Most viewed
August 10, 2003238 viewsUFO 'Balls of Light' making Cropcircles in a Second: www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M6vP8-SbU0&feature=related
Mars - the Igigi238 viewsHubble's sharpest view of planet Mars, March 10, 1997. The Martian Melting North Pole is at the top!
is Nibiru or Planet X, the 10th Planet now causing Solar System Global Warming?

Phoenix Lights - Triangles238 viewsGiant Tr-3b Astra nuclear powered platform: See www.rense.com/general5/trb.htm

CNN UFO News: What were those lights in the Phoenix sky in 1997? See: www.edition.cnn.com/US/9706/19/ufo.lights/
Quebec, 1972 - Canada238 views
Chemtrails Zeist 4 maart 2005 omstreeks 16.40u238 viewshttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+RE..

en - English

REPORT 163k 104k

14 January 1999 PE 227.710/fin. A4-0005/99

on the environment, security and foreign policy
Draftsman: Mr Olsson, Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection
(Hughes procedure)
Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy
Rapporteur: Mrs Maj Britt Theorin

At the sitting of 13 July 1995, the President of Parliament announced that he had referred the motion for a resolution tabled pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Procedure by Mrs Rehn Rouva on the potential use of military-related resources for environmental strategies, (B4-0551/95), to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy as the committee responsible and to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection for its opinion.
Annex 1

At the sitting of 13 July 1995, the President of Parliament announced that he had referred the motion for a resolution tabled pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Procedure by Mrs Rehn Rouva on the potential use of military-related resources for environmental strategies, (B4-0551/95), to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy as the committee responsible and to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection for its opinion.

At the request of the Conference of Committee Chairmen, the President, at the sitting of 15 November 1996, announced that the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy had been authorised to submit a report on the matter.

At its meeting of 19 November 1996 the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy appointed Mrs Maj Britt Theorin rapporteur.

At the sitting of 19 June 1998 the President of Parliament announced that this report would be drawn up, pursuant to the Hughes Procedure, by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection.

The draft report was considered by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy at its meetings of 5 February, 29 June, 21 July, 3, 23 and 28 September, 13, 27 and 29 October 1998 and 4 and 5 January 1999, and by the Subcommittee on Security and Disarmament at its meetings of 5 February and 3 and 23 September 1998.

At the last meeting the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy adopted the motion for a resolution by 28 votes to none with one abstention.

The following took part in the vote: Spencer, chairman; Theorin, rapporteur; Aelvoet, Andr?L?onard, Bar?n-Crespo, Bertens, Bianco, Burenstam Linder, Carnero Gonz?lez, Carrozzo (for Colajanni), Dillen, Dupuis, Gahrton, Goerens (for Cars), Graziani, G?nther (for Gomolka), Lalumi?re, Lambrias, Pack (for Habsburg), Pettinari (for Imbeni pursuant to Rule 138(2), Piha, Rinsche, Sakellariou, Salafranca S?nchez-Neyra, Schroedter (for M. Cohn-Bendit), Schwaiger (for Mme Lenz), Speciale, Swoboda (for Mme Hoff), Tindemans, Titley and Truscott.

The opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection is attached.

The report was tabled on 14 January 1999.

The deadline for tabling amendments will be indicated in the draft agenda for the relevant partsession.


Resolution on the environment, security and foreign policy

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the motion for a resolution tabled by Mrs Rehn Rouva on the potential use of military-related resources for environmental strategies (B4-0551/95).

- having regard to the UN study 'Charting potential uses of resources allocated to military activities for civilian endeavours to protect the environment', UN (A46/364, 17 September 1991),

- having regard to its resolution of 17 July 1995 on anti-personnel landmines; a murderous impediment to development (A4-0149/95),

- having regard to its previous resolutions on non-proliferation and the testing of nuclear weapons and the Canberra Commission report of August 1996 on the abolition of nuclear weapons,

- having regard to the International Court's unanimous ruling on the obligation of the nuclear weapon states to negotiate for a ban on nuclear weapons (Advisory Opinion No. 96/22 of 8 July 1996),

- having regard to its resolution of 19 April 1996 on the proposal for a Council Decision establishing a Community action programme in the field of civil protection (A4-0100/96),

- having regard to its past resolutions on chemical weapons,

- having regard to the outcome of the UN Conferences in Kyoto in 1997 and Rio de Janeiro in 1992,

- having regard to the hearing on HAARP and Non-lethal Weapons held by the Foreign Affairs Subcommitee on Security and Disarmament in Brussels on 5 February 1998,

- having regard to Rule 148,

- having regard to the report of Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection (A4-0005/99),

A. whereas the end of the Cold War has radically changed the security situation in the world and that the relaxation of military tension has resulted in comprehensive disarmament in the military field in general and in nuclear weapons in particular, releasing substantial military resources,

B. whereas, despite this complete transformation of the geostrategic situation since the end of the Cold War, the risk of catastrophic damage to the integrity and sustainability of the global environment, notably its bio-diversity, has not significantly diminished, whether from the accidental or unauthorised firing of nuclear weapons or the authorised use of nuclear weapons based on a perceived but unfounded threat of impending attack,

C. whereas this risk could be very considerably reduced within a very short timeframe by the rapid implementation by all nuclear weapons states of the six steps contained in the Canberra Commission"s report concerning, in particular the removal of all nuclear weapons from the present "hair trigger alert? readiness and the progressive transfer of all weapons into strategic reserve,

D. whereas Article VI of the 1968 Treaty on the Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) commits all of its parties to undertake "to pursue negotiations in good faith on a treaty on general and complete disarmament? and the Principles and Objectives adopted at the 1995 NPT Conference reaffirmed that the Treaty"s ultimate goal was the complete elimination of nuclear weapons,

E. whereas threats to the environment, the flow of refugees, ethnic tension, terrorism and international crime are new and serious threats to security and that the ability to deal with various forms of conflict is increasing in importance as the security scene changes; whereas as some of the threats to security are non-military it is important that resources allocated to military activities are also used for non-military purposes,

F. whereas the world's resources are being exploited as if they were inexhaustible, which has led to increasingly frequent natural and environmental disasters; whereas such local and regional ecological problems may have considerable impact on international relations; regretting that this has not been more clearly reflected in national foreign, security and defence policies,

G. whereas conflicts throughout the world are predominantly at an intra-state rather than interstate level and, where inter-state conflicts do arise, they are increasingly concerned with access to or the availability of basic vital resources, especially water, food and fuel,

H. whereas the access to and availability of such vital natural resources are inherently connected to environmental degradation and pollution, by both cause and effect, whereas it follows logically therefore that conflict prevention must increasingly focus on these issues,

