Climate Instability Worldwide: Does the US Military “Own the Weather”? “Weaponizing the Weather” as an Instrument of Modern Warfare? – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

excerpt>

US mathematician John von Neumann, in liaison with the US Department of Defense, started his research on weather modification in the late 1940s at the height of the Cold War and foresaw ‘forms of climatic warfare as yet unimagined’. During the Vietnam war, cloud-seeding techniques were used, starting in 1967 under Project Popeye, the objective of which was to prolong the monsoon season and block enemy supply routes along the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

The US military has developed advanced capabilities that enable it selectively to alter weather patterns. The technology, which was initially developed in the 1990s under the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), was an appendage of the Strategic Defense Initiative – ‘Star Wars’. From a military standpoint, HAARP  –which was officially abolished in 2014– is  a weapon of mass destruction, operating from the outer atmosphere and capable of destabilising agricultural and ecological systems around the world.

Officially, the HAARP program has been closed down at its location in Alaska. The technology of weather modification shrouded in secrecy, nonetheless prevails. HAARP documents confirm that the technology was fully operational as of the mid 1990s.

(For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, article Entitled Weather Warfare published in the Ecologist first published in 2008. (which summarizes earlier research on the HAARP project)

It should be emphasized that while the US military confirms that weather warfare is fully operational, there is no documented evidence of its military use against enemies of the US. The subject matter is a taboo among environmental analysts. No in-depth investigation has been undertaken to reveal the operational dimensions of weather warfare.

The impacts of ENMOD techniques for military use were documented by CBC TV in the mid 1990s:

The CBC TV report acknowledged that the HAARP facility in Alaska under the auspices of the US Air Force had the ability of triggering typhoons, earthquakes, floods and droughts:

“It isn’t just conspiracy theorists who are concerned about HAARP. In January of 1999, the European Union called the project a global concern and passed a resolution calling for more information on its health and environmental risks. Despite those concerns, officials at HAARP insist the project is nothing more sinister than a radio science research facility.”

Climate Instability Worldwide: Does the US Military “Own the Weather”? “Weaponizing the Weather” as an Instrument of Modern Warfare?

…………….

US Air Force research paper “Owning the Weather in 2025”

Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025

https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/documents/vol3ch15.pdf

film on rumble sans “sign-in” fink aspect of YT>

October 7 Was An Inside Job – documentary (2024) by John Hankey #RealHistoryChannel

Your logic I agree with, it’s evidently not necessary for Iran to test, or build. I read all three of the the technical papers, and suffered through a long, interminable technical lecture from some limey boffin about the sensor strategies. One station’s report is doo doo. If there’s been a test, the entire global system of sensors, more or less, would have shown it, with near certainty, not just one station. However it might be kept, for a while, secret from the public. Maybe the one station blabbed, didn’t get the memo. Your idea that the single report might be used as an excuse makes sense. A physics experiment, if there was one, is a “bomb”, but not a weapon.

Meantime Comrade Kim’s clear statement is wonderfully blunt. iirc that war, the Korean War, was stopped by an armistice, not a peace treaty…thus Kim remains at war. His bombs are weapons, they fit the definition, tip of “spear”. 😉  I do wonder why just now Kim chose to make such a blunt statement. I wouldn’t buy “coincidence” or whim as a reason.

The Effects of Pulsed Microwaves And Extra Low Frequency Electromagnetic Waves on Human Brains? Governments Routinely “Classify Information” Pertaining to the Manipulation of the Human Nervous System – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

The cranium can as a resonate cavity  be excited and I recall that subjects can even be made to “hear” spoken words by such methods…at the correct pulse rate and frequency the brain can also be heated like meat in the microwave – causing death soon thereafter by swelling, or nearly immediately.

The Effects of Pulsed Microwaves And Extra Low Frequency Electromagnetic Waves on Human Brains? Governments Routinely “Classify Information” Pertaining to the Manipulation of the Human Nervous System

The thought comes to mind that a weapon, an atomic weapon, is not the same thing as a physics experiment in a cavern or mine bore. 😉  A forge is not a sword. Imagine all the stuff, wires strung, an entire room full of electronics and cables… that’s not a weapon. However I think in English and according to western rhetoric… For Islamic Sages and leaders would it be a similar distinction?   expect so, but can’t say. Note that in gadget # 1 there is zero capacity to use it as a weapon, it’s a physics test. No radar, no casing, no batteries. Just a very messy and expensive  science fair project.

Big storm zone Florida. Too bad FEMA spent all the money, eh? 

https://www.accuweather.com/en/hurricane/hurricane-milton-to-have-extreme-impacts-in-florida/1700306

at my 43271 post salon see three learned urls in re detecting and differentiation ‘tween atomic tests and earthquakes. (I myself begin to suspect test.) Ambiguity is highly desirable in Strategy. If it was a test the nazis know to near certainty. Very small but reliable bombs are difficult to make, ie .5 kt, etc., so let us assume >10 kt. That’s detectable fersure. And not simply by one station, there are many seismic detecting arrays. It does require an initiator source of neutrons at just the right instant to get a reliable, more or less, “bang” ….