receiver can hear it. (see the 1985 Radiofrequency Radiation Dosimetry Handbook).”

“The handbook talks about electromagnetics and about the rapid healing of bones. The frequencies can also be used to manipulate the brain and create a disequilibrium. These frequencies can also imbed signals on radio broadcasts to create a feeling of fear or anxiety. The US military would embed these signals on the Muslim prayer broadcasts during the first Gulf War. This was called Project Solo.”

“During the 1990’s, in both presidential administrations, non-lethal weapons such as these and others received priority funding. The Secretary of Energy under Clinton, O’Leary, warned that over a 40 year period, 500,000 had been unwitting test subjects for military research on non-lethal weapons, including MKULTRA who claims among many victims, Ted Kaczinky, the Unabomber. There is no way to know who these people are or how to help them because there is paranoia in the military and no oversight in Congress. These black projects probably don’t even make it to the President.”

“The problem is that the military’s role is to be paranoid and think up scenarios where the worst can happen then prepare for this in order to protect the people from a hypothetical future event. But there is little to no oversight. The Senate Intelligence Committee is made up of people like Ted Stephens who thinks the internet is made up of pipes and tubes. These people do not have the required background knowledge to ask the right questions. According to the defense budget report, 40% of the budget is dedicated to black projects. There is no oversight and no public knowledge. In the European Union, things are much different.”

“In February 1998, I testified before the European Union parliament for an hour and a half and convinced them of the detrimental effects of non lethal weapons on humans, their behavior and their minds. The EU was convinced and passed a resolution banning the use of weapons that can manipulate a person (see Parliament Resolution A4-005/99 entitled “Resolution on the Environment, Security, and Foreign Policy” passed on January 29, 1999). During the hearings, the US representative and NATO representatives sat in the back and declined to participate when asked. In the US, there is no such resolution or anything remotely close to being considered by any member of Congress. There is no concern for it in the US because no one knows about them.”

“During the 1980’s and 1990’s, there were a lot of papers that came out of the Naval War College and from top military officials that advocated using weapons that would cut down on the carnage seen by the American public in order to maintain public support. There was another paper that discusses how people will give up their liberties if they lived in a climate of fear by an outside enemy. If the US public knew about these weapons and what they could potentially asked to give up, their minds, the public would resist. So now, these weapons are being developed by the companies that comprise the industrial military complex who are immune from FOIA requests.”

“Without oversight, these weapons will a government to have absolute control. These weapons are most certainly in the hands of most industrialized countries. China certainly has them as intelligence reports released by the CIA reveal claims about these new concept weapons. There needs to be a debate in the public sphere because while these weapons appear frightening, they have amazing therapeutic potentials. There is the possibility of quicker healing and curing disease and what is just as important about government transparency concerning weapons is the transparency of life saving science being kept from the public. If we have the ability to cure and the government or military hides this, we have just as big a problem.”

Summary Analysis of Expert Interviews

From the four interviews we were able to complete, there is a clear consensus of concern for the potentiality of human rights abuses with EMF weapons testing and use. They collectively agree that the US is the leading global researcher in this area and spends increasingly more money building this technology. It is also clear that we know very little about the actual levels of experimentation, research, and capabilities of EMF weapons technologies due to high levels of US government security.

Department of Defense Military Contractors

Military contractors run our wars in concert with power elites. The corporation also has the power to determine which studies will reach the public.125 To be certain, the military, in the interest of budgets, will allow negative or alarming studies to remain unreported or lost in a sea of classified documents.

The power of the military and DOD contractors is staggering. In the interest of national security and lessons learned from an open democracy during the 1970s and the 1990s, operations have become more black. In essence, no one can know with certainty what our military, government, or corporations have in store for the world, though, we have some clues.

Michael Vickers, senior adviser to the Secretary of Defense for the 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review and principal strategist for the largest covert action program in the CIA’s history, recently testified on the importance of black operations:

“US Special Operations Command’s (SOCOM) emphasis after 9/11 has been to make white Special Operations Forces (SOF) more gray and black SOF more black. It is imperative, however, that white and black SOF be integrated fully from a strategic perspective.”126

The money involved in the non-lethal weapons industry is growing and military contractors are reaping the profits. According to Defense Industry Daily, Aaardvark Tactical, Inc. in Azusa, CA won a $50 million contract to develop non-lethal weapons, anti-terrorism capabilities, and riot gear.127 Ionatron was awarded a $12 million contract to develop the Laser Induced Plasma Channel technology which produces man-made lightening bolts.128 SAIC received a $49 million in November 2004 to develop High Power Microwave and other directed energy systems while Fiore Industries received a $16.35 million contract for similar technology and ITT received a $7.85 million contract

125 From Microwave News, July 2006, “Radiation Research and The Cult of Negative Results:” “When we investigated who sponsored the microwave-DNA papers published in Radiation Research, we discovered that four out of five were paid for by the wireless industry —notably Motorola— and/or the US Air Force, both of which have a long history of trying to control or suppress EMF research. Indeed, industry and the USAF paid for more than 75% of all the negative genotox studies, that is those published in all the various journals.”

