Quantcast
Welcome Guest  —  No members and 116 guests online
WELCOME TO THE SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN COMMUNITY
Please join the conversation!

Feel free to explore the site and create an account (click on "Log In" on the upper right hand side).

Uncover cool stories and news and participate in lively discussion that will force you to think.

Be inspired, launch a blog, and stake your place in the realm of the new, new media.
Sciam Observations
Beware the military-industrial complex and climate change
President Eisenhower, himself a former general, famously warned about the military-industrial complex and its potential hold on the U.S. in the late 1950s.

eisenhowerportrait.jpg

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, al Qaeda's lack of traditional forces and China's relatively peaceful rise, said complex may have found a new security threat looming in climate change late in the first decade of the 21st century.

Reports about the threat of global warming have been prepared for the Pentagon. World leaders have been warned about the imminent security risk it poses. And, most importantly, military strategies and their attendant hardware to cope with the potential threat are being developed.

The upside: the U.S. Air Force is probably the greenest in the world thanks to energy saving and renewable power efforts. The downside: the Pentagon and its contractors" will push in the direction of responses [to climate change] that will not work," David Victor, law professor at Stanford University and longtime analyst of energy and climate change issues, cautioned during the conference.

According to Victor, the military-industrial complex will focus on continuing to harden the U.S. war fighting ability, perhaps to prepare for potential invasions or to secure the border. He says a better tack would be to develop ways to adapt to a changing climate, thereby taking steps to reduce globe warming greenhouse gas emissions as opposed to preparing for an influx of environmental refugees.

"This is an industry that is in the business of generating threats," Victor warned. Climate change is a real threat but does it require a military response?
4 Comments
I am SO comforted by the thought of the proposed new mission my Air Force: out in force policing the atmosphere, collecting excess molecules of CO2 rather than preparing to kill bad people and break things! Thanks for more scientific objectivism!
By the way, when did the military-industrial complex get in the business of generating threats? Politicians are the stick carriers; the M-I complex is the stick. Politicians threaten me; the military protects me... when it can.
srchuck - politicians are part of the military-industrial complex. Politicians are not independent of all that - it's not so simple (sticks and stick carriers) (think about lobbyists). And why would the Air Force be put in charge of mitigating climate change?
I appreciate your blog. I appreciate it that you raised the important advice of the former President and former General who certainly had an advantageous perspective from which to make observations.

I'm not an expert in the area of science who would be very capable of determining the precise reasons for climate change. I've read opposing views from seemingly reputable scientists.
However, I am more familiar with some of the work reportedly being done by the US military.

It has long been rumored that the US has been developing ways to impact climate for strategic purposes. I am not suggesting that the current climate change is the result of one technology or capability. Nevertheless, it has been a goal of many black projects. There is reason to believe that there has been some success in controlling climate to a significant degree.

Dr.Nick Begich, son of former Alaskan Senator Begich, references the HAARP project as one project that does impact climate.

Further, the total impact of directed energy operations taking place on land, sea, and in the atmosphere on a long term continuous basis has a cumulative impact on our world. All of these directed energy technologies and weapons do generate heat. Their use is far more extensive than many people know.

The US military has selected directed energy weapons as the cornerstone of the US military for the 21st century. These include but are not limited to microwave and millimetre weapons, lasers, plasma weapons, and acoustiic weapons. With these,
the whole of human functions can be impacted, as well as controlled.

It is not unthinkable that the weaponization of weather can become a reality in our lifetime. This is the intersecting point where I see the military-industrial complex meeting global climate change. My belief is that it will be accomplished through the use of directed energy technologies, at least in significant part.

Lastly, I agree with you that the M-I would promote their agenda
regardless of impact upon the environment. They are tunnel vision thinkers with a highly focused special interest. Anything outside of the realm of their purposes falls under the domain of
"collateral damage" which is an acceptable consequence of their
activities. That will never change. That is the only way to approach a purpose such as "war."

However, in the US, we have three branches of government which by design are to balance out conflicts in goals and reach a decision that reflects the best outcome possible. At least, that is the theory. It was recently stated that "war is not a reason for the extension of Executive powers unless Congress is silent."
(speaker unknown).
The answer to conflicts between the M-I and global dangers are through congressional investigation, legislation. and funding decisions.

Thank you for raising this subject.

--
Edited by Ms Beth at 03/28/2008 6:49 PM
By the way, they're gaming now too:

U.S. experts will stage climate war game
 

ADVERTISEMENT