WEATHER MODIFICATION AS A WEAPON OF WAR TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1974 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The subcommittee met, at 2:15 p.m., in room 2255, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Donald M. Fraser (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. FRASER. The subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements will come to order. There is an amendment pending on the floor of the House on which there will be a vote soon, but I think we should proceed with the hearing now. The subcommittee is conducting a hearing on House Resolutions 116 and 329 and calling on the U.S. Government to seek international agreements to limit the deployment of weather modification as a weapon of war. [The resolutions follow:] [H. Res. 116, 93d Cong., 1st sess.] Whereas there is vast scientific potential for human betterment through environmental and geophysical controls; and Whereas there is great danger to the world ecological system if environmental and geophysical modification activities are not controlled or if used indiscriminately; and Whereas the development of weapons-oriented environmental and geophysical modification activities will create a threat to peace and world order; and Whereas the United States Government should seek agreement with other governments on the complete cessation of any research, experimentation, or use of any such activity as a weapon of war: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the House that the United States Government should seek the agreement of other governments to the following treaty providing for the complete cessation of any research, experimentation, and use of any environmental or geophysical modification activity as a weapon of war: "The Parties to this Treaty, "Recognizing the vast scientific potential for human betterment through environmental and geophysical controls, "Aware of the great danger to the world ecological system of uncontrolled and indiscriminate use of environmental and geophysical modification activities, "Recognizing that the development of weapons-oriented environmental and geophysical modification techniques will create a threat to peace and world order, "Proclaiming as their principal aim the achievement of an agreement on the complete cessation of research, experimentation, and use of environmental and geophysical modification activities as weapons of war, "(1) The States Parties to this Treaty undertake to prohibit and prevent, at any place, any environmental or geophysical modification activity as a weapon of war: "(2) The prohibition in paragraph 1 of this article shall also apply to any research or experimentation relating to the development of any such activity as a weapon of war; "(3) The States Parties to this Treaty undertake not to assist, encourage or induce any State to carry out activities referred to in paragraph 1 of this article and not to participate in any other way in such actions. "ARTICLE II "In this Treaty, the term 'environmental or geophysical modification activity' includes any of the following activities: "(1) any weather modification activity which has as a purpose, or has as one of its principal effects, a change in the atmospheric conditions over any part of the earth's surface, including, but not limited to, any activity designed to increase or decrease precipitation, increase or suppress hail, lightning, or fog, and direct or divert storm systems; "(2) any climate modification activity which has as a purpose, or has as one of its principal effects, a change in the long-term atmospheric conditions over any part of the earth's surface; "(3) any earthquake modification activity which has as a purpose, or has as one of its principal effects, the release of the strain energy instability within the solid rock layers beneath the earth's crust; "(4) any ocean modification activity which has as a purpose, or has as one of its principal effects, a change in the ocean currents or the creation of a seismic disturbance of the ocean (tidal wave). "ARTICLE III "Five years after the entry into force of this Treaty, a conference of Parties shall be held at Geneva, Switzerland, in order to review the operation of this Treaty with a view to assuring that the purpose of the preamble and the provisions of the Treaty are being realized. Such review shall take into account any relevant technological developments in order to determine whether the definition in Article II should be amended. "ARTICLE IV "1. Any Party may propose an amendment to this Treaty. The text of any proposed amendment shall be submitted to the Depositary Governments which shall circulate it to all Parties to this Treaty. Thereafter, if requested to do so by one-third or more of the Parties, the Depositary Governments shall convene a conference to which they shall invite all the Parties, to consider such amendment. "2. Any amendment to this Treaty shall be approved by a majority of the votes of all the Parties to this Treaty. The amendment shall enter into force for all Parties upon the deposit of instruments of ratification by a majority of all the Parties. "ARTICLE V "1. This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration. "2. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty three months in advance. "ARTICLE VI "1. This Treaty shall be open to all States for signature. Any State which does not sign this Treaty before its entry into force in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article may accede to it at any time. "2. This Treaty shall be subject to ratification by signatory States. Instruments of ratification and instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Governments of the United States of America, and which are hereby designated the Depositary Governments. "3. This Treaty shall enter into force after its ratification by the States, the Governments of which are designated Depositaries of the Treaty. "4. For States whose instruments of ratification or accession are deposited subsequent to the entry into force of this Treaty, it shall enter into force on the date of the deposit of their instruments of ratification or accession. "5. The Depositary Governments shall promptly inform all signatory and acceding States of the date of each signature, the date of deposit of each instrument of ratification of and accession to this Treaty, the date of its entry into force, and the date of receipt of any requests for conferences or other notices. "6. This Treaty shall be registered by the Depositary Governments pursuant to Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations." [H. Res. 329, 93d Cong., 1st sess.] RESOLUTION Whereas the Declaration of the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment declared that nations have the responsibility to insure that their own activities do not damage the environment of other nations; and Whereas the World Meteorological Organization has machinery to facilitate international cooperation in meteorology; and and Whereas environmental cooperation can help build a foundation for world peace; Whereas there is great danger to the world environment if weather modification activities are used for warfare: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States Government should seek agreement with other members of the United Nations on the prohibition of research, experimentation, or use of weather modification activity as a weapon of war. There are those who have argued that rainmaking is an effective weapon of war and that U.S. development of weather warfare should not be hampered. They maintain that rain is a far more humane way of stopping an enemy than is the use of bombs. On the other side some experts have expressed the view that at present rainmaking is ineffectual