126 According to Michael Vickers biography at the Center for Strategic Defense Budget Studies’ website, “The paramilitary operation that drove the Soviet army out of Afghanistan and played a major role in ending the Cold War.” http://www.csbaonline.org/6About_Us/2Staff_Directory/Michael_Vickers.htm

127 “$50M for USMC Riot Gear, Protection Items, and Non-Lethal Weapons”, Defense Industry Daily, July 27, 2005.

128 “Ionatron Facing Scrutiny Over Laser Projects”, Defense Industry Daily, May 24, 2006.

for the same in 2000.129 Fiore Industries received a $7.1 million for High Power Microwave Research and Experiment Program as early as 1994 and the same year Hughes Missile Systems Company received a $6.6 million contract for High Power Microwave Suppression of Enemy Air Defense Technology.130 Lockheed Martin secured a deal with DARPA in 2005 to continue the development of the Space Based Radar Antenna Technology in a $19.5 million contract.131 According to the Lockheed press release, the technology, “could significantly increase global persistent surveillance coverage”.

In May of 2006, the Air Force issued $24 million in contracts for “Electro Magnetic Effects Research and Development” to Northrup Gruman, Voss Scientific, Lockheed Martin, Electro Magnetic Applications, and SAIC among others.132 The DOD viewed electromagnetic research and development as a key component in future wars as early as the 1990s. Emmett Paige Jr., Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence declared in 1996 that, “Well over a decade ago, a Soviet general reportedly said something like ‘to prevail in the next conflict, one must control the electromagnetic spectrum.’ That statement proved true in the Bacca Valley and on deserts in Iraq. The Department of Defense is committed to ensuring that “in the next conflict it is we who will control the spectrum. We know its value’.133 Increasingly, the value of non lethal weapons continues to rise as they produce fewer images of death in the media than traditional weapons.”

In addition to DOD contractors, the realm of non-lethal weapons extends into the universities with millions of dollars in scholarships and research fellowships. Pennsylvania State University, sponsors the Institute for Non-Lethal Defense Technologies (INLDT), the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey has the Stress and Motivated Behavior Institute, University of New Hampshire houses the Non-lethal Technology Innovation Center, and many US military schools have classes directly related to non-lethal weapons technology.134 There are also numerous conferences each year hosted by the Department of Defense, contractors and universities.135 The business of non-lethal weapons is expanding and will continue to grow. In 2006, the Joint Non- Lethal Weapons Directorate received $43.9 million compared to $25.8 million in 2000.136

Ionatron’s website states that, “…the market for new directed-energy applications (will increase to $12.7 billion over the next ten years for the defense market alone.”137

129 “USAF Detachment 8 Continues US Research Into EMP-Microwave Weapons”, Defense Industry Daily, March 7, 2006.

130 ibid.

131 Lockheed Martin news release, May 23, 2005, “Lockheed Martin Selected for Continued Development of the Innovative Space Based Radar Antenna Technology (ISAT)”.

132 US Department of Defense Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), No. 169-06 March 01, 2006. 133 United States Department of Defense Speech, Volume 11, Number 83, “Electromagnetic Spectrum: Key to Success in Future Conflicts”, http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/index.html.

134 See Industrial College of the Armed Forces, Naval War College, and the US Army War College course offerings on their websites.

135 Bunker, Robert J., “Non-Lethal Weapons Conferences”, Military Review, vol. 80, no. 2, Mar./Apr. 2000, pp. 103-109. 136 Pappalardo, Joe, “Homeland Defense Plan Favors Non-Lethal Technology”, National Defense Magazine, June 2005. 137 Direct quote from the Ionatron website: http://www.ionatron.com/default.aspx?id=4, accessed August 2006.

Despite Clinton’s reforms on human testing, the government, military and the corporation will undoubtedly want to test these weapons on humans whenever possible. Easiest to test would be prisoners in undisclosed CIA detention centers, civilians in war torn regions, and even US citizens in protest crowds or civilian jails. In addition to the rubber bullets and pepper spray, which are common in many police forces, new concept weapons are also in use. Perhaps soon Americans will learn first- hand, the effects of the new human control technologies.

However, hundreds of people continue to assert that a person or persons, whom they do not know, have been targeting them with electromagnetic weapons in a widespread campaign of either illegal experimentation or outright persecution.

These experiences involved a number of discrete phenomena:

Hearing voices when no one was present.

Feeling sensations of burning, itching, tickling, or pressure with no apparent physical cause. Sleeplessness and anxiety as a result of “humming” or “buzzing”.

Loss of bodily control, such as twitching or jerking of an arm or leg suddenly and without control.