I. whereas the pressure on land, both fertile and habitable, historically a major cause of tension and conflict, is increasingly caused by environmental degradation, notably climate change and the consequent rise in sea levels,

J. whereas all those factors, which affect the poorest and most vulnerable populations of the world most of all, are constantly increasing the incidence of so-called 'environmental refugees', resulting both in direct pressure on EU immigration and justice policies, on development assistance and spending on humanitarian aid and, indirectly, in increased security problems for the EU in the form of regional instability in other parts of the world,

K. whereas, according to detailed international research collated and published by the Climate Institute in Washington, the number of 'environmental refugees' now exceeds the number of 'traditional refugees' (25 m compared with 22 m) and whereas this figure is expected to double by 2010 and could well rise by substantially more on a worst-case basis,

L. whereas the issue of 'environmental refugees' is merely a symptom of a humanitarian disaster on a much more massive scale in terms of the 1.3 billion people who live in absolute poverty according to the UN definition; whereas over one quarter of these people try to subsist in areas of the world that are extremely vulnerable environmentally and are the main contributors to global environmental problems such as deforestation and desertification,

M. whereas, since the end of the Cold War, although the management of global issues has been largely stripped of the previously dominant ideological context and is now much less determined by the question of military balance, this has yet to be reflected in the UN"s system of global governance by emphasising the coherence and effectiveness of both military and non-military components of security policy,

N. whereas, nonetheless, the emphasis of a growing proportion of the UN"s work on global political and security issues is essentially non-military, and notably related to the relationship between trade, aid, the environment and sustainable development,

O. whereas there is an urgent need to mobilise adequate resources to meet the environmental challenge and whereas very limited resources are available for environmental protection, for which reason a reappraisal of the use of existing resources is called for,

P. whereas as military resources have been released the armed forces have had a unique opportunity and ample capacity to support the civilian efforts to cope with the increasing environmental problems,

Q. whereas military-related resources are by their nature national assets while the environmental challenge is global; whereas ways must therefore be found for international cooperation in the transfer and use of military resources for environmental protection,

R. whereas the short-term costs of environmental protection have to be seen in the light of the long-term cost of doing nothing in this field, and whereas there is an increasing need for a cost benefit analysis of various environmental strategies which should cover possible transfers, reorientation and redeployment of military-related resources,

S. whereas the common goal of restoring the world's damaged ecosystems cannot be achieved in isolation from the question of the fair exploitation of global resources and whereas there is a need to facilitate international technical cooperation and encourage the transfer of appropriate military-related technology,

T. whereas, despite the existing conventions, military research is ongoing on environmental manipulation as a weapon, as demonstrated for example by the Alaska-based HAARP system,

U. whereas the experience of the development and use of nuclear power 'for peaceful purposes" serves as a salutory warning as to how military secrecy can prevent proper assessment and supervision of mixed civilian/military technologies if transparency is in any way compromised,

V. whereas the general disquiet over ecological decline and environmental crises requires the setting of priorities in the national decision-making process and that the individual countries must pool their efforts in response to environmental disasters,

1. Calls on the Commission to present to the Council and the Parliament a common strategy, as foreseen by the Amsterdam Treaty, which brings together the CFSP aspects of EU policy with its trade, aid, development and international environmental policies between 2000 and 2010 so as to tackle the following individual issues and the relationships between them:

(a) Agricultural and food production and environmental degradation;

(b) Water shortages and transfrontier water supply;

(c) Deforestation and restoring carbon sinks;

(d) Unemployment, underemployment and absolute poverty;(e) Sustainable development and climate change;

(f) Deforestation, desertification and population growth;

(g) The link between all of the above and global warming and the humanitarian and environmental impact of increasingly extreme weather events;

2. Notes that preventive environmental measures are an important instrument of security policy; calls, therefore, on the Member States to define environmental and health objectives as part of their long-term defence and security assessments, military research and action plans;

3. Recognises the important part played by the armed forces in a democratic society, their national defence role and the fact that peace-keeping and peace-making initiatives can make a substantial contribution to the prevention of environmental damage;

4. Considers that atmospheric and underground nuclear tests have as a result of nuclear radiation fall-out distributed large quantities of radioactive cesium 137, strontium 90 and other cancer inducing isotopes over the whole planet and have caused considerable environmental and health damage in the test areas;

5. Considers that several parts of the world are threatened by the uncontrolled, unsafe and unprofessional storage and dumping of nuclear submarines and surface-vessels, as well as their radioactive fuel and leaking nuclear reactors, considering the high possibility that as a result large regions might soon start to be polluted by the radiation;

6. Considers that still an appropriate solution has to be found to deal with the chemical and conventional weapons which have been dumped after both World Wars in many places in the seas around Europe as an 'easy" solution to get rid of these stocks and that up to today nobody knows what might be the ecological results in the long run, in particular for the fish and for beach-life;

7. Considers that the European Union will have to contribute to find a solution for the problem that, as result of ongoing warfare in whole regions of Africa, human and agricultural structures have been ruined and therefore the lands are now subject to environmental disaster in particular by deforestation and erosion leading to desertification;

8. Calls on the military to end all activities which contribute to damaging the environment and health and to undertake all steps necessary to clean up and decontaminate the polluted areas;

Use of military resources for environmental purposes

9. Considers that the resources available to reverse or stem damage to the environment are inadequate to meet the global challenge; recommends therefore that the Member States seek to utilize military-related resources for environmental protection by:

(a) introducing training for environmental defence troops with a view to establishing a coordinated European environmental protection brigade;

(b) listing their environmental needs and the military resources available for environmental purposes and using those resources in their national environmental planning;

(c) considering which of its military resources it can make available to the United Nations or the European Union on a temporary, long-term or stand-by basis as an instrument for international cooperation in environmental disasters or crises;

(d) drawing up plans for creating national and European protection teams using military personnel, equipment and facilities made available under the Partnership for Peace for use in environmental emergencies;

(e) incorporating objectives for environmental protection and sustainable development in its concepts of security;

(f) ensuring that its armed forces comply with specific environmental rules and that damage caused by them to the environment in the past is made good;

(g) including environmental considerations in its military research and development programmes;

10. Urges the governments of the Member States, since practical experience in the field is limited, to:

(a) establish centres for the exchange of information on current national experience in environmental applications for military resources;

(b) facilitating the global dissemination of environmental data including such data obtained by the use of military satellites and other information-gathering platforms;

11. Calls on the Member States to apply civil environmental legislation to all military activities and for the military defence sector to assume responsibility for, and pay for the investigation, clean-up and decontamination of areas damaged by past military activity, so that such areas can be returned to civil use, this is especially important for the extensive chemical and conventional munition dumps along the coastlines of the EU;

12. Calls on all Member States to formulate environmental and health objectives and action plans so as to enhance the measures taken by their armed forces to protect the environment and health;

