From: James Daugherty (jhdaugh@a-albionic.com)
Date: Mon Aug 12 1996 - 05:44:54 MDT
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 21:04:05 -0700
From: Alex Constantine <alex@directnet.com>
>
>EM Electromagnetic Brain Devices
> Dr. Ross Adey, a neuroscientist who'd worked with the Operation
>Paperclip Nazis, is currently a brain researcher at Loma Linda University.
>His early success at inducing calcium efflux in the brain has given rise
>to the "confusion weaponry" in the military's "nonlethal" arsenal. Adey
>was among the first scientists recruited by the DoD's Project Pandora, the
>quest for a psychoactive microwave. His work, researcher Anna Keeler
>explains, is "precise in inducing specific behavior. He has correlated a
>wide variety of behavioral states with EEG including emotional states
>(e.g. stress in hostile questioning) increments of decision- making and
>conditioning, correct versus incorrect performance etc. and he has imposed
>electromagnetic fields that look like EEG which have resulted in altered
>EEG and behavior."
> THIS is the horrific reality behind the DoD's public relations
>efforts to advance "nonlethal" technology.
> In his own published accounts, Adey has shown it is possible to
>design a radio frequency carrier modulated at specific brain frequencies.
>He demonstrated that "if the biological modulation on the carrier
>frequency is close to frequencies in the natural EEG of the subject, it
>will reinforce or increase the number of ... the imposed rhythms and
>modulate behavior." "Modulate" is a roundabout way of discussing the
>remote control of a human brain.
> Electronic mind control is but one of the nightmares lurking in
>the development of a "nonlethal" aresenal. Its growth is nurtured by the
>public tax base apportioned to the Pentagon. All official attempts to sell
>the civilian sector on nonlethals, which are tested on human guinea pigs,
>is a violation of the public trust and should be challenged. Gen.
>Sheehan's remarks below are an attempt to foist EM mind control weapons
>off on an uninformed public.
>
> - Alex Constantine
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [USACOM Logo]
>
> Remarks by
>
> General John J. Sheehan, U.S.M.C.
>
> Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic
> Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Command
>
> Non-lethal Defense Conference II
> 7 March 1996
> Washington, D.C.
>
> Nonlethal Weapons - Let's Make it Happen
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>For the last few years, we have been debating the concept of nonlethal
>weapons and capabilities.
>
>The theory is that technology will bring new concepts to the battlefield
>that will make the soldier's job safer and potentially reduce the loss of
>life and property.
>
>This promise of broadening the commander's options, and thus allowing for a
>graduated response capability has long been the aim of our research and
>technology centers.
>
>Unfortunately, as is often the case, expectations far outstrip reality and
>we have to wait for a catastrophic event to really stimulate the process.
>
>Nonlethal weapons are in danger of falling into that category of tomorrow's
>weapon. They may very well always be a weapon of the future if we do not do
>something about this concept.
>
>Over the past two days, many people from diverse backgrounds and
>organizations have talked about moving nonlethal weapons from the laboratory
>into the operational arena, but are hamstrung by institutional inertia and
>bureaucratic red tape.
>
>We must change the perception that "Nonlethal is the stuff that never
>happens."
>
>This is a riot baton. It has a place in history. Once you use it, you are
>engaged for good or bad.
>
>"Why do our troops and law enforcement people just have two choices?"
>
>"Why do we continue to put our young men and women in situations where they
>must decide between using deadly force or risk possible injury and death?"
>
>Most of the post-Cold War missions our forces face today fall in the
>"other-than-war" category on the conflict spectrum.
>
>Whether it's U.S. forces in Somalia, IFOR troops in Bosnia, QRF in Panama or
>either Haiti or Guantanamo Bay Cuba, we have all faced operational
>situations where nonlethal weapons and capabilities were needed but
>unavailable.
>
>The requirement for nonlethal weapons and capability is well-known. Congress
>gave us $38 million to invest in nonlethal development, and now Dr. Kaminski
>is conducting a program review to ensure DoD gets its money's worth.
>
>I know that the Services have been bringing non-lethal concepts through
>their respective RDA activities for several years. You have heard and seen
>some of the indications of that work over the past two days.
>
>Yet our existing weapons' development, procurement, training and equipping
>policies have not kept pace with the emerging needs for non- and less-lethal
>weapons. We must move on to the next step of either creating or empowering
>the sponsors of this technology.
>
>This nation should no longer tolerate dedicated, professional troops
>equipped with the wrong tools for new, more complex missions.
>
>In the CNN era, an individual's decision to use or not use deadly force is
>no longer merely a tactical decision. The implications of the decision will
>be immediately broadcast to every capital in the world. It therefore has a
>strategic dimension.