Unexpected emotional states, such as a sudden overwhelming feeling of dread, rage, lust or sorrow that passes as quickly as it arises.138

The levels of research on directed energy is now large enough to support a Directed Energy (DE) Professional Society made up of private contractors and Department of Defense officials with security clearances. They have been holding high security symposiums since spring 2001 including a planned meeting set for March 2007. The following is from the Directed Energy Professional Society’s website.

“The Directed Energy (DE) Systems Symposium (March 2007) will focus on systems aspects of DE in a limited-attendance environment. The Systems Symposium consists of co-located technical sessions organized by five separate conferences, with joint technical and plenary sessions to encourage discussion outside narrow technical limits. Attendance at all sessions is limited to US citizens with classified visit requests on file.

138 This list of symptoms was compiled from material available on the website of Californians Against Human Rights Abuses (CAHRA) and can be found at www.mindjustice.org. In addition the authors conducted interviews with seven individuals who wish to have their identities protected and who presented anecdotal and physical evidence to support their assertions. There is, however, little in the public domain that conclusively states the existence of direct human manipulation by governments, militaries or private companies/researchers in the current day, MKULTRA and other historic programs notwithstanding. However, there are many organizations that seek to help these people including concerned scientists, Russian Duma members and EU parliamentarians, psychologists and academics. A list of organizations follows in Appendix A.

Symposium Highlights

Beam Control Conference

Directed Energy Modeling and Simulation Conference Employment of Directed Energy Weapons Conference High Energy Laser Lethality Conference

High Power Microwave Systems and Effects Conference”139

The following are three course descriptions from the October Directed Energy Conference:

Course 9.†Military Utility Analysis for DE (Direct Energy) Systems Classification: Secret

Course Description: This course will provide an overview of military worth analysis for DE weapon systems. The course will include a description of four areas of systems engineering assessment that are brought together to form military worth analysis. These are: 1) weapon system concept performance trade studies, 2) target vulnerability assessment, 3) engagement-level system operational effectiveness assessment, and 4) war gaming and mission/campaign level analysis. Each of these areas will be covered during the short course, with emphasis on the elements that are drawn from each of these areas to support military worth analysis. The course will particularly emphasize methods for assessing system level effectiveness in the context of traditional weapon effectiveness tools such as the Joint Munitions Effectiveness Manuals (JMEMs) and for providing data on DE weapons effectiveness to mission and campaign level analysis tools and to models and simulations used to support war gaming.

Topics to be covered include:

Definition of military worth analysis

Elements of DE weapon system performance trade studies and how they feed military worth analysis Target vulnerability assessment and its use to support weapon effectiveness

Adapting standard weapon “kill” criteria to measure benefit of DE effects

Joint Munitions Effectiveness Manuals (JMEMs) weapon effectiveness models Military utility studies

Modeling and simulation to support war games and war fighter exercises Mission and campaign level modeling

Course 10. Laser Lethality Classification: Secret

139 Directed Energy Professional Society, Monterey, CA, 19-23 March 2007, Directed Energy Modeling and Simulation Conference 2007, http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/DEMSconf07.html

Course Description: This course reviews laser material interactions over parameter ranges of interest for weapons applications. Fundamental considerations of the optical coupling of the laser energy into the material will be presented. This will be followed by physics-based treatments of the response of metals, organic-based materials, and ceramics to the laser irradiation.

Metals: Simple cw, one-dimensional treatments will be utilized to illustrate the general principles of the response of metals to laser radiation, but two-dimensional cases, phase changes, and pulsed effects will be discussed as well.

Organic Based Materials: The effects of high-energy laser (HEL) radiation on organic based materials, including fiber reinforced composites, plastics and coatings will be reviewed. Materials will range from char formers and charring ablators to clean ablators. The relationship between the pyrolysis processes taking place in various materials during HEL radiation will be reviewed as a function of material composition, form and structure.

Ceramic Materials: Considerations of the response of ceramic shapes when laser loading is added to in-service stresses will be presented. An understanding of these responses from models, which are based on a combination of the thermo-mechanical stress calculations and statistically based fracture initiation, will be presented.

Course 11.†Directed Energy Bioeffects Classification: Secret

Course Description and Topics: This course will introduce the basics of the biological effects of Directed Energy on cells, tissues, organisms, and humans, with particular emphasis on the influence of such effects on the development of use of Directed-Energy-Emitting technologies.

The student will learn about the mechanisms, resulting damage, and mission impact of laser-tissue interaction. The student will learn what tissues are most susceptible to laser damage based on wavelength, exposure duration, and irradiance. The potential mission-impact of sub0-threshold, threshold, and suprathreshold exposures will be discussed.

Student will understand the nature of RF bioeffects research, including human/animal studies, modeling and simulation, and biotechnology approaches. Students will become familiar with current state of knowledge on potential health effects RF, such as cancer, memory loss, and birth defects.

Students will become familiar with basis and structure of current RF safety standards, comparison between competing standards, and how RF safety standards are applied. Students will be instructed on common RF measurement equipment and important factors for investigating potential RF overexposures.

