Subj: From
Date: 11/7/01 5:52:40 PM Pacific Standard Time


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.’”


            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                  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