13. Calls on the governments of the Member States progressively to improve the protection of the environment by the armed forces by means of training and technical development and by giving all regular and conscript personnel basic training in environmental matters;

14. Calls on the European Union to unite around a new environmental strategy using military resources for the joint protection of the environment;

15. Considers that environmental strategies should be able to include monitoring the world environment, assessing the data thus collected, coordinating scientific work and disseminating information, exploiting relevant data from national observation and monitoring systems to give a continuous and comprehensive picture of the state of the environment;

16. Notes that the drastic fall in military expenditure could result in substantial problems in certain regions and calls on the Member States to step up their efforts to convert military production facilities and technologies to produce civil goods, and for civil applications, using national programmes and Community initiatives such as the KONVER programme;

17. Stresses the importance of stepping up preventive environmental work with a view to combating environmental and natural disasters;

18. Calls on the Commission to conduct a detailed study of security-related threats to the environment in Europe and to draw up a Green Paper on military activities affecting the environment;

19. Calls on the Council to do more to ensure that the USA, Russia, India and China sign the 1997 Ottawa Treaty, banning anti-personnel mines, without delay;

20. Believes that the EU should do more to help the victims of landmines and to support the development of mine clearance techniques, and that the development of mine clearance methods should be accelerated;

21. Believes that the secrecy of military research must be resisted and the right to openness and democratic scrutiny of military research projects be encouraged;

22. Calls on the Member States to develop environmentally-sound technology for the destruction of weapons;

23. Notes that one of the potentially most serious threats that exist on the EU's doorstep lies in the inadequate monitoring of waste from nuclear arms processing and of biological and chemical weapons stores and in the need for decontamination following military activity; stresses that it is important that the Member States actively promote increased international cooperation, for instance within the UN and the Partnership for Peace, with the aim of destroying such weapons in as environment-friendly way as possible;

24. Takes the view that all further negotiations on the reduction and the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons must be based on the principles of mutual and balanced reductions commitments;

25. Takes the view that, given the particularly difficult circumstances afflicting the countries of the former Soviet Union, the threat to the global as well as local environment posed by the degradation of the condition of nuclear weapons and materials still held in those countries makes it an even more urgent priority to reach agreement on the further progressive elimination of nuclear weapons;

Legal aspects of military activities

26. Calls on the European Union to seek to have the new 'non-lethal' weapons technology and the development of new arms strategies also covered and regulated by international conventions;

27. Considers HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project) by virtue of its farreaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body before any further research and testing; regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration to send anyone in person to give evidence to the public hearing or any subsequent meeting held by its competent committee into the environmental and public risks connected with the high Frequency Active Auroral Research Project (HAARP) programme currently being funded in Alaska;

28. Requests the Scientific and Technological Options Assessment (STOA) Panel to agree to examine the scientific and technical evidence provided in all existing research findings on HAARP to assess the exact nature and degree of risk that HAARP poses both to the local and global environment and to public health generally;

29. Calls on the Commission, in collaboration with the governments of Sweden, Finland, Norway and the Russian Federation, to examine the environmental and public health implications of the HAARP programme for Arctic Europe and to report back to Parliament with its findings;

30. Calls in particular for an international convention for a global ban on all research and development, whether military or civilian, which seeks to apply knowledge of the chemical, electrical, sound vibration or other functioning of the human brain to the development of weapons which might enable any form of manipulation of human beings, including a ban on any actual or possible deployment of such systems;

31. Calls on the European Union and its Member States to work for the establishment of international treaties to protect the environment from unnecessary destruction in the event of war;

32. Calls on the European Union and its Member States to work towards the establishment of international standards for the environmental impact of peacetime military activities;

33. Calls on the Council to play an active part in the implementation of the proposals of the Canberra Commission and Article 6 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on nuclear disarmament;

34. Calls on the Council, and the British and French governments in particular, to take the lead within the framework of the NPT and the Conference on Disarmament with regard to the further negotiations towards full implementation of the commitments on nuclear weapons reductions and elimination as rapidly as possible to a level where, in the interim, the global stock of remaining weapons poses no threat to the integrity and sustainability of the global environment;

35. Calls on the Presidency of the Council, the Commission and the governments of the Member States to advocate the approach taken in this resolution in all further United Nations meetings held under the auspices of or in relation to the NPT and the Conference on Disarmament;

36. Calls on the Presidency of the Council and the Commission, in accordance with Article J.7 of the Treaty on European Union, to report to it on the Union"s position concerning the specific points contained in this Resolution within the context of forthcoming meetings of the United Nations, its agencies and bodies, notably the 1999 Preparatory Committee of the NPT, the Conference on Disarmament and all other relevant international fora;

37. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Member States of the European Union and to the United Nations.


A defence against environmental threats

The security scenario has undergone considerable change in a relatively short period of time. It is less than 10 years since the Iron Curtain divided a nuclear Europe in half. Europe is now uniting as the European Union enlarges to include former Warsaw Pact countries. The Cold War has ended and a major war in Europe would now seem impossible. At the same time new threats are emerging. Massive displacement of refugees, ethnic conflicts, terrorism and international crime are just some examples of current threats to security. Another serious threat is posed by natural disasters and environmental problems caused by nature itself and the human race's methods of exploiting the earth's resources.

A number of environmental catastrophes have brought the human race new problems, the latest of these being the dam disaster in Spain. The landslides in Italy, the devastation wrought by El Ni?o and the Chernobyl nuclear accident are other contemporary examples of the devastating consequences of natural and environmental disasters. In certain parts of the world, drought can wipe out several years' harvests bringing starvation, and in many cases death, to much of the population. Mankind's defences against these disasters look very fragile at the present time.

Environmental and natural disasters have tragic consequences for individuals and may have catastrophic repercussions for societies and entire nations. The cost of this type of disaster is huge both in terms of the lives they claim and the cost of repairing the material damage. When such disasters occur, it is obvious that there have not been sufficient resources to detect and/prevent them. The efforts that are made are often far too late. Preventive work must therefore be strengthened. The investment required for this is enormous but the available resources are very limited. A new approach is required to exploit the available resources, while new resources are developed at the same time. It is obvious that a nation alone cannot protect itself against environmental disasters; environmental problems call for international cooperation. The threatening scenarios are global and international cooperation is fundamental.

Local and regional ecological problems can have considerable implications for international relations. Radioactive fallout, floods and drought are not held in check by national frontiers. Environmental refugees cross national boundaries to equally poor or even poorer nations. These new causes of instability and insecurity must be reflected in the content and form of how nations create and maintain peace and security. Since environmental and ecological problems constitute serious threats to peace and security, this fact must also be reflected in foreign, defence and security policy. There is a need to analyse how military resources can be used against this growing threat to security and to eliminate these new sources of instability and unrest. There is an urgent need to mobilise resources to meet the environmental challenge.