Topics to be covered include:

Laser damage of the eye (retina and cornea)

Laser damage to the skin Laser safety standards

Laser damage as a function of energy, pulse duration, wavelength, and spot size RF bioeffects research and the current scientific consensus on RF hazards

RF safety standards

RF measurement basics Investigating RF overexposures”140

The US Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate released a paper in 2004 which presents “Crowd Control Modeling and Simulation.” This report discusses behavioral changes human populations.141 That the Department of Defense calls for new weapons systems designed to work on the psychological underpinnings of a population should give human rights activists great cause for alarm. The use of electromagnetic weapons to alter the emotional state, hamper the ability of an enemy or US citizens, to think clearly, and result in chaos and pain are morally problematic for a number of reasons:

  1. Creating fear, anxiety confusion and irrational behavior within an individual or a population is counterproductive to the operations of a free society and to the execution of warfare. Chaos only breeds the need for greater and greater means of physical repression; irrational behavior is by definition unpredictable and as such provides significant difficulty when the task is to secure an area.
  • These weapons leave no tell tale clues. There are no bullet holes or gross damage (with the exception of those designed to maim, burn or explode targets).
  • They are operated from a great distance, meaning that the operator has no feedback as to the effects of his or her actions. This provides us with a very dangerous circumstance very similar to Millgram’s experiment where we can predict with certainty gross abuses of power.
  • Any device that invades a persons mind, either through induction of “evoked potentials” through electromagnetic means or through the various “crazy-making” tactics employed in both information warfare and psychological operations is a violation of human rights and cognitive liberty.

In terms of authorizing and administering tests of radioactive substances and other tests on unsuspecting members of the public, history shows that people without ethical standards can rise to positions of great responsibility and once ensconced in such positions of trust, produce the most horrifying abuses without fear of reprisal. When layers of secrecy overlay the activities of otherwise rational and intelligent men, the failings of their hearts more readily show. In the case of actually attempting to control human behavior through both overt and covert means our departments of defense and intelligence agencies, both subordinate to the executive branch of government have historically proven incapable of protecting the public and undeserving of the trust given them to perform their functions for the public good.

140 Directed Energy Professional Society, 2006 Directed Energy Symposium Short Courses, 30 October 2006 Albuquerque, New Mexico: http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/DEsymp06ShortCourse.html

141 Louis Slesin, “Radiation Research and The Cult of Negative Results”, Microwave News, July 31, 2006.

Total Surveillance: Cognitive Liberties vs. National Security

Today the US and the U.K. are becoming total surveillance societies in the name of national security. London, like cities across the US, is equipped with cameras citywide. Daily human actions are recorded with video and voice recognition device, while our email and computer usage is monitored. Increased demand for resources, the erosion of middle classes, war, poverty, and environmental disasters are historically factors leading to social uprisings and infiltration of political borders. As governments reinforce the threat of terror, people increasingly turn to their governments for protection.

The US has a long history of human rights violations through harassment, telephone tapping, video surveillance, behavior manipulation, torture, drug-induced states of conscience and psychological control. Congress’s passage of the Military Commission Act of 2006 put universal human rights outside the scope of US policy. Today, the US government is using the most technologically advanced forms of surveillance and control, along with the propaganda of fear and intimidation against its citizens. The US engages in covert torture, covert imprisonment, increased censorship and the massive secret classification of government documents.142

A prominent neuroscientist, Francis Crick stated in 1994, that “your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”143

Is it possible that today’s scientists in the employ of the US neo-conservative global-dominance policy elites believe the same? According to Steven Rose, there are, “bad hats” in neuroscience: “There are always opportunists. The current affairs of our country have produced many.”144 The abundance of neuro-research has led to the development of several products by private business in the name of national security, including brain fingerprinting.145

142 For verification of US torturing people to death see, “US Operatives Torture Detainees to Death in Afghanistan and Iraq”, Project Censored Top 10 Uncensored Stories of 2006: http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2007/index.htm#7

143 Michael Shermer, “Astonishing Mind: Francis Crick 1916–2004 recollections on the life of a scientist”.

144 Steven Rose, The 21st Century Brain: Explaining, Mending and Manipulating the Mind, Jonathan Cape Publishing, March 31, 2005.

145 The official explanation of Brain Fingerprinting from Dr. Lawrence Farwell: “Brain Fingerprinting testing is a scientific technique to determine whether or not specific information is stored in an individual’s brain. We do this by measuring brain-wave responses to words, phrases, sounds or pictures presented by a computer. We present details about a crime, training or other types of specific knowledge, mixed in a sequence with other, irrelevant items. We use details that the person being tested would have encountered in the course of committing a crime, but that an innocent person would have no way of knowing. We can tell by the brainwave response if a person recognizes the stimulus or not. If the suspect recognizes the details of the crime, this indicates that he has a record of the crime stored in his brain.” For more research, see the Brain Wave Science site, the official internet identity of Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories at http://www.brainwavescience.com/Publications.php.

