Is the U.S. Using Weather Weapons to Rig Elections?

by – L. Richardson

The U.S. government is accused of violating the UN treaty on weather warfare, with mounting evidence suggesting hurricane manipulation ahead of elections. This shocking revelation has sparked a controversy as patriots nationwide demand answers about the federal government’s alleged use of weather weapons to control the political landscape. The implications of such actions are staggering, potentially posing a grave threat to the very foundations of American democracy and sovereignty.

This article delves into the heart of this explosive issue, examining the legacy of Operation Popeye and its modern-day counterparts. We’ll explore the legal and ethical ramifications of weather modification, scrutinize the evidence of election tampering through climate control, and expose the secret U.S. weather modification program that may directly violate the 1977 UN weather modification ban. As we uncover the truth behind Hurricanes Milton and Helene’s impact on recent elections, readers will be forced to confront a chilling question: Has the federal government declared war on its people through clandestine weather manipulation?

Background on the UN Treaty (ENMOD):

What is ENMOD?:

The treaty’s primary purpose is to prevent countries from using weather modification or environmental manipulation for military or political gain.

The Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, commonly known as ENMOD, came into force on October 5, 1978 [6]. Its primary purpose is to stop nations from using environmental modification techniques for hostile purposes. This treaty was born out of growing concerns that such techniques, while not a significant part of military planning at the time, could pose a severe threat if developed.

Key Articles:

Article I: Prohibition of hostile environmental modifications. Article II: Definition of environmental modification techniques (e.g., altering weather, causing earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.).

Article I of ENMOD lays out the core commitment: “Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party [7].” This clause, known as the “troika,” has been a point of contention, with efforts to clarify or remove these restrictive terms unsuccessful during negotiations and review conferences 1.

Article II defines environmental modification techniques as any method for changing the Earth’s dynamics, composition, or structure through deliberate manipulation of natural processes [8]. This includes its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, and outer space. The treaty explicitly mentions potential effects such as changes in weather patterns, ocean currents, the ozone layer, and the ecological balance of regions 1.

U.S. Signing and Historical Context:

How the U.S. signed this treaty post-Vietnam War after Operation Popeye (weather manipulation in Vietnam).

The U.S. government’s involvement in ENMOD has its roots in the controversial Operation Popeye, a classified military cloud-seeding project carried out during the Vietnam War from 1967 to 1972. This operation aimed to extend the monsoon season over specific Ho Chi Minh Trail areas, disrupting North Vietnamese military supplies 2.

In July 1972, in response to growing concerns, the U.S. Government renounced using climate modification techniques for hostile purposes [7]. This led to hearings and studies, culminating in bilateral discussions with the Soviet Union in 1974 and 1975 1.

The U.S. signed ENMOD on May 18, 1977, and the Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification on November 28, 1979, with a unanimous vote of 98-0. President Carter ratified the Convention on December 13, 1979, and it entered into force for the United States on January 17, 1980 1.

Operation Popeye – A Precedent:

Operation Popeye Overview:

How the U.S. used weather modification during the Vietnam War by seeding clouds to extend the monsoon season and create floods to disrupt enemy supply routes.

Operation Popeye, a top-secret weather modification program, was carried out by the U.S. Air Force during the Vietnam War from 1967 to 1972 [9]. This covert campaign aimed to extend the monsoon season in selected areas along infiltration routes in North Vietnam and southern Laos. The U.S. government aimed to produce sufficient rainfall to interfere with truck traffic between North and South Vietnam, effectively using the weather as a weapon. This operation, the first known instance of weather manipulation for military purposes, set a dangerous precedent that we now see potentially repeated in the context of U.S. elections.

The operation involved cloud seeding techniques, with aircraft flying more than 2,600 sorties over North and South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Using silver iodide and lead iodide, the U.S. military successfully extended the monsoon period by an average of 30 to 45 days in targeted areas 2.

The Controversy:

The mission’s secrecy, denial by the government, and ethical concerns.