The change in the security situation has resulted in military d?tente, disarmament and confidencebuilding measures between the former enemies, the USA and Russia. This has led to intensive scaling down of military forces, units have been disbanded and military equipment has, therefore, become superfluous. Russia and the USA, above all, have radically reduced their armed forces though military expenditure has also fallen in Europe(1).

The freeing-up of military resources has given the armed forces a unique opportunity and plenty of capacity to deal with the increasing number of environmental problems. The armed forces have a highly efficient organisation and extensive technical resources which can be used for environment enhancement at no great cost by redeploying or rechannelling resources. The European Union can unite around a new environmental strategy in which military resources are used for joint protection of the environment. The European Union can play an important role in furthering a joint global assumption of responsibility for the environment and at the same time promote peace and confidencebuilding measures.

The Member States of the European Union have both the technical and economic wherewithal to take wide-ranging responsibility for the environment. They are also aware of the implications of ignoring the environmental challenge. The destruction of the environment affects the underlying conditions determining growth and economic development but despite that, military expenditure worldwide is three to five times greater than spending on the environment.(2)

The armed forces themselves caused enormous damage to the environment and should, therefore, also take considerably more responsibility for the environment.

Modern security threats

There is a growing international awareness of the extent of environmental problems. This is illustrated in particular by the UN follow-up conferences on water (Mar del Plata), desertification (Nairobi), the environment and development (Rio de Janeiro) and climate change (Kyoto). Environmental problems can lead to such serious difficulties that they endanger the security of both individuals and countries. Environmental problems may also have repercussions in terms of a country's international relations. Air and water know no national boundaries. Specific examples of potential or already-existing environmental threats are:

Limited water resources

As the world's population increases, so does demand for clean water. Fresh water is a very unevenly distributed natural resource, fewer than 10 countries possess 60% of the total fresh water resources on earth(3) and several countries in Europe are dependent on imports of water. In future conflicts, attacks on sources of fresh water may not only be an objective per se but may also be the cause of conflict. Conflicts over water rights may result in increased international tension and local and/or international conflicts. For example, disputes over the river Indus could trigger an armed conflict in the tense relations between India and Pakistan. There is a long list of potential conflicts over fresh water. An estimated 300 rivers, lakes and sources of ground water are located in international border areas.(4) In the Middle East, nine of 14 countries have a shortage of water resources and there is a great risk that the others will also be affected.(5) In 1995, a fifth of the earth's population had no access to clean water and it is estimated that the figure will rise to two thirds by the year 2025.(6)

Climate change

Through an increase in carbon dioxide(7) and other emissions, the average temperature on earth has risen by five degrees this century. The heat has also become more intense. Research has found that humidity has risen by 10% over the last 20 years. The increase in humidity can cause stronger and more frequent storms in certain regions at the same time as others are stricken by drought. Up to two decades of intensive research into global climate change may be needed before more detailed decisions can be taken as to which measures should be adopted.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international organisation comprising 2000 of the world's most eminent researchers, predicts that the earth's temperature will rise by 1.5 - 4.5 degrees and that sea level will have risen by 50 cm by the year 2100 if carbon dioxide emissions continue at present levels. It is estimated that up to 1/3 of the world's population and over 1/3 of its infrastructure are located in coastal areas. A rise in sea level would submerge large areas of land and several million people would be affected by famine owing to the loss of extensive areas of agriculture.

These and other environmental threats may give rise to an exodus of refugees. Environmental refugees are increasingly attracting international attention. An estimated 25 million people are refugees from drought, soil erosion, and other environmental problems, which may be compared with approximately 22 million 'traditional' refugees. Experts claim that environmental refugees may cause 'one of the worst humanitarian crises of our time'.(8)

They suffer from social, political and economic problems that may result in conflicts and violence. Environmental refugees must be given official recognition. There is a need for greater international cooperation to curtail these problems and more aid to the countries affected and their inhabitants.

Military impact on the environment in war and peace

Military activity is responsible for widespread environmental destruction in society. Military activities have a wide-ranging negative impact on the environment, in peace and in war, both intentionally and as an unintentional consequence. Destroying the environment has been an established method of waging war since ancient times. War is also far and away the most serious threat to the environment. A topical example is the devastating consequences of the Gulf War with hundreds of oil wells on fire and large quantities of toxic substances rising uncontrolled into the atmosphere. It will take a long time for the environment to recover. Some damage may be irreparable.

The military are developing ever more powerful weapons which inflict widespread and devastating damage on the environment. A modern war entails greater environmental destruction than any other environment-destructive activity. Below is a description of some weapons systems which also have seriously damaging effects on the environment in peace time.


Mines are enormously damaging to the environment. According to the UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), landmines are one of the most widespread items of material war debris and may affect the ecological balance. Mine-laying destroys large areas, often agricultural, which are rendered unusable far into the future. Mines are the greatest obstacle to development in many of the poorest regions of the world. 80-110 million mines are deployed in 65 countries throughout the world. They can detonate several decades after being laid and the majority of those who fall victim to them are civilians, above all children. Mine clearance is a very dangerous, time-consuming and costly process. The development of new mine-clearance methods is progressing far too slowly and must be stepped up.

One positive achievement is that the 1997 Oslo Conference agreed that all antipersonnel mines should be banned without exception, that stocks of mines should be destroyed within four years and that countries affected by mines should be given more aid. A large number of countries signed the 1997 Ottawa Convention but several countries, including the USA, Russia, India and China have not done so. The European Union must work to persuade these countries to become parties to the agreement immediately. The EU should do more to assist the victims of mines and to support the development of mine-clearance techniques.

'Non-lethal' weapons(9)

So-called 'non-lethal' weapons are not a new type of weapon but have existed for many years in such forms as water cannons, rubber bullets and tear gas. However, at the present time, more and more advanced weapon techniques have been developed which are labelled non-lethal despite the fact that they can cause extensive damage and even result in invalidity or death.

Both material and antipersonnel technologies have been developed. One example is acoustic weapons which are capable of confusing and disorientating and thereby neutralising an enemy by producing a low level of sound, known as infra-sound. Other examples are adhesive foam and blinding lasers. Chemicals which discolour water can affect both agriculture and the population. With the aid of electromagnetic beams it is possible to knock out the enemy's computer, navigation and communication systems. Non-lethal weapons can also be used against a country's infrastructure and authorities, bring the railway system to a standstill or cause chaos in a country's financial world. What these weapons have in common is that they are intended to delay, obstruct and overcome a potential enemy at 'strategic level'.(10)

The fact that these different types of weapon are all categorised as non-lethal is seriously misleading and deluding. The term 'non-lethal' is intended to portray these weapons as more humane than conventional weapons - but there are no humane weapons. The use of any type of weapon involves a risk of injury or death, which is of course the purpose of weapons. 'Non-lethal' weapons tend to be used at an early stage of a conflict and may actually serve as a catalyst for the conflict. The use of violence by soldiers and police may increase because the weapons appear to be less dangerous. The inherent risk is that these weapons reduce the threshold for the use of violence to settle conflicts.

