| Subj: | From earthpulse.com |
| Date: | 11/7/01 5:52:40 PM Pacific Standard Time |
| From: | |
| To: |
REVOLUTION
OR DESTRUCTION?
Technologies of the 21st Century
Earth Rising – The Revolution
By Nick Begich
“in the end they will lay their freedom
at our feet and say to us,
‘make us your slaves, but feed us.’”
Dostoevsky
The military has announced a new
revolution – a “Revolution in Military Affairs” (RMA). The
first reference to the Revolution in Military Affairs in our research was
from a military war college document we discovered five years ago.[1] The
RMA encapsulates the idea that technology has changed to such a degree that
the very nature of war is forever altered. It suggested that what was coming
in new technology could be equated to the introduction of gun powder to Europe
a few centuries ago or the discovery of the atom bomb in more recent history.
The Revolution in Military Affairs states that some of these new systems
are contrary to American values and that their introduction would be heatedly
opposed in the United States. The authors of that paper proposed that in
order to introduce these new weapon systems that American values would have
to be changed!
It is particularly alarming when
military “think tanks” begin to publish material in which they
suggest that commonly held national and human values are insufficient to
meet the demands of desired military objectives in introducing new technology.
What is wrong with this picture? Do these institutions, and their extension
to other public enterprises, reflect popular values or should they be empowered
to create popular values? Are these public and quasi-public institutions,
focused on defense and warfare, the right groups to determine values or should
they mirror popular values so that a nation’s foundational truths are
expressed through their national institutions?
“The buzzwords haunting the Pentagon today are ‘revolution in military
affairs’. The idea, simply put, is that the same technologies that have
transformed the American workplace may have no less profound an effect on
the American way of war.” [2]
The Revolution in Military Affairs
described a philosophy of “conflict short of war” (“terrorism,
insurgency or violence associated with narcotrafficking”) that requires
new weapons and a change in public opinion. The RMA says that this change
in opinion does not have to evolve naturally, but can be deliberately shaped
by the government. The idea is that belief systems of Americans can be slowly
altered to allow the military to introduce new weapons technology which,
at this time, would be resisted by most Americans. What this paper puts forward
is:
“In its purest sense, revolution brings change that is permanent,
fundamental, and rapid. The basic premise of the revolution in military affairs
(RMA) is simple: throughout history, warfare usually developed in an evolutionary
fashion, but occasionally ideas and inventions combined to propel dramatic
and decisive change. This not only affected the application of military force,
but often altered the geopolitical balance in favor of those who mastered
the new form of warfare.”
The military’s authors discuss
emerging technologies which may go against Americans’ beliefs in such
things as the presumption of innocence, the right to disagree with the
government, and the right to free expression and movement throughout the
world. The examples of technology given include the disabling of aircraft
while in flight, resulting in a crash which cannot be connected to the firing
of a weapon – in other words “pilot error” or an
“unexplained incident” likely would end up in official accident
reports. Moving of funds out of “suspect” bank accounts is another
technology discussed. Essentially the paper describes numerous ways an adversary
could be attacked by these new technologies, how they would violate fundamental
laws and how to change the attitude of Americans so that they could be used.
What will those with the power to invade the privacy of individuals do and
what would form the basis of their decisions? Based on what rationale? Will
the holders of this power be trusted by the rest of the population? The military
planners have anticipated that the population would answer with a resounding
– “NO”! Therefore, they propose a series of events to shift
the popular view to the opposite extreme. They propose a revolution in society,
based on fear, which will allow for a Revolution in Military Affairs.
Terrorism is defined in one report
as “a purposeful human activity primarily directed toward the creation
of a general climate of fear designed to influence, in ways desired by the
protagonists, other human beings, and through them, some course of
events.”[3] Under this definition the very condition the military intends
to exploit in order to introduce their weapon concepts are the very things
that they should be guarding against.
The United States Secretary of
Defense, William Cohen, stated that:
“The best deterrent that we
have against acts of terrorism is to find out who is conspiring, who has
the material, where they are getting it, who they are talking to, what are
their plans. In order to do that, in order to interdict the terrorists before
they set off their weapon, you have to have that kind of intelligence-gathering
capability, but it runs smack into our constitutional protections of privacy.
And it’s a tension which will continue to exist in every free society
– the reconciliation of the need for liberty and the need for law and
order.
And there’s going to be a
constant balance that we all have to engage in. Because once the bombs go
off – this is a personal view, this is not a governmental view of the
United States, but it’s my personal view – that once these weapons
start to be exploded people will say protect us. We’re willing to give
up some of our liberties and some of our freedoms, but you must protect us.
