Do Climate Weapons Exist?
The heavy downpours that have hit countries in Europe and Asia and the numerous fires have brought up an old topic – can humans control natural phenomena? If such technology exists, then it automatically raises the question: can it be used for destructive purposes (as seen in sci-fi action films like Geostorm)? In other words, do climate weapons (geomagnetic, stratospheric, etc.) exist?
It should be pointed out right away that we will not be delving into conspiracy theories such as the link between chemtrails and the concept of the golden billion or the HAARP system, which has long since been dismantled. We are going to consider the topic rationally.
There is no doubt that weather modification technologies exist. Just think of how clouds are dispersed during various city celebrations so that the weather matches the festive mood and doesn’t interfere with open-air events.
In a broader context, however, these technologies are directly linked to political ideology. Controlling the elements was first seriously discussed in America in the first half of the 19th century, and, at the same time, the doctrine of a “predetermined destiny” was being developed that asserted America’s divine function, including the right to world domination.
Such technology was first used successfully in Texas in 1916, when Charles Hatfield used an invention of his own to cause heavy rainfall. It is difficult to call it a success, however, because the heavy rainfall caused much destruction and loss of life, and the role of Hatfield himself remains questionable, since previous attempts had been unsuccessful.
Since the 1990s, there has been talk in the West of the need for such technologies as part of the environmental agenda. And, in the 2000s, the term “geoengineering” was introduced, which is regarded by a number of governments as a specific strategy inextricably linked to foreign policy.
In 2011, for example, the left-leaning British newspaper The Guardianwrote: “Geoengineering schemes are projects designed to tackle the effects of climate change directly, usually by removing CO2 from the air or limiting the amount of sunlight reaching the planet’s surface. Although large-scale geoengineering is still at the concept stage, advocates claim that it may eventually become essential if the world wants to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Critics, by contrast, claim that geoengineering isn’t realistic – and may be a distraction from reducing emissions.”
The list of schemes includes a variety of technologies, such as using plastic polymers; adding lime to water; burying charcoal to lock carbon into the soils; grazing cattle in a specific way; firing sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight back to space; using unmanned ships to increase above-ocean cloud cover by spraying sea water into the air; painting roofs white to increase reflectivity; and even placing tiny mirrors in space between Earth and the sun.
There have also been many theoretical ideas, including the possibility of using geoengineering for rapid disaster management. It was thought that “[i]f the stratospheric sulphates released in a major northern eruption were promptly countered by a deliberate release of sulphates into the southern hemisphere, both hemispheres would cool. The ITCZ [Intertropical Convergence Zone] would stay put, and a drought might well be averted. For a major drought, that would be a big win.” Due to a lack of opportunity to carry out the relevant experiments, however, such hypotheses remain at the level of theoretical speculation.
It should be noted that The Guardian recognises that the administration of any such geoengineering scheme raises obvious questions of geopolitics and global governance. This is already a clear conflict of interest between states.
The Council on Foreign Relations makes a similar point in its blog, although it already refers directly to the use of these technologies as weapons: “Commons-based geoengineering (CBG) are those types of climate manipulation technologies that are deployed in the global commons: stratosphere or high seas, and they include stratospheric aerosol injection, ocean iron fertilization, and marine-based cloud brightening. CBG is not yet comprehensively governed by international law; environmental laws and laws of war only apply indirectly or under specific conditions. However, the national security framework is inseparable from the scientific, legal, and ethical questions surrounding CBG, just as it was for the development of the atomic bomb. If a great power nation such as the United States decides to deploy CBG, this might be seen as tacit permission for other great powers like China or middle powers with the scientific capability like the United Kingdom to do the same, especially if they regard this technology as providing a strategic or tactical advantage. This could then result in a kind of climatic arms race to see which state could manipulate the climate to their benefit first.”
Here we see an acknowledgement that climate weapons exist. At the same time, the Council on Foreign Relations’ magazine Foreign Affairs has been pushing the topic of geoengineering for many years. Their concerns about a climate arms race should not be misunderstood. The fact is that the US owns a number of patents in this area. The legalisation of such technologies and their use internationally will not only bring American companies huge profits, it will also give them a kind of moral right to be at the top of the pyramid in the management of these processes.
So, what do we have? One of the first patents in this area is US3613992. Name: Weather modification method. The inventor is listed as Robert Knollenberg on behalf of the US, and it was filed for registration in March 1966. Since then, the US government has tested out all kinds of innovations to modify the weather.
A similar patent is US3564253: “System and method for irradiation of planet surface areas”. The inventor is listed as Arthur Buckingham from Westinghouse Electric Corporation, and the patent was registered on 16 February 1971. With this one, it is no longer simply a question of “seeding” the clouds, which can be done with aircraft, but of a more targeted application that resembles the mechanics of a weapon.
Of interest among more recent patents is US5762298: “Use of artificial satellites in earth orbits adaptively to modify the effect that solar radiation would otherwise have on earth’s weather”. The inventor is Franklin Chen, and the patent was granted in June 1998.
In addition, there are a number of closed patents, i.e., the details are classified for US military or intelligence reasons.
There are companies – either already in existence or being developed – that produce various systems and devices on the basis of these technologies.
But there are also organisations that monitor the emergence of such technologies and describe their impact in detail.
So, it’s no secret that there are climate weapons per se. What is more difficult is determining the interdependence between severe weather phenomena and the possible use of geoengineering technologies. For now, though, globalists in the West are blaming everything on global warming and propose combating it using geoengineering methods.