The secrecy surrounding Operation Popeye sparked significant controversy. The Department of Defense conducted the project under strict confidentiality, aware that publicity would make the U.S. vulnerable to communist charges of weather manipulation. This secrecy led to ethical concerns and highlighted the crucial need for the government’s transparency, underscoring the public’s right to know about such operations.

The controversy deepened when Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird categorically denied to Congress that a program for weather modification as a tactical weapon existed. This denial came despite the operation being allegedly sponsored by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and the CIA 4 [9].

The Cost and Damage:

The consequences, both to the Vietnamese and American soldiers (e.g., trench foot, ineffective results).

While Operation Popeye was deemed “outstandingly successful” by the Department of Defense, with 82% of seeded clouds producing rain within a brief period, its overall effectiveness in achieving military objectives was questionable 3. The operation cost U.S. taxpayers approximately $3.6 million annually (equivalent to about $23 million in today’s dollars). Yet, its success was described as “certainly limited” and “unverifiable” 5.

The increased rainfall had unintended consequences. It inhibited military movement and affected civilian populations in the target areas. The psychological impact was significant, mainly when rainy season conditions occurred unexpectedly during regular dry periods 3.

The revelation of Operation Popeye in 1974 led to widespread concern about the implications of weather modification as a weapon. This ultimately resulted in the United Nations Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) in 1976, banning weather modification in warfare 5 [10].

Modern-Day Weather Warfare Allegations:

The recent devastation caused by Hurricanes Helene and Milton has sparked controversy. Some claim the U.S. government deliberately engineered these storms, a shocking allegation that has gained traction, particularly in light of the upcoming elections.

Hurricanes Helene and Milton:

The emerging evidence is that the U.S. government possibly manipulated these hurricanes ahead of the U.S. election.

As Hurricane Milton slammed into Florida, a deluge of conspiracy theories flooded social media platforms. Posts on X (formerly Twitter) amplified claims that FEMA wasn’t providing relief to specific communities because they weren’t immigrants. This false narrative became accusations that the weather was controlled and hurricanes were steered toward Republican strongholds 3.

Some posts even accused President Biden and Vice President Harris of sending Hurricane Milton to attack Trump supporters in Florida. This weather weapon conspiracy theory gained momentum after Hurricane Helene hit the critical battleground state of North Carolina 3.

State Representatives’ Shock:

North Carolina legislators were briefed on weather modification tech, realizing their state was “under assault.”

The aftermath of Hurricane Helene in North Carolina has been particularly contentious. Governor Cooper shared updates on the hurricane’s impact, highlighting the heroic work of local responders in communities like Burnsville and Black Mountain 2. However, the destruction in Chimney Rock Village led to unfounded claims that the federal government planned to seize and bulldoze especially hard-hit communities, preventing residents from rebuilding on their own property 4.

HAARP and Geoengineering:

The connection between HAARP (ionospheric heater) and accusations that the government has the power to control weather patterns further implicates it in election tampering.

Some posts referenced the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) at the University of Alaska Fairbanks as a purported weather modification technique [11]. However, HAARP is a basic science research program aimed at understanding the highest parts of the atmosphere using radio waves. It has nothing to do with weather modification and could not alter hurricanes 5.

It’s crucial to note that there’s no evidence supporting these claims. The U.S. government cannot control or manipulate hurricanes. Radio waves in the frequency range that HAARP transmits are not absorbed in either the troposphere or the stratosphere—the two levels of the atmosphere that produce Earth’s weather 1 [12]. President Biden addressed these claims, stating that controlling the weather is “beyond ridiculous” 5.

Legal and Ethical Implications:

The U.S. government’s allegations of weather manipulation raise serious legal and ethical questions. If true, these accusations could have far-reaching consequences both domestically and internationally.

Is the U.S. Violating ENMOD?:

How could these actions violate the international treaty?