John Norseen, a neuroscientist interested in Biofusion, the relationship between humans and computers, says, “If this research pans out you can begin to manipulate what someone is thinking even before they know it.” Norseen says he is agnostic on the moral ramifications of this research. He feels that he is not a “mad” scientist – just a dedicated one. “The ethics don’t concern me,” he says, “but they should concern someone else.”146

We, the authors of this report, contend that human ethics should concern every person who believes in human rights and desires control over their own mind and body. Our brains control our bodies, actions, and thought processes. If the government and the scientists they employ perceive that the human mind as simply a collection of neurons, it then becomes possible to justify the surveillance of the human mind and body for national security purposes.

The control and manipulation of a human brain is a terrifying possibility. Lieutenant Colonel Timothy L. Thomas, US Army (ret), published an article in the military journal Parameters which likens the mind as a new battlefield. He quotes a Russian army major in relation to mind wars, “It is completely clear that the state which is first to create such weapons will achieve incomparable superiority.” Thomas expresses concern about “information dominance” though he stops short on the moral implications.147

Under the cover of secrecy provided by claims of national security, researchers in service to higher circle policy elites have implanted electrodes into human subjects to control minds and tortured prisoners and the mentally ill in efforts to find better “brainwashing” techniques. They have poisoned thousands with atomic testing, experimented on young children using drugs, trauma and hypnosis, sprayed major cities with biological agents to prepare for a future attack, overthrown governments, instituted mass killings, and engaged in every form of information distortion.

The current “War on Terror” has revealed to the public some of the tools that the military has been developing for decades. High profile weapons systems flash across the nightly reports of the major news networks, including highflying Stealth bombers on grainy green tinted video from the noses of “smart” bombs. On occasion glimpses are given through the media of what one article dubbed “Wonder Weapons.”148 Weapons that fall under the military category of “Non-Lethal Weapons.” In fact the general position of the agencies who do comment on weapons that exploit the lower end of the electromagnetic spectrum is that they have no biological effect at all, except for what are dubbed “thermal effects,” in essence heating of human cells.149

Research into this subject has shown that this position is inaccurate, and that the effects of electromagnetic radiation weapons on human beings are in fact both chilling and dramatic. As reported in 2001, the statement of Dr. Eldon Byrd should be considered with great weight:

146 Douglas Pasternak, “John Norseen Reading your mind – and injecting smart thoughts”, US News and World Report, January 3-10, 2000.

147 Timothy L. Thomas, The Mind Has No Firewall, Parameters, Spring 1998, pp. 84-92.

148 Douglas Pasternak, “Wonder Weapons”, Newsweek August 22, 1994 p. 57.

149 H. Pollack, “Epidemiologic data on American personnel in the Moscow embassy”, Bull N Y Acad Med., 1979 Dec;55(11):1182-6.

“A medical engineer, Eldon Byrd, reported a case that illustrates this point. After working on the Polaris submarine, which carried long-range nuclear weapons, Byrd developed non-lethal weapons with reversible effects. He regarded this as a humanitarian alternative to ‘punching holes in people and having their blood leak out’ in battle. His inventions used magnetic fields at biologically active wave frequencies to affect brain function. Byrd could put animals to sleep at a distance and influence their movements. When the success of his research became evident, suddenly he was pulled off the project and it went “black.” His believes the electromagnetic resonance weapons he developed have been used for psychological control of civilians rather than for exigencies in battle. That is, to ensure his participation, he was uninformed about the true nature of the project. Byrd’s case also illustrates how morally tolerable operations may transition to morally intolerable operations, or at least rise above the atrocity line”150

Power elites who fund and support efforts at supplanting the will of the people do so from on high. Their ability to redirect public attention to ward external threats and away from their own motivations in effect silences opposition to their programs. By controlling the flow of information in society, the power elites provide the public with a limited choice in all matters that pertain to machinations of government and corporate control. Given more advanced technologies for the control of information unscrupulous individuals who ascribe to a “might makes right” philosophy may will find the ways and means of employing these technologies against those who would oppose their plans. The dangers here are great, in that the individual who would direct the torture and killing of innocents is usually removed from the actual fact. It is left up to lesser authorities to administer the beatings, bullets, and mind/body bending technologies.