The aim is to neutralise the enemy without sustained suffering and without fatalities. But how and against whom 'non-lethal' weapons are used is an important consideration in terms of the implications of these weapons. A weapon that can render a soldier harmless, may injure or even kill a child or an elderly person. The distance from which they are fired and in what quantity are other factors with a bearing on the effects of the weapon. By way of comparison, conventional weapons result in 'only' 25% mortality.(11)

Non-lethal weapons are used as an effective aid in modern warfare, either independently or in conjunction with conventional weapons. For example, the USA used radiofrequent weapons in the Gulf War to knock out Iraq's energy system(12), despite not knowing the antipersonnel effects of RF weapons. Non-lethal weapons should, therefore, not be regarded as separate from a lethal system but rather as a component thereof. The development of non-lethal weapons increases both their options. The result is therefore greater use of force rather than the opposite. 'Non-lethal' weapons do not result in non-lethal conflicts.

As a wider range of non-lethal weapons are developed, the military, police and politicians become more and more interested in testing how they work. Non-lethal weapons must not be used as an instrument of political interference and dominance of the northern over the southern countries.

There is no effective legislation governing non-lethal weapons. Only a small number of non-lethal weapons and techniques can be banned through the interpretation of various arms control regulations, e.g. adhesive foam (which was used in Somalia and Bosnia). Certain types of laser (which blind people) have also been restricted in the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. Biological toxins (e.g. salmonella and other bacteria) are banned by the Biological Weapons Convention. Several of these weapons may have serious environmental implications. International law must therefore be strengthened to regulate the new weapons which are under constant development.

The International Red Cross Committee's Cyrus project could be used in the absence of other reliable international standards for non-lethal weapons. The Cyrus project has classified and established criteria for conventional weapons in relation to mortality, invalidity, necessary treatment, blood supply, etc. The European Union should pursue a policy to extend international conventions to cover new weapons technologies and the development of new arms strategies.

Chemical weapons

The United Nations' commitment to destroying chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has resulted in serious concern about the environmental impact of military activities and has strengthened the need to seek out ecologically sound methods of disarming weapons. The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) entered into force in April 1997. Under the terms of Article 1, the states which have ratified the Convention undertake never and under no circumstances to develop, produce or export chemical weapons. They also undertake never to use chemical weapons and to destroy already existing chemical weapons. Under Article 3, states shall, no later than 30 days after the Convention enters into force, notify whether they possess chemical weapons and their location and submit a plan for destruction of those weapons. Destruction should begin with the oldest stocks. 165 states have signed the Convention and 110 have ratified it. 26 states have not signed the CWC, including some important countries in the Middle East.

The destruction of chemical weapons is a cause for serious concern over the environment - they include tens of thousands of tonnes of mustard gas, nerve gas and other chemical substances. Chemical weapons can be destroyed by incineration but very few countries have suitable facilities to do this. To disarm chemical weapons is expensive, three to ten times more expensive than to produce them. If Russia, which has very large stocks, is to be able to do so, it needs financial aid from other countries. In Kambarka, a town in Russia, there are 6000 tonnes of chemical weapons stored in wooden sheds 2 km from a densely populated area. Handling the considerable quantities of hazardous substances calls for a substantial input of resources and they will take a considerable number of years to destroy. There is a clear risk of accidents and of weapons falling into the wrong hands.

It has been confirmed that approximately 150 000 tonnes of bombs, artillery shells and mines filled with chemical weapons, chiefly mustard gas, phosgene, tabun and arsenic-based weapons were dumped in the Skaggerak at the end of the Second World War. The corresponding figure for the Baltic is 40 000 tonnes. Many of the containers have rusted through and the chemical weapons are in direct contact with the sea water. It has nevertheless been decided that they should remain on the seabed for the time being as the risk of extensive leakage during salvage is considered to be appreciably greater.

Nuclear weapons

The environmental impact of a nuclear war would be enormous. It is likely that the combined effects of radioactive fall-out over large areas, the depletion of the ozone layer through nitrogen oxides, from nuclear explosions and climate change caused by widespread and sustained fires would cause largescale environmental disasters over large areas of the globe.

Test explosions also have manifestly destructive effects on the environment. The total quantity of radioactive fall-out emitted into the atmosphere by atmospheric tests is estimated to be between 100 and 1000 times greater than that discharged by the Chernobyl disaster.(13) The 1963 partial test ban treaty between the USA, the USSR and the UK bans nuclear testing in the atmosphere, outer space and under water, i.e. in all environments except under ground.

France has carried out more than 180 nuclear test explosions at the Mururoa atoll in the Pacific Ocean since 1966 with significant impact on the environment.(14) Several kilos of hazardous plutonium have been recovered from the sediment at the bottom of the lagoons at the Mururoa and Fangataufa atolls. Plutonium particles have also been spread across the land on three islands in the vicinity of Mururoa.(15) India and Pakistan have also recently carried out test explosions.(16) Their technical development is not considered to be sufficiently controlled, which means that these nuclear tests may have an impact on the environment far beyond the region itself. An independent international investigation into the environmental impact at the test locations and their surroundings should be carried out immediately.

Plutonium is the absolutely most hazardous substance known to man. Many countries possess large quantities of military plutonium and nuclear weapons can be produced relatively simply from 'civilian' plutonium. Facilities which at present have a civilian function can be converted within a short space of time to produce weapons. When plutonium is manufactured, a large quantity of highly radioactive liquid waste is produced. The handling of nuclear waste causes immense problems. The large-scale production of weapons of mass destruction which has taken place during recent decades has produced large quantities of waste. There is no known serviceable method of storing radioactive waste. It is usually stored in tanks, but large quantities have been discharged directly into the environment. This radioactive waste is extremely flammable and may explode if it is not ventilated or cooled. In 1957 an accident occurred at the Chelyabinsk-65 nuclear plant close by the town of Kystym in the Ural mountains, a radioactive tank exploded and radioactive waste dispersed over an area of 1000 square kilometres. 10 000 people had to be evacuated. At Lake Karachai near Chelyabinsk-65, it is still possible, merely by standing at the edge of the lake, to absorb so much radioactive radiation as to die on the spot.(17) In the Baltic states there are large areas which are polluted by previous Soviet military activities. In Estonia, Lake Sillanm?, also known as the 'atomic lake', contains radioactive military waste equivalent to thousands of atomic weapons. Sillanm? is 100 metres from the Baltic Sea. Any leak into the Baltic would have devastating repercussions for the environment in the entire Baltic Sea region.