>
>Today, the NATO and non-NATO troops in Bosnia that make up the
>Implementation Force or IFOR are in a very difficult situation. They
>obviously have sufficient power to counter any armed adversary. But what
>about the unarmed demonstrator?
>
>What are the implications for the IFOR mission if they are forced to use
>deadly force to break through a threatening demonstration or roadblock?
>
>The same holds true for a non-combatant evacuation. The ability of our
>forces to control a situation without prematurely resorting to deadly force
>could mean the difference between a permissive and a non-permissive
>situation. Non-lethal weapons provide that capability.
>
>Readiness
>
>All Geographic CINCs want the capability/flexibility that NLW weapons
>provide--- but they are still limited by the TO & E of the units provided to
>them.
>
>In Haiti, we used a tiger-team approach with the research, development, and
>acquisition (RDA) activities of a particular Service to address requirements
>for nonlethal capabilities. We were able to accomplish safety and legal
>screening, acquire the nonlethal devices, and train the troops before
>deploying them with these capabilities. When these units were about to
>complete their tour in Haiti, we wanted to leave their non-lethal capability
>in place and transfer it to the units replacing them.
>
>The mission had not changed, but the service carrying out the mission had.
>Working through the road blocks to transfer those devices across service
>boundaries was time consuming and should not have been necessary.
>
>As a supported CINC, and a force provider of most of the combat forces in
>CONUS, I want to know that the units I'm getting or sending forward have
>similar capabilities. It makes no sense to break OPTEMPO or PERSTEMPO goals
>of specific units, for example a MP company, when either a Marine company or
>Air Force Security Flight could provide the same capability with the proper
>equipment and training.
>
>That also goes for active and reserve forces. In today's active-reserve
>integrated force structure, a supported CINC shouldn't have to settle for a
>reduced capability when they get a reserve force.
>
>When one considers that National Guard forces are often the first DoD forces
>called on to respond to civil disturbance in this country, it makes no sense
>for them not to have the latest nonlethal technology as part of their
>standard equipment.
>
>The Challenge
>
>My challenge to all in this room, and the organizations you represent, is to
>respond to these new requirements.
>
>It is time for these various service programs to be pulled out of the lab
>and put into the operational arena to be tested against actual requirements
>and priorities; to be tested against realistic scenarios.
>
>The S&T laboratories need to explore the best that science and technology
>has to offer. Bring us your best ideas. Transfer your mature ideas to
>industry.
>
>Let's move beyond the close-quarters technology and explore innovative ways
>in which our troops can control situations and disable suspect vehicles,
>go-fast boats and aircraft on the ground without placing themselves in
>danger or allowing the smugglers or perpetrators to go free.
>
>Industry has a great opportunity to invest in non-lethal weapons. The
>requirements, and therefore the market, are already there.
>
>The Services have the mission and resources to develop concepts, doctrine,
>training and logistics to get non-lethal weapons out of the laboratories and
>into the hands of the troops who need them. You have been bringing these
>ideas along through the RDA systems. But The ultimate "users" of non-lethal
>weapons and capabilities---the Combatant CINCs---need to better articulate
>their "joint" requirements for these weapons.
>
>I noticed that no other Geographic CINC has clearly stated the requirement
>for less or non-lethal weapons in their Integrated Priority Lists. We need
>to revisit this requirement and focus more on capabilities rather than on
>specific platforms.
>
>USACOM is currently in discussion with OSD and JCS to develop and sponsor
>non-lethal weapons as a separate ACTD for FY97 if not sooner. Such an ACTD
>will give us the proper level of focus on the whole area of non-lethal
>weapons and concepts.
>
>The ACTD process is an appropriate vehicle to bring together the joint
>warfighter requirements and the technologies that hold the most promise.
>
>It is time to accept the challenge to meet the changing realities before us.
>Nonlethal weapons must be part of today's tool kit.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> [Home]
>
> USACOM Webmaster
>
> Revised: March 12, 1996
>
> [This U.S. government system is subject to monitoring]
/////////FREE RARE BOOK SEARCH: http://a-albionic.com/search.html \\\\\\\\
James Daugherty, volunteer Postmaster for A-albionic Research (POB 20273,
Ferndale, MI 48220), a ruling class/conspiracy research resource for the
entire political-ideological spectrum. Quarterly journal, book sales,
rare/out-of-print searches, New Paradigms Discussion List, Weekly Up-date
Lists & E-text Archive of research, intelligence, catalogs, & resources.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\*///////////////////////////////////////
**E-Mail Update/Discussion/Archive**|*******World Wide Web/Gopher/FTP*******
mailto:majordomo@mail.msen.com | http://a-albionic.com/
message: info prj | gopher://gopher.a-albionic.com:9006/
or subscribe prj | ftp://ftp.a-albionic.com/
\\\\ http://msen.com/~jhdaugh/ \\\\*//// mailto:info@a-albionic.com //////
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:42 MST