If the U.S. government manipulates hurricanes, it violates the ENMOD treaty. This agreement, which the U.S. signed in 1977, explicitly forbids using environmental modification techniques for military or hostile purposes. If true, the alleged manipulation of Hurricanes Helene and Milton would constitute a clear breach of this international law. Such actions would undermine the U.S.’s credibility on the global stage and open the door to potential sanctions or legal action from other treaty signatories.

Weaponizing Weather for Political Gain:

The implications of using weather modification to influence domestic politics and elections.

Weather as a weapon to influence elections represents a grave threat to democratic processes. If the federal government is manipulating hurricanes to target specific regions or demographics, it would be an unprecedented abuse of power. This form of election interference goes beyond traditional voter suppression or misinformation campaigns. It has the potential to cause widespread destruction and loss of life, all in the name of political gain. Such actions, if proven, would likely result in a constitutional crisis and a complete loss of faith in the government’s integrity.

International Repercussions:

These actions lead to conflict with other nations or violations of global law?

The international community would likely view any confirmed use of weather weapons with extreme concern. Such actions could be seen as acts of war, potentially leading to diplomatic crises or armed conflict. Other nations might feel compelled to develop their weather modification capabilities as a deterrent, sparking a new and dangerous arms race. Moreover, weather weapons could have unintended global consequences, affecting climate patterns and ecosystems far beyond the targeted areas. This could lead to violations of other international environmental agreements and further strain diplomatic relations.

If true, the U.S. government’s alleged actions would represent a dangerous escalation in the weaponization of nature itself. As patriots, we must demand transparency and accountability from our leaders to ensure that our nation’s actions align with our values and international commitments.

Evidence of Election Tampering through Weather Control:

Election Influence Claims:

Claims that Hurricanes Helene and Milton were manipulated to prevent voters in deep-red areas from voting.

The aftermath of Hurricanes Helene and Milton has sparked a firestorm of conspiracy theories, with some claiming these storms were deliberately engineered to influence the upcoming elections. Social media platforms have been flooded with posts suggesting that the U.S. government manipulated these hurricanes to target Republican-leaning areas, potentially preventing voters from casting their ballots [13].

One particularly viral post on X (formerly Twitter) overlaid a map of hurricane-affected areas with an electoral map, purportedly showing how the storm’s devastation could impact the election 1. This post, shared by Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, racked up millions of views and fueled further speculation about weather manipulation 1.

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones amplified these claims, stating that “the federal government could have killed the storm in the Gulf of Mexico” 1. Greene and Jones pointed to cloud seeding as evidence of the government’s ability to control weather patterns 1. However, it’s crucial to note that while cloud seeding has existed since the 1940s, there’s no evidence it can control hurricanes 1.

Biden’s Denial:

President Biden’s denial of weather modification and the backlash from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.

President Biden addressed these conspiracy theories head-on, calling the idea that “we’re controlling the weather” “beyond ridiculous” 2. He urged an end to such baseless claims, emphasizing that “in moments like this, there are no red or blue states” 2.

However, Rep. Greene doubled down on her allegations, posting on X: “Yes, they can control the weather. It’s ridiculous for anyone to lie and say it can’t be done.” 3. She later shared an article from a far-right website supporting her claims 3.

These unfounded theories have had real-world consequences. Federal and state officials report misinformation hinders efforts to provide aid and accurate information to hurricane victims 1. Deanne Criswell, who leads FEMA, described these false claims as “demoralizing” to aid workers 1.

Conclusion:

The U.S. government’s allegations of weather manipulation have far-reaching implications for American democracy and global stability. If true, these actions would violate international law and undermine the foundations of free and fair elections [14]. The potential use of hurricanes as political weapons raises serious ethical concerns and profoundly impacts public trust in government institutions [14].

As we grapple with these troubling accusations, we must remain vigilant and demand transparency from our leaders [15]. The legacy of Operation Popeye and the existence of weather modification technology underscore the need for continued scrutiny. Moving forward, it’s essential to address these concerns head-on, foster open dialog, and ensure that our nation’s actions align with our values and international commitments.