For the US Government to unilaterally declare that our country will not comply with international human rights laws, nor uphold the core values of our nation’s foundation is an indication of extremism that supersedes the values and beliefs of the American people. When such extremism exists we need to take seriously the founders’ declaration that, “ to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (Declaration of Independence 1776)

Peter Phillips is a Professor of Sociology at Sonoma State University and Director of Project Censored. Principle researchers on this report were Lew Brown and Bridget Thornton. Lew Brown holds a degree in Psychology and was the main writer and researcher on the historical sections of

150 Military and Civilian Perspectives on the Ethics of Intelligence— Report on a Workshop at the Department of Philosophy Claremont Graduate University, September 29, 2000, Jean Maria Arrigo, Ph.D. Virginia Foundation for the Humanities and Public Policy Paper presented to The Joint Services Conference on Professional Ethics Springfield, Virginia January 25-26, 2001

this paper. Bridget Thornton is a senior level History major at Sonoma State University and the primary researcher and writer for the new EMF technologies portion. Final editing was completed by Trish Boreta with Project Censored. Special thanks to Andy Roth Ph.D. for his editorial review.

Appendix A

ORGANIZATIONS CONCERNED WITH ILLEGAL EXPERIMENTATION AND INDIVIDUAL VICTIMS

Angelic Harp Foundation

2219 Lexford LN.

Houston, Texas 77080-5216

713-461-0623

Fax: 713-461-0091

http://angelicharpfoundation.org

Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics

P.O. Box 73481

Davis, CA 95617-3481 USA Fax: 205. 449. 3119

COPUS

Committee on the Public Understanding of Science The Royal Society

6-9 Carlton House Terrace London

SW1Y 5AG

United Kingdom

Fax +44 (0)20 7839 5561

http://www.copus.org.uk

Federation of American Scientists

1717 K St., NW Suite 209

Washington, DC 20036

Voice: (202)546-3300

Fax: (202)675-1010

http://www.fas.org

The Lay Institute

Nick Begich, Executive Director Dallas, Texas info@layinstitute.org

Mind Justice

Cheryl Welsh, Executive Director E-mail: welsh@mindjustice.org

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

Signalistgatan 9 SE-169 70

Solna Sweden

Phone: +46-8-655 97 00

Fax: +46-8-655 97 33

E-mail: sipri@sipri.org

Sunshine Project Germany The Sunshine Project Scheplerstrasse 78

22767 Hamburg Germany

Phone: +49 40 431 88 001

Fax: +49 40 67 50 39 88

Sunshine Project USA

PO Box 41987

Austin TX 78704 USA

Phone/Fax: +1 512 494 0545 http://www.sunshine-project.org

World Transhumanist Association

PO Box 128

Willington CT 06279 USA http://www.transhumanism.org

Additional References

Acoustic Weapons – A Perspective Jurgen Altmann

Science and Global Security, Vol. 9, pp. 165-234 Taylor and Francis, 2001

The Body Electric

Robert Becker, Gary Selden

Harper Paperbacks; 1st Quill edition (August 5, 1998)

Bradford Non-Lethal Weapons Research Project

Research Report #8

Neil Davison, Nick Lewer, March 2006 http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/nlw/

Controlling the Human Mind Nick Begich

Earthpulse Press, 2006

Human Network Attacks Timothy L. Thomas

Military Review, September-October 1999

Foreign Military Studies Office, Fort Leavenworth, KS.

Epidemiologic data on American personnel in the Moscow Embassy Pollack H.

Bull N Y Acad Med.

1979 Dec;55(11):1182-6.

High Power Microwaves: Strategic and Operational Implications for Warfare Eileen M. Walling, Col, USAF, Feb 2000, Occasional Paper NO 11

Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College, Air University, Maxwell AFB, AL

Hypno Politics and Hyper State Control Law Entrainment and the Symbolic Order Konrad Becker, May 1997

Introducing Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) and its Property of Causal Inference in Investigation Brain-Function Relationships

Dennis J. L. G. Schutter, Jack Van Honk and Jaak Panksepp

Journal of Cognitive Liberties

Center for Cognitive Liberties and Ethics

The Mind Has No Firewall” Parameters, spring 1998, pp. 84-92. Timothy L. Thomas

The Politics and Costs of Postmodern War in the Age of Bush II Douglas Kellner, UCLA

http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/politicscostspostmodernwar.pdf

“Quiet Transformation: The Role of the Office of Net Assessment” The National Security Strategy Process, May 2, 2003

National Defense University

National War College, CDR Debra O’Maddrell

Therapeutic Application of repetitive Tran cranial magnetic stimulation: A Review Eric M. Wasserman and Sarah H. Lasanby

Elsevier, April 27, 2001

Magnetic Stimulation: An Introduction” by Grant Balfour

v1.0 – May 6, 2002

A Validation Methodology for Human Behavior Representation Models Authors: Simon R. Goerger; Michael L. McGinnis; Rudolph P. Darken Military Academy West Point, NY, Dept. of System Engineering

by Robert J. Bunker

By the way, I am not a conspiracy theorist but a conspiracy realist meaning that I do not write about things that I can not prove. Because of this, I have been financially attacked for the last ten years. I will be adding a donation option on the about page just as soon as I can figure it out. Thank you for reading this. Thank you for your support.