And that is what will lead us into this 21st century, this kind of Constitutional
tension of how much protection can we provide and still preserve essential
liberties.”[4]
This view reminds us of other periods
in history occurring just before the general decline in civil liberties and
basic concepts of freedom. This is the context of the current condition of
our democracies and this is what must be reshaped.
The authors of an earlier U. S.
Army War College paper lay out a fictional scenario where the illusion of
the need for a trade-off of individual liberties in exchange for security
is presented. In their scenario, a plan to desensitize the population to
increasing control and introduction of the new technology, through systematic
manipulation and disinformation by the government is described.[5]
In another section, The Revolution
in Military Affairs discusses the reality of the RMA. Even with all the
constraints, there is no question in the writers’ minds that the new
technology should be utilized. But then they present another alternative:
“We could deliberately engineer a comprehensive revolution, seeking
utter transformation rather than simply an expeditious use of new
technology.”
The implications, the tradeoffs
and the direction of this technology shift are being developed outside of
public scrutiny and behind veils of secrecy. The issue of global terrorism
is even leading to the unilateral abandonment of the ABM Treaty “because
of the threat posed by rogue states” deploying weapons of mass
destruction.
The Revolution in Military Affairs
describes “people’s wars” as a shift to “spiritual”
and “commercial” insurgencies, which they do not define well. They
imply that these kinds of “insurgencies” represent national security
risks to be defended against, which may be the case, but, who will decide
what “people’s wars” to fight and who will determine what
is “spiritually” or “commercially” correct?
The above references represent but a few points out of hundreds of documents
and material which express some of the directions of our technology. When
taken in the context of recent events these technologies become even more
pressing. A lecture has been scheduled to present a clear picture of the
new technological impacts on society and our planet. Missile Defense[6],
HAARP, Low-frequency Active Sonar, and other Department of Defense activities
creating risks in Alaska will be discussed. These systems potentially impact
migration patterns and marine life. Control and the manipulation of human
health[7] through electromagnetic weapons[8] and other means will be disclosed
as well as alternative uses in health science and a demonstration of some
uses will be made during the lecture. Non-lethal weapons and their impact
on people will be discussed. New technologies which will virtually eliminate
privacy are considered and presented. Environmental[9], weather control
systems[10] and new underwater sonars and their effects on the seas will
also be disclosed. The lecture concludes with solutions which could change
the implications of these technologies from negative to positive by enhancing
the human condition rather than depressing the human
spirit.
Anchorage Museum of History & Art – 121 West 7th
Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska – September 29, 2001
Saturday – 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM
Ticket Price: $30.00 at the Door
$25.00 in Advance by September 10, 2001
Limited Seating – Reserve Now: VISA/Master
Card/Check
www.earthpulse.com
Earthpulse Press
By Phone: 907-694-1277 PO Box
201393
By Fax: 907-696-1277
Anchorage, AK 99520
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Metz, Steven and Kievit, James. “The Revolution in Military
Affairs and Conflict Short of War.” Strategic Studies Institute, U.S.
Army War College, July 25, 1994. EPI516
[2] Cohen, Eliot A. “Come the Revolution.” Defense and Technology
Issue, National Review, July 31, 1995, Vol XLVII, No. 14.
EPI1260
[3] Sloan, Stephen. “Technology & Terrorism: Privatizing Public
Violence.” IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Summer 1991.
EPI127
[4] Cohen, Secretary of Defense William S. Hemispheric Cooperation In Combatting
Terrorism, Defense Ministerial of the Americas III. Defense Viewpoint, Dec.
1, 1998. EPI660
[5] Metz, Steven and Kievit, James. “The Revolution in Military Affairs
and Conflict Short of War.” Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War
College, July 25, 1994. EPI516
[6] US Patent #4,959,559, Sept. 25, 1990. Electromagnetic or Other Directed
Energy Pulse Launcher. Inventor: Ziolkowski, Richard W. Assignee: United
States of America as represented by the United States Department of
Energy. EPI2
[7] Thomas, Timothy L. “The Mind Has No Firewall.” Parameters,
Vol. XXVIII, No. 1, Spring 1998. EPI525
[8] USAF Scientific Advisory Board. New World Vistas: Air And
Space Power For The 21st Century - Ancillary Volume. 1996, pp. 89-90.
EPI402
[9] Wall Street Journal. “Malaysia to Battle Smog With
Cyclones.” Nov. 13, 1997, p. A19 EPI322
[10] DoD News Briefing, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen. Cohen’s
keystone address at the Conference on Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction,
and U.S. Strategy. April 28, 1997. EPI317