At the end of the 1980s, Russia had more nuclear submarines than all other countries in the world together. The Kola Peninsula and Sevrodvinsk in Russia currently have the largest concentration of nuclear reactors in the world (240 units).(18) Large quantities of radioactive waste and nuclearpowered submarines have been stored at the shipyards on the Kola Peninsula. Russia and the Russian fleet are in an impossible position to deal with the scrapped reactors. They have no financial resources to pay for safe decommissioning. Low wages have resulted in highly qualified staff leaving the shipyards, which has led to a severe shortage of skills.

Even in central Moscow, 1200 sources of radioactive poisoning have been found, including in sandpits, air-raid shelters, private flats, garages and sports facilities.(19) The possibility of coming across nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons from military stores and substances from research institutions or industry in Russia must not be underestimated.

It is of serious concern that there is no adequate equipment to dispose of the waste in an environmentally safe manner. Both from an economic and an environmental point of view, any accident that may occur would have devastating repercussions. With every year that passes without sufficient measures being taken, the risk and scale of a serious accident increase.

A practical and realistic proposal for a method of phasing out the world's nuclear weapons does, in fact, exist. The proposal was presented in August 1996 by the independent group of experts making up the Canberra Commission.(20) In July 1996, the International Court at The Hague delivered a unanimous opinion to the effect that Article 6 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty commits nuclear states to initiate negotiations on nuclear disarmament. The Court also ruled that the threat or use of nuclear weapons was not consistent with international law. The European Union should actively work towards the implementation of the Canberra Commission's proposal and Article 6 of the NonProliferation Treaty.

HAARP - a weapons system which disrupts the climate

On 5 February 1998 Parliament's Subcommittee on Security and Disarmament held a hearing the subject of which included HAARP. NATO and the US had been invited to send representatives, but chose not to do so. The Committee regrets the failure of the USA to send a representative to answer questions, or to use the opportunity to comment on the material submitted.(21)

HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project) is run jointly by the US Air Force and Navy, in conjunction with the Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Similar experiments are also being conducted in Norway, probably in the Antarctic, as well as in the former Soviet Union.(22) HAARP is a research project using a ground based apparatus, an array of antennae each powered by its own transmitter, to heat up portions of ionosphere with powerful radio beams.(23) The energy generated heats up parts of the ionosphere; this results in holes in the ionosphere and produces artificial 'lenses'.

HAARP can be used for many purposes. Enormous quantities of energy can be controlled by manipulating the electrical characteristics of the atmosphere. If used as a military weapon this can have a devastating impact on an enemy. HAARP can deliver millions of times more energy to a given area than any other conventional transmitter. The energy can also be aimed at a moving target which should constitute a potential anti-missile system.

The project would also allow better communications with submarines and manipulation of global weather patterns, but it is also possible to do the reverse, to disrupt communications. By manipulating the ionosphere one could block global communications while transmitting one's own. Another application is earth-penetrating, tomography, x-raying the earth several kilometres deep, to detect oil and gas fields, or underground military facilities. Over-the-horizon radar is another application, looking round the curvature of the earth for in-coming objects.

From the 1950s the USA conducted explosions of nuclear material in the Van Allen Belts(24) to investigate the effect of the electro-magnetic pulse generated by nuclear weapon explosions at these heights on radio communications and the operation of radar. This created new magnetic radiation belts which covered nearly the whole earth. The electrons travelled along magnetic lines of force and created an artificial Aurora Borealis above the North Pole. These military tests are liable to disrupt the Van Allen belt for a long period. The earth's magnetic field could be disrupted over large areas, which would obstruct radio communications. According to US scientists it could take hundreds of years for the Van Allen belt to return to normal. HAARP could result in changes in weather patterns. It could also influence whole ecosystems, especially in the sensitive Antarctic regions.

Another damaging consequence of HAARP is the occurrence of holes in the ionosphere caused by the powerful radio beams. The ionosphere protects us from incoming cosmic radiation. The hope is that the holes will fill again, but our experience of change in the ozone layer points in the other direction. This means substantial holes in the ionosphere that protects us.

With its far-reaching impact on the environment HAARP is a matter of global concern and we have to ask whether its advantages really outweigh the risks. The environmental impact and the ethical aspect must be closely examined before any further research and testing takes place. HAARP is a project of which the public is almost completely unaware, and this needs to be remedied.

HAARP has links with 50 years of intensive space research for military purposes, including the Star Wars project, to control the upper atmosphere and communications. This kind of research has to be regarded as a serious threat to the environment, with an incalculable impact on human life. Even now nobody knows what impact HAARP may have. We have to beat down the wall of secrecy around military research, and set up the right to openness and democratic scrutiny of military research projects, and parliamentary control.

A series of international treaties and conventions (the Convention on the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques, the Antarctic Treaty, the Treaty on principles governing the activities of states in the exploration and use of outer space including the moon and other celestial bodies, and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea) casts considerable doubt on HAARP on legal as well as humanitarian and political grounds. The Antarctic Treaty lays down that the Antarctic may be used exclusively for peaceful purposes.(25) This would mean that HAARP is a breach of international law. All the implications of the new weapons systems should be examined by independent international bodies. Further international agreements should be sought to protect the environment from unnecessary destruction in war.

Impact of military activities on the environment

Not only military weapons systems but, by and large, all military activities, including peace-time exercises, have some form of environmental impact. However, when environmental destruction has been discussed, the role of the military has not in general been touched upon, only the impact of civilian society on the environment has been criticised. There are at least two explanations for this.(26) Owing to its secrecy, military activity is more difficult to discuss and it is difficult to set the nation's top priority - its security and defence - against the environment. At the present time, however, when environmental and natural disasters constitute a serious threat to security, these arguments are more dubious. The armed forces endeavour to prepare themselves in peace time for operations in war in as realistic conditions as possible. They therefore carry out their exercises under warlike conditions, which involves subjecting the environment to great stress. This is illustrated, for instance, by the withdrawal of Soviet troops and the abandoned military bases in Eastern and Central Europe which have left deep scars on the local environment. Military exercises entail widespread damage to the landscape and animal life. Troop exercises subject large tracts of land to extensive environmental destruction. Test sites for artillery and tactical missiles tend to require larger surfaces for military purposes. Likewise, production of munitions and the industry that manufactures military equipment cause widespread environmental problems.

