It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Disruption of communications and radar via ionospheric control. A variation of the capability proposed above is ionospheric modification to disrupt an enemy's communication or radar transmissions. Because HF communications are controlled directly by the ionosphere's properties, an artificially created ionization region could conceivably disrupt an enemy's electromagnetic transmissions. Even in the absence of an artificial ionization patch, high-frequency modification produces large-scale ionospheric variations which alter HF propagation characteristics. The payoff of research aimed at understanding how to control these variations could be high as both HF communication enhancement and degradation are possible. Offensive interference of this kind would likely be indistinguishable from naturally occurring space weather. This capability could also be employed to precisely locate the source of enemy electromagnetic transmissions.
Exploding/disabling space assets traversing near-space. The ionosphere could potentially be artificially charged or injected with radiation at a certain point so that it becomes inhospitable to satellites or other space structures. The result could range from temporarily disabling the target to its complete destruction via an induced explosion. Of course, effectively employing such a capability depends on the ability to apply it selectively to chosen regions in space.
Nanotechnology also offers possibilities for creating simulated weather. A cloud, or several clouds, of microscopic computer particles, all communicating with each other and with a larger control system could provide tremendous capability. Interconnected, atmospherically buoyant, and having navigation capability in three dimensions, such clouds could be designed to have a wide-range of properties. They might exclusively block optical sensors or could adjust to become impermeable to other surveillance methods. They could also provide an atmospheric electrical potential difference, which otherwise might not exist, to achieve precisely aimed and timed lightning strikes. Even if power levels achieved were insufficient to be an effective strike weapon, the potential for psychological operations in many situations could be fantastic.
One major advantage of using simulated weather to achieve a desired effect is that unlike other approaches, it makes what are otherwise the results of deliberate actions appear to be the consequences of natural weather phenomena. In addition, it is potentially relatively inexpensive to do. According to J. Storrs Hall, a scientist at Rutgers University conducting research on nanotechnology, production costs of these nanoparticles could be about the same price per pound as potatoes.52 This of course discounts research and development costs, which will be primarily borne by the private sector and be considered a sunk cost by 2025 and probably earlier.
So, we already know that they have the capabilities to make these ideas come to fruition. The question is, why can we not find documentation stating the reasons for using or abandoning such "innovative" ideas?
The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government.
This report contains fictional representations of future situations/scenarios. Any similarities to real people or events, other than those specifically cited, are unintentional and are for purposes of illustration only.
There is no evidence of manufactured aerosols being deployed.
Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Phage
Also,
There is no evidence of manufactured aerosols being deployed.
Yes. I already stated this in my Op. Do try to keep up.
Originally posted by Afterthought
I'm wanting to discuss why or why not this situation could be a possibility.
Since our government has discussed using certain technologies, is there evidence that they have or have not decided to implement their ideas?
If they have decided against geoengineering our atmosphere, wouldn't there be documents stating that they have come to the conclusion that their ideas can not be implemented as well as the reasons why they have come to this conclusion?
As it stands, nobody can provide documents that their hypothetical discussions have or have not been acted upon.
We know that they have decided that Fluoride is for our own good, but why have they not made any decisions related to curbing global warming? They've obviously placed a lot of time and energy into discussing it, yet no conclusions to these discussions can be located.
Does this mean that their conclusions and activities regarding this information are classified?
There's no evidence that they HAVE decided to implement them.
Certainly no evidence that any geoengineering has taken place (which is pretty good evidence that it is not taking place, unless they are somehow doing it in an undetectable manner, which would kind of defeat the purpose)
They are still very actively discussing it. The problem has not gone away. The potential usage of geoengineering is still in the future.
Governments around the world have said it's something they are looking into researching, but are proceeding with great caution.
Rapid termination of SRM, that had been deployed for some time and is masking a high degree of warming, would almost certainly have very large negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services that would be far more severe than those resulting from gradual climate change.
Originally posted by Afterthought
SRM means Solar Radiation Management. From the above text, it clearly states that they are currently using SRM and it is combating global warming, but they fear stopping it in a sudden manner because it would lead to even worse results.
Uniform dimming of sunlight through an unspecified generic SRM technique, to compensate for the temperature increase from increased CO2 concentrations, would be expected to reduce the greenhouse-gas induced temperature change experienced by most areas of the planet.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Afterthought
No.
It does not say that SRM has been deployed. It addresses concerns if it is ever deployed.
edit on 2/3/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)
Rapid termination of SRM, that had been deployed for some time and is masking a high degree of warming, would almost certainly have very large negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services that would be far more severe than those resulting from gradual climate change.
ter·mi·nate (tûrm-nt)
v. ter·mi·nat·ed, ter·mi·nat·ing, ter·mi·nates
v.tr.
1. To bring to an end or halt: "His action terminated the most hopeful period of reform in Prussian history" (Gordon A. Craig).
2. To occur at or form the end of; conclude or finish: a display of fireworks that terminated the festivities.
3. To discontinue the employment of; dismiss: a company that terminated 300 workers.
v.intr.
1. To come to an end: The oil pipeline terminates at a shipping port. Negotiations terminated yesterday. See Synonyms at complete.
2. To have as an end or result: "The Peloponnesian war ... terminated in the ruin of the Athenian commonwealth" (Alexander Hamilton).
Rapid termination of SRM, that had been deployed for some time and is masking a high degree of warming, would almost certainly have very large negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services that would be far more severe than those resulting from gradual climate change.
had [hæd]
vb
the past tense and past participle of have
de·ploy (d-ploi)
v. de·ployed, de·ploy·ing, de·ploys
v.tr.
1.
a. To position (troops) in readiness for combat, as along a front or line.
b. To bring (forces or material) into action.
c. To base (a weapons system) in the field.
2. To distribute (persons or forces) systematically or strategically.
3. To put into use or action: "Samuel Beckett's friends suspected that he was a genius, yet no one knew . . . how his abilities would be deployed" (Richard Ellmann).
Originally posted by Afterthought
What if our government revealed that they are using aircraft CONtrails to ward off global warming by releasing manufactured aerosols into the environment thus creating synthetic clouds to reflect the sun's rays...
You claim that they're thinking about deploying it, but how can something can be terminated before it even begins?