@sonhouse saidNow you are resorting to spreading false rumors? I never said anything of the sort.
@Metal-Brain
I heard this guy on RHP, Metal-Brain, says Earth is flat. Could this be true?
@sonhouse saidNo, it isn't. The manipulation of climate for military use is a documented fact. Read the article and you might learn something.
@Metal-Brain
It's just another conspiracy theory.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/does-the-us-military-own-the-weather-weaponizing-the-weather-as-an-instrument-of-modern-warfare/5608728
1 edit
@metal-brain saidI read this out of curiosity.
No, it isn't. The manipulation of climate for military use is a documented fact. Read the article and you might learn something.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/does-the-us-military-own-the-weather-weaponizing-the-weather-as-an-instrument-of-modern-warfare/5608728
Most of the quotes appear to come from a 1996 piece of science fiction writing conducted by a group of students in military school. The topic was the strategic possibility of using weather as a force multiplier. It is purely imaginative thought exercise. For example, instead of economic sanctions on Iran, we could just initiate an elongated period of drought to starve/dehydrate civilians.
Obviously these things might be possible, but it is not fact. The military does not manipulate the weather, and that is blatantly clear from this article and all of their citations.
@metal-brain saidIt's also illegal under the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, which came into force after the Vietnam War finished. That they were doing it before does not entail a conspiracy since weapons research is something that is shrouded in secrecy for the straightforward reason that one desires better weapons than one's adversaries.
No, it isn't. The manipulation of climate for military use is a documented fact. Read the article and you might learn something.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/does-the-us-military-own-the-weather-weaponizing-the-weather-as-an-instrument-of-modern-warfare/5608728
@wildgrass saidYou are wrong. Look before you leap. The CIA has admitted weather modification.
I read this out of curiosity.
Most of the quotes appear to come from a 1996 piece of science fiction writing conducted by a group of students in military school. The topic was the strategic possibility of using weather as a force multiplier. It is purely imaginative thought exercise. For example, instead of economic sanctions on Iran, we could just initiate an elongated ...[text shortened]... ot manipulate the weather, and that is blatantly clear from this article and all of their citations.
This is nothing new. Using dry ice to create rain has been known for a long time, before color TV.
https://newspunch.com/cia-admit-to-using-weather-modification-as-a-military-weapon/
@deepthought saidYou claim there is no conspiracy while acknowledging a conspiracy of silence we all know exists in the military.
It's also illegal under the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, which came into force after the Vietnam War finished. That they were doing it before does not entail a conspiracy since weapons research is something that is shrouded in secrecy for the straightforward reason that one desires better weapons than one's adversaries.
Since you admit the military conspires to keep it secret when advances are made, you cannot possibly rule out a conspiracy. You have unwittingly contradicted yourself.
@metal-brain saidI read the entirety of the earlier article you posted, which was primarily pulled from a science fiction think-piece written by a group of military academy students. Nothing in that article contradicts my statement.
You are wrong. Look before you leap. The CIA has admitted weather modification.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B7x1lr2KN8
This is nothing new. Using dry ice to create rain has been known for a long time, before color TV.
https://newspunch.com/cia-admit-to-using-weather-modification-as-a-military-weapon/
@wildgrass saidThe article states facts you dismissed as false out of prejudice. You were wrong and Brennan's statements prove that.
I read the entirety of the earlier article you posted, which was primarily pulled from a science fiction think-piece written by a group of military academy students. Nothing in that article contradicts my statement.
Furthermore, all you had to do is a quick google search to find info on the CIA's own website to confirm it.
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/search/site/weather%20modification
You dismissed believing it out of prejudice and incredulity. It isn't a conspiracy theory anymore because I confirmed it, but at one time it was and people were reluctant to believe it for the same reason you were.
Just because something sounds too incredible to be true doesn't mean anything. That is why the big conspiracies don't need to be kept so secret. It is the small conspiracies that seem more believable that need to be closely guarded secrets, like military technology. Conspiring to suppress military technology is routine and expected, so those conspiracies usually have to be closely guarded. Just because that conspiracy is routine does not make it less of a conspiracy.