The military is responsible for emissions of several gases affecting the climate, primarily carbon dioxide, but also incineration of fossil fuels and emissions of freons, which results in the depletion of the ozone layer.(27) Consumption of aviation fuel is a major source of emissions of acidifying substances such as nitrogen oxides and sulphur oxide. The armed forces account for much of all consumption of aviation fuel and are responsible for a very large proportion of all aviation emissions.(28) High-flying planes and rockets have a particularly damaging impact on the environment, both in the form of noise and fuel emissions. All rockets using solid fuel emit large quantities of hydrochloric acid in their exhaust emissions and every flight of a space shuttle injects around 75 tonnes of ozone-destroying chlorine. Likewise, noise from military exercises using heavy calibre ammunition may bring about environmental disruption.

Metal pollution is dispersed into the environment through shooting practice; often large quantities of small calibre ammunition containing lead is used and large quantities of lead are dispersed into the environment. Unfortunately, there is no comprehensive information about consumption of metals.

Consequences in the form of environmental problems caused by disarmament is only a recently observed phenomenon. Every year, large quantities of explosive substances are destroyed, mostly through industrial processes. Some ammunition cannot be destroyed in this way for various reasons but must be detonated. Obviously, scaling down is a necessary and positive process but it must be carried out in environmentally acceptable ways. Environmentally sound technology must be developed for the purpose of destroying weapons.

Several nations have already begun to exploit the opportunities for using military-related resources to restore the environment destroyed by the armed forces. All other sectors in society have to take responsibility for the environment and the military sector should also do so. As in other sectors of society, environmental issues must form an integral part of the armed forces' activities and be incorporated in the decision-making and budgetary processes.

In May 1993, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) took a decision - 'application of environmental norms to military establishments' - to encourage national governments to enact national laws for the military sector. Finland, for example, has drawn up a green paper to regulate the impact of military activities on the environment. Sweden has followed suit.(29) In June 1996 Sweden, in conjunction with the USA, also drew up environmental guidelines for military activities.(30) The military should establish environmental targets and proposals for measures to help reduce the impact on the environment in accordance with Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration.(31) They should also submit reports identifying factors affecting the environment within the armed forces. Environmental impact assessments must be drawn up before new projects commence and when procuring material for civilian and military use.

Every government should take stock of its environmental requirements and identify the military resources which are available for environmental purposes, draw up national environment plans and report their experience to an appropriate body within the European Union and the United Nations.

All military personnel, including conscripts, should receive basic training in environmental matters. The US armed forces are considered to be quite advanced in this respect, particularly in terms of equipment, but also in regard to training. The European Union should cooperate and exchange experience in this sector with the USA to a greater extent.

Strategies for using military resources for environment-enhancing purposes

Prevention of environmental crises requires infrastructure, organisation and increased resources. These are available in the armed forces. Many resources within the military sector could be used to protect, improve and restore the environment. Essentially, this would be based on two stages: a stocktaking stage to assess the suitability of the military resources and a political action plan to guarantee their availability.

Obviously, military-related resources vary a great deal from one country to another but they comprise skilled personnel, engineers, sophisticated hi-tech equipment, organisational ability and military research and development. In many ways, the military sector is in a unique position to strengthen international civilian capacity to implement environmental strategies. Military personnel are wellequipped to intervene in the event of disasters. As distinct from civilian forces, the military are trained to carry out missions under extreme conditions. They can also be called out in the event of environmental accidents and to clear up and destroy high-grade toxic, radioactive and other hazardous substances.

The armed forces also possess a great quantity of information which can help in detecting changes in the atmosphere, the sea and in the earth's surface and thereby provide an early warning and forestall environmental disasters. Military satellites, aeroplanes, surface vessels and submarines are capable of collecting further information on climate changes and on currents and temperature changes in the sea. Radar, which was developed for military purposes, can be used for environmental objectives. Infrared radar can detect temperature changes in the earth's surface. For example, American military satellites have been used to establish the number of whales, classify them and save them.

Environmental problems are global in nature and international cooperation is therefore crucial to prevent future environmental disasters. Joint international work can also serve a 'dual' purpose; it can build confidence for the very reason that it is carried out jointly - countries assist each other. It can also enable countries to shoulder a reasonable amount of responsibility for the environment in proportion to their strength.(32) Some important areas for joint undertakings might be technology transfer, joint training and education.

Environmental strategies might comprise monitoring the earth's environment, evaluating the data collected, coordinating scientific work and disseminating information. As a special form of international aid, national resources should be made available to the EU and the UN so that they may be used on request by a country stricken by an environmental disaster. Environmental strategies must also include a global stocktaking of resources suitable for environmental protection.

A disaster force composed of both civilian and military personnel could be set up for deployment in emergency situations. Taking part in international peace-keeping and humanitarian missions is already an important task for the military. However, a distinction must be made between such missions within national boundaries and within another state's jurisdiction. Lessons can be learned from UN experiences in this respect and, clearly, exercises or deployment on the territory of another nation must take place in accordance with international laws. We should consider which resources can be made available to the UN or the European Union, temporarily, long-term or on a standby basis as instruments for joint cooperation in the event of environmental disasters and environmental crises.

Military bilateral and multilateral cooperation has increased tremendously. Within NATO, a DanishGerman-Polish force is being developed which it will also be possible to use for civilian disaster aid, in addition to having traditional tasks. It is expected to be operational by spring 1999.

Technological resources within the military establishment

The military sectors of the EU Member States tend to be research and development-intensive. In the case of the major military powers, technological capacity is not only extensive but has also largely remained unaffected by budget cutbacks in comparison with conventional weapons. The process of developing new sophisticated weapons is ongoing. The military sector will probably be a leading consumer of advanced technology in the immediate future.

Most modern technologies are double-edged, i.e. they can be used both for military and civilian purposes. This means that military-related technologies can be transferred to the civilian sector without expensive modifications. However, it must be borne in mind that the highly complicated military systems which are based on advanced technologies are not designed for environmental purposes but require certain adjustments.

The technological capacity of military organisations in most developing countries is not a match for the environmental problems they face. The CIS and African countries have tremendous shortages of technology and environmental know-how. In an international perspective, therefore, transfer of technology and know-how is an extremely important task for the military.

Collection of environmental data and observations can be facilitated by the use of vessels, aeroplanes and spacecraft to identify and trace environmental abuse such as the dumping of waste and oil or natural hazards such as forest fires.

Another possible application of military-related resources is to use military capacity to monitor activities which are potentially damaging to the environment. Military resources can also be used to monitor agriculture, drought, afforestation and other forms of land conservation. Other areas of application might be as aid in developing countries, e.g. in the form of transport and disaster work, liming of lakes and forest with the aid of military aircraft and vessels but also combating of oil discharges and research and development resources for global environment work.