The Innocent Victims of Brain Research

The Innocent Victims of Brain Research

Along with the globalist’s supposed quest to control the whole world, from sea to shining sea, comes the inevitable desire to control the human being … it’s a given … Perhaps some of the intentions are good, but the innocent lab rats who have had their lives stolen for this quest aren’t very impressed. Their lives are being used and abused without their consent… period.  This is human trafficking and it’s illegal.

According to thousands of reports from around the world there exists painful, never-ending research which is focused on behavior modification ( through psychotronic torture ) and medical experimentation. Basically, all of the remote forms of mind and body manipulation are being studied … the technologies are remote and invisible … can you imagine the applications and the threat to mankind?

The victims, who are often whistle blowers, journalists, or activists, are often framed for crimes which they didn’t commit to justify their inclusion in this program. They are promptly separated from their families, friends, incomes, computers, automobiles, and anything else which might make never-ending surveillance and experimentation difficult. If they complain they are called delusional and put in a psychiatric institution. Once again, this is human trafficking folks !!!

Here are a few truth weapons to help these people … but let’s not just blame the USA for following orders, … this is a global program ….

The American Air Force 1982 “Final Report On Biotechnology Research Requirements For Aeronautical Systems Through the Year 2000” states:

“While initial attention should be toward degradation of human performance through thermal loading and electromagnetic field effects, subsequent work should address the possibilities of directing and interrogating mental functioning, using externally applied fields”

42329636_10160986763245385_3771357048281759744_n

A report derived from the testing program of the Microwave Research Department at the Walter Read Army Institute of research states,

“Microwave pulses appear to couple to the central nervous system and produce stimulation similar to electric stimulation unrelated to heat”.

42352611_10160985879250385_8658215428021026816_n

In 1998, the French National Bioethics Committee warned that neuroscience is being increasingly recognized as posing potential threat to human rights.

In May 1999 the neuro=scientists conference, sponsored by the UN, took place in Tokyo. In the declaration we read:

“Today we have intellectual, physical and financial resources to master the power of the brain itself, and to develop devices to touch the mind and even control or erase consciousness. We wish to profess our hope that such pursuit of knowledge serves peace and welfare”.

The events at the international political scene, in the last few years, confirm that the concept of remote control of human brain is a matter of negotiations. In January 1999 the European Parliament passed a resolution where it calls for an international convention introducing a global ban on all developments and deployments of weapons which might enable any form of manipulation of human beings.

42425583_10160986582510385_5430454321466572800_n

In the book “Psychotronic Weapon and the Security of Russia” the authors propose, among the basic principles of the Russian concept of the defense against the remote control of human psyche, the acknowledgement of its factual existence as well as the acknowledgement of realistic feasibility of an informational, psychotronic war (which as a matter of fact is actually taking place without declaration of war)”.

They quote as well the record from the session of the Russian Federation Federal Council where V. Lopatin stated that psychotronic weapons can,

“cause the blocking of the freedom of will of a human being on a subliminal level” or “instillation into the consciousness or sub-consciousness of a human being, information which will cause faulty perception of the reality”.

For that matter they propose the preparation of national legislative as well as international law “aimed at the defense of human psyche against subliminal, destructive, informational effects”.

As well they propose the declassification of all works on this technology and warn that, as a consequence of the classification, the arms race is speeding up making the psychotronic war probable. Among the possible sources of remote influence on human psyche they list the generators of physical fields” of “known as well as unknown nature”.

42396185_10160986654285385_3255671607930126336_n

In 1999 the STOA (Scientific and Technological Options Assessment), part of the Directorate General for Research of the European Parliament published the report on Crowd Control Technologies, ordered by them from the OMEGA foundation in British Manchester.

One of four major subjects of the study are the 2nd generation” or “non lethal” technologies:

“This report evaluates the second generation of ‘non-lethal’ weapons which are emerging from national military and nuclear weapons laboratories in the United States as part of the Clinton Administration’s ‘non-lethal’ warfare doctrine now adopted in turn by NATO. These devices include weapons using directed energy beams, radiofrequency, laser and acoustic mechanisms to incapacitate human targets”  

The report states that the most controversial non-lethal’ crowd control technology proposed by the U.S., are so called Radio Frequency or Directed Energy Weapons that can allegedly manipulate human behavior. The greatest concern is with systems which can directly interact with the human nervous system”.

The report also states that perhaps the most powerful developments remain shrouded in secrecy”.

42360710_10160985856020385_7935006745703743488_n

In the Doctrine of Informational Security of the Russian Federation, signed by president Putin in September 2000, among the dangers threatening the informational security of Russian Federation, is listed the threat to the constitutional rights and freedoms of people and citizens in the sphere of spiritual life and the “illegal use of special means affecting individual, group and societal consciousness”.

Among the major directions of the international cooperation toward the guaranteeing of the informational security is listed the ban of production, dissemination and use of ‘informational weapons’ “. This should be interpreted as the continuing Russian dedication to the international ban of the means of remote influencing of the activity of human brain.