Since weather experimentation is covert we must consider possibilities we didn't before, like the drought in Australia may be a weather modification experiment that went wrong....or right. Depends on the goal I suppose. it isn't like the military would admit to something like that.
4 edits
@metal-brain saidWe're at that point again where I don't think you read the article you posted. In paragraphs that begin with "In the year 2025..." it talks about conceptual and logistical challenges that need to be overcome for the military to use weather as a force multiplier. It does not state as fact that the military manipulates climate.
You dismissed believing it out of prejudice and incredulity.
@wildgrass saidYou are wrong again. See the part about the Vietnam war in that article. They have already tried to do it.
We're at that point again where I don't think you read the article you posted. In paragraphs that begin with "In the year 2025..." it talks about conceptual and logistical challenges that need to be overcome for the military to use weather as a force multiplier. It does not state as fact that the military manipulates climate.
The CIA admitted it. I posted a video of Brennan saying so. You are in denial again. Incredulity is not a good reason to live in denial of facts when they are right in front of your face.
3 edits
@metal-brain saidFor a conspiracy between parties to exist they have to be planning to do something illegal. The conspiracy can be open or secret. Since weather modification for military purposes was not illegal prior to 1977 it doesn't matter whether it was secret or not, it does not constitute a conspiracy because they were not planning anything illegal at the time.
You claim there is no conspiracy while acknowledging a conspiracy of silence we all know exists in the military.
Since you admit the military conspires to keep it secret when advances are made, you cannot possibly rule out a conspiracy. You have unwittingly contradicted yourself.
If the US military is conducting or funding secret research into weather modification now then that would constitute a conspiracy. A feasibility study, which seems to be that to which your link refers, does not constitute active research into weather modification. This is similar to Porton Down conducting Chemical Weapons studies to ensure that British and NATO forces can defend against States and non-State actors who violate or are not signatories to the Chemical Weapons Conventions.
1 edit
@deepthought said"For a conspiracy between parties to exist they have to be planning to do something illegal."
For a conspiracy between parties to exist they have to be planning to do something illegal. The conspiracy can be open or secret. Since weather modification for military purposes was not illegal prior to 1977 it doesn't matter whether it was secret or not, it does not constitute a conspiracy because they were not planning anything illegal at the time.
If the US milit ...[text shortened]... States and non-State actors who violate or are not signatories to the Chemical Weapons Conventions.
Nonsense. Complete rubbish!
I can conspire to slander your reputation and that is legal.
Stop making up crap!
A conspiracy of silence is not always illegal either. If you have to make up crap to support your bias you just might be prejudiced and close minded.
5 edits
@metal-brain saidIf you slandering his reputation is, as you assert above, legal, then you doing that presumably wouldn't be likely part of a conspiracy.
"For a conspiracy between parties to exist they have to be planning to do something illegal."
Nonsense. Complete rubbish!
I can conspire to slander your reputation and that is legal.
I think DeepThought's assertion there is generally correct with only some relatively trivial exceptions where what a party is planning isn't illegal but would be merely embarrassing if the word got out of it and thus they may try and hide what they are planning not to avoid the penalty of the law but merely to avoid embarrassment and/or public humiliation. But off the top of your head I cannot think of any significant examples of that and certainly no credibly possible examples of that involving the military.
@metal-brain saidSlander is a tort, that is sufficient. You would be entering into a conspiracy to commit a tort and I could pursue you in the courts. The dictionary definition (OED) is: A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. So it has to be both secret and involve malice. Nation States are known to develop weapons systems and it is usual for them to keep the details and possibly the existence of the projects secret. There are two circumstances where this could involve a conspiracy; where the weapon being developed is against international or national law, or where the secrecy of the project is being maintained by breaking accountancy rules.
"For a conspiracy between parties to exist they have to be planning to do something illegal."
Nonsense. Complete rubbish!
I can conspire to slander your reputation and that is legal.
Stop making up crap!
A conspiracy of silence is not always illegal either. If you have to make up crap to support your bias you just might be prejudiced and close minded.