as a weapon and that military use of weather modification sets a precedent for further use of environmental and geophysical modification techniques which may lead to irreversible damage to the world environment. In this context, it is difficult to justify weather modification as a legitimate military activity. In these hearings we hope to explore the ramifications of this controversy with regard to whether or not there should be international agreements to limit weather and environmental modification as weapons. Today we will hear from three witnesses: Our distinguished colleague from Maryland, the Honorable Gilbert Gude; Rear Adm. Thomas D. Davies, Assistant Director for Nuclear and Advanced Weapons Technology of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency; and Dr. Edith Brown Weiss, Brookings Institution. Mr. Gude, we will begin with your testimony, with the understanding that when your testimony is completed that we would like to have you join the subcommittee for the balance of the testimony. STATEMENT OF HON. GILBERT GUDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND Mr. GUDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a distinct pleasure to appear before this subcommittee, Congressman Fraser, and testify on behalf of our resolution calling for an agreement among members of the United Nations to prohibit the use of weather modification as a weapon of war. I am pleased to state that since we introduced House Resolution 329 on March 28, 1973, we have been joined by 55 of our colleagues who share our concern for the harmful potential of this new weapon. This hearing is particularly timely in view of several recent events: First, Senate passage of a similar resolution on July 11, 1973, Senate Resolution 71; Second, the admission of former Defense Secretary Laird in a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that, despite earlier denials, our Government had indeed spent $21.6 million between 1967 and 1972 trying to create rain for parts of Southeast Asia to inhibit movement along the Ho Chi Minh Trail; Third, the agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union at the recent Moscow summit to meet later this year to discuss a weather warfare ban. I first began investigating the military use of weather modification in March of 1971. As a member of the Conservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee of the Government Operations Committee, it appeared to me that this country had precipitously blundered into a most unwise use of technology by introducing weather modification as a weapon of war in Indochina. Since that time, the weather modification technology has been constantly improving. In a 1974 publication, a National Academy of Sciences panel reported significant progress in the field and more statistically valid evidence that cloud seeding can increase precipitation under certain conditions. In addition, the panel cited an increase in our ability to understand those conditions under which cloud seeding will be most effective. Cloud seeding the basic weather modification technique-is also beginning to present an increasing number of possibilities: 1. In addition to the creation of rain or snow, scientists are discovering that overseeding can result in decreased precipitation. 2. Seeding which causes cloud expansion can produce pressure changes in the atmosphere below the clouds which can affect wind speed. 3. Seeding can also help to dissipate fog and change the size of hailstones. 4. Introduction of pollutants into the atmosphere through seeding can add to the already excessive air quality burdens of urban areas. Continued progress in this field seems inevitable. The U.S. Government is continuing its research efforts, and other nations, notably the Soviet Union, have undertaken similar efforts. The scope of the Federal weather modification research is indicated in a publication of the Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences entitled "National Atmospheric Sciences Program Fiscal Year 1974." This report shows that, in addition to the National Science Foundation, five Federal Departments have active programs-Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Interior, and Transportation. The total funding fiscal year 1974 was just under $20 million, not including classified military spending. Given this developing technological potential, it is most appropriate that the United States, the leading Nation in weather modification research, take the lead in proposing a treaty to outlaw military applications of this research. DANGERS OF WEATHER MODIFICATION-CONTROL Why should we be so alarmed about a technique that is not nearly as lethal as other forms of warfare? First, there are distinct control and command problems associated with geophysical warfare and weather modification in particular. We simply do not have effective short or long term control over the climates of the world. We can create certain disturbances, but as civilian experiments have shown, control is not precise. In a military environment, control over the results of weather experimentation is even more uncertain in respect to military targets, and there is practically no hope of preventing military efforts from spilling over into civilian life with devastating effect, particularly in developing agricultural countries. Here, wind changes, rainfall changes, or even changes in the composition of rain could seriously disrupt the livelihood of most of the country's citizens and create severe food supply problems, all far distant from the chosen military target. This is partly due to the so-called downwind effect, carrying weather changes with weather movements. But weather unpredictability-enhanced by modification efforts themselves-may make it impossible to determine where "downwind" will be at any given time. This means that the use of weather modification is inevitably indiscriminate. We cannot flood only military targets or cause drought in areas producing only military rations. The technology will be used against people regardless of their uniform or occupation and will inevitably strike civilians harder than nearby military objectives. The command problem is no less acute. Since the technology to date does not involve great expense or sophisticated equipment, it is not difficult to imagine the use of weather modification by many different military subunits. In fact, there have been reports that we have trained the South Vietnamese to use weather modification. There are no double-key safing mechanisms here, no exclusive possession as with nuclear weapons. DANGERS OF WEATHER MODIFICATION-IDENTIFICATION AND DETECTION These issues of command and control highlight another disturbing characteristic of weather modification, the difficulty of detection. Unlike other weapons, it may be possible to initiate military weather modification projects without being detected. In other words, the military results may not be visibly tied to the initiating party. This raises the possibility of the clandestine use of geophysical warfare where a country does not know if it has been attacked. The uncertainty of this situation, the fear of not knowing how another country may be altering your climate is highly destabilizing. This feeding of national paranoia-a pervading suspicion of the motives and actions of a neighboring country-could well be amplified into the laying of blame for any adverse climate conditions or weather disasters on one's neighbors. This was clearly brought home by the recent admission of the Department of Defense that it had indeed been involved in weather modification activities in Southeast Asia from 1967 to 1972, even at a time when Department witnesses were denying such involvement in their congressional testimony. 40-949-74- -2 |