Military personnel on environment duty - an example

The Swedish Parliament decided on 13 December 1996 to make environmental protection a special part of its defence policy and, in the long-term, to train 10 000 conscripts per year with
Dummy - 16 March, 2002 Vandenberg AFB - CA238 viewsThe dummy warhead was fired from Vandenberg Air Force Base in the US missile test in 2002.
Dios - All Seeing Eye237 views
UfodeWaarheid.com in Hagelstorm op 28-2-2006 om 14.24u te Eemdijk-Bunschoten.237 views
Playing Cards of the Sumerian Anunnakies237 viewswww.wingeddisk.com
EM-frequencies (HAARP) unite with Clouds of Death (Chemtrails)237 viewsWhat should you know about biological warfare? Chemtrails, HAARP and the Verichip. Is there a nefarious plan of genocide (population culling)? Freeman combines HAARP technology with magic...
See: www.video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6563630790789702173( (1hr39sec)
Forum: www.veganisme.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=82417#82417
F-117 Nighthawk236 views
Haunebu und die Vrils236 views
Lockheed F-117A Stealthfighter recovered ET-techPenta236 views
Toro Muerto, Peru; 12.000 BC236 views
Quan Jing236 viewsBuddha recognized that ignorance of our true nature is the root of all the torment of samsara, and the root of ignorance itself is the mind?s habitual tendency to distraction.

To end the mind?s distraction would be to end samsara itself; the key to this, he realized, is to bring the mind home to its true nature, through the practice of meditation.

236 viewsYour World Is Changing: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xZzMITXbTA&NR=1

"A little group of willful men, representing no opinion but their own, have rendered the great government of the United States helpless and contemptible." Woodrow Wilson
Stealth the Movie.. 236 viewswww.dvd-home.nl/review/r2/stealth.htm

Regio 2
Producent Sony Pictures Home Entertainment
Speelduur 115.51 minuten, single side, dual layer (RSDL)
Soort DVD DVD-9
Aspect Ratio Widescreen 2.40:1 anamorphic (16x9)
Audiospoor Engels, Italiaans en Spaans DD5.1
Ondertitels Nederlands, Engels (+CC), Italiaans, Spaans, Portugees en Hindoestaans
Features The Music Of Stealth, Music Video: Incubus "Make A Move", Trailers
Hoofdrollen Josh Lucas, Jessica Biel, Jamie Foxx, Sam Shepard, Richard Roxburgh en Joe Morton
Regisseur Rob Cohen
Genre Actie
Prijs ? 9,99

In de nabije toekomst ontwikkelt de Amerikaanse marine een chirurgische gevechtseenheid in de strijd tegen het terrorisme. Uit een zware en strenge selectie van de 400 beste piloten piloten voor de nieuwste generatie "Stealth" straaljagers zijn er uiteindelijk 3 uitverkoren om deel te nemen aan het experimentele ?Talons? squadron. Dit is de naam die de leider Captian George Cummings (Sam Shepard) aan dit team van super-testpiloten heeft gegeven. Dit team bestaat uit Lt. Ben Gannon (Josh Lucas), Lt. Kara Wade (Jessica Biel) en Lt. Henry Purcell (Jamie Foxx). Na een intensieve training
In films als o.a. "War Games" en "The Terminator" werd al aangegeven wat er gebeurt als oorlogsvoering aan computers c.q. machines wordt overgelaten. Ook 'Stealth" maakt gebruik van dit gegeven in de vorm van een gevechtsvliegtuig zonder piloot. De EDI intelligentie hier is een soort kruising tussen HAL-9000 (uit 2001: A Space Odyssey) en KITT (uit The Knight Rider) die als hij op hol slaat, ook zeer gemene streken uithaalt. Naast een nucleaire dreiging, het illegaal foute MP3 muziek van het internet te downloaden. De rest van het verhaal is een soort mengelmoes van "Top Gun" en een live-action versie van "Team America", compleet met alle clich?s uit die films, (inclusief de aanwezige overbodige lovestory). Hierbij moet je zeker niet nadenken over hoe het mogelijk is dat het meest geavanceerde gevechtsvliegtuig niet bestand is tegen een blikseminslag (wat elk simpel commercieel passagiersvliegtuig wel is). De film is politiek correct gecast, waarbij volgens de regels de kleuring als eerste er aangaat (en gelijk inleveren die Oscar bij de deur graag). Ook bevat de film een enorme hoeveelheid aan Amerikaans rechtspolitieke propaganda (Bush rechtvaardigingen voor het beginnen van oorlogen). Zo kun je nog wel een tijdje doorgaan, maar dat doe ik niet.
Met een budget van 130 miljoen dollar werd de film gigantisch gehiped om het financieel succes te maken. Echter, inhoudelijk en visueel viel er zelfs voor de Amerikanen nogal wat op aan te merken, met als resultaat een slecht bioscoopbezoek. Hierdoor werd de film gelijk voor de niet-Amerikaanse markt grotendeels naar de videoverhuur verbannen.
Alhoewel er naast, dat er geen spannend verhaal of goede hoofdkarakters aanwezig zijn (waar je mee kan leven of omgeven), is er wel een hoop snelle en spectaculaire actie en wordt er veel opgeblazen. De kwaliteit van de actie en special effects zijn zeer redelijk. Maar helaas vertrouwt men weer te veel op de digitale effecten, waardoor er veel uitzien als een videospelletje. Bovendien neemt de film zichzelf zo serieus dat er totaal geen humor aanwezig is. Het is dus snel, hip en hersenloos (geloofwaardigheid is geen vereiste voor een popcornfilm) peperduur Hollywood vermaak voor de 8-jarige video gamer.

TR-3B Astra236 viewsWat zijn de Vliegende Driehoeken? www.ufowijzer.nl/tekstpagina/VliegendeDriehoeken.html
445.000 years ago235 views445.000 jaren geleden; De Nefilim, aangevoerd door Enki, komen aan op de aarde vanaf de Twaalfde Planeet, Eridu - Aarde station I - wordt in zuidelijk Mesopotamie (nu Irak) gevestigd.
*From the 12th Planet, Z. Sitchin.
6000 BC - Tassili Sahara, North Africa235 viewsQuote Of The Day: From Wakan Tanka, the Great Mystery comes all power. It is from Wakan Tanka that the holy person has wisdom and the power to heal and to make holy charms. Man knows that all healing plants are given by Wakan Tanka; therefore they are holy. So too is the buffalo holy because it is the gift of Wakan Tanka. ? Flat Iron, Oglala Lakota
9 december 1954 Rio de Janeiro - Brazil235 views
6 july 1996 - California235 views
a Boeing Delta 4 Rocket launches from Vandenberg for first time - LA Daily News - photo credit Tim Madden235 views-makes its inaugural West Coast blastoff at 8:33 p.m. June 27 carrying a so called 'classified national security satellite'.

See: www.