In the above mentioned report, published by the STOA, the originally proposed version of the resolution of the European Parliament is quoted, calling for an international convention for a global ban on all research and development which seeks to apply knowledge of the chemical, electrical, sound vibration or other functioning of the human brain for the development of weapons which might enable the manipulation of human beings, including a ban of any actual or possible deployment of such systems.”  Here the term “actual” might easily mean that such weapons are already deployed. 

Among the countries with the most advanced military technologies those are the USA which did not present any international initiative demanding the ban of technologies enabling the remote control of the human mind. (The original version of the bill by Denis J. Kucinich was changed.)

All the same, according to the study published by STOA, the USA are the major promoter of the use of those arms.

42352595_10160985844900385_6275119675277836288_n

The report published by STOA states:

“In October 1999 NATO announced a new policy on non-lethal weapons and their place in allied arsenals”. “In 1996 non-lethal tools identified by the U.S. Army included directed energy systems” and “radio frequency weapons” – those weapons, as was suggested in the STOA report as well, are being associated with the effects on the human nervous system.

According to the Russian government informational agency FAPSI, in the last 15 years, the U.S. expenses on the development and acquisition of the means of an informational war grew four times and at present time they occupy the first place among all military programs .

Though there are other concepts of informational war other than mind control, the unwillingness of the USA to engage in the negotiations aimed at the ban of the manipulation of human brains might indicate their intent to use those means in internal as well as international affairs.

One clear consequence of the continuation of the apparent politics of secrecy surrounding technologies enabling remote control of human brains might be that the governments, who would own such technologies, could use them without having to take into consideration the opinion of the general public.

The concept of the democratic world would be, though secretly, disrupted in this way, and in the future the world populations could live in only fake democracy where their own or foreign governments might, by means of secret, shape their opinions.

41845924_10160964705125385_3074011190142173184_n

Invisible Directed Energy Weapons Being Used on Civilians Around the World

Invisible Directed Energy Weapons Being Used on Civilians Around the World

This is a contract offering for Directed Energy BioEffects Research to be done on humans … it speaks for itself … bodies and lives are being used by the Military Industrial Complex for profit while these innocent victims are prevented from earning income and sabotaged in every way possible … in this proposal they talk about the “prediction of health degradation” while they also talk about the protection of the human subject …

This is about assault with a deadly weapon … this is about hitting innocent citizens with sophisticated military weaponry … this information is readily available on-line …

I would like to talk to these contractors who are making money from human misery …

 

“TITLE: Directed Energy Bioeffects Research (DEBR)

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION LEVEL IS: Top Secret/SCI/SAP/SAR

1. Background, Scope, Goals,Objectives, and Needs.

a. Background.

The Directed Energy Bioeffects Research(DEBR) contract supports the US Air Force, one of the largest developers and users of radio frequency (RF) and high power microwave (HPM) emitting devices in the world, which has been at the forefront of research on the biological effects of RF/HPM radiation for more than 30 years. The use of Directed Energy (DE) extends to military and commercial applications. While the targeted customers for this effort are primarily concerned with the use and application of RF/HPM radiation technologies, the joint services and others like the Department of Homeland Security along with commercial customers will likely benefit from the research conducted and discoveries made under this program

This effort includes conducting research to identify the benefits, risks, and capabilities for a wide range of military RF/HPM radiation systems. This includes prediction and mitigation of the bio-effects of DE on personnel and mission performance and exploitation of the bio-effects of DE for DEW applications.
Conduct proteomic, genomic, and metabolomic studies that identify critical biochemical or molecular changes following exposure to DE prior to or during mission operations that assists in the prediction of health degradation.

Human Use.
The contractor will use human subjects in research studies under this effort. ”

https://dictacrature.noblogs.org/fil…c-IDIQ-SOO.pdf

http://library.constantcontact.com/d…-2013-0002.pdf

 

Now let’s look at some of the activists who are fighting this atrocity …

David Voigts is a former Naval officer and a graduate of the US Naval Academy. While working on electronic warfare for the Navy he became aware of directed energy weapons testing that was being done on innocent civilians. He is walking across America to publicize this injustice. He is a true American hero.

This story has now been published in ten publications including Bloomberg News …

http://www.bloomberg.com/research/markets/news/article.asp?docKey=600-201605250331M2______EUPR_____0c08000004d7d78a_3600-1

If you would like to support this effort you can do so here:

https://www.gofundme.com/ti-in-america

 

Karen Stewart is a NSA whistle blower who is now harassed with electronics. You can read her story here …

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/04/nsa-whistleblower-karen-stewart-speaks-candidly-illegal-criminal-nsa-fbi-programs-organized-stalking-electronic-harassment-usa-abroad.html

She is now gathering the names of victims for a letter campaign to all officials in the country … many victims have already signed on …

NSA Whistleblower, Karen Stewart: Synopsis of the Silent Holocaust Taking Place in the United States

This activism is not going to stop until these assaults on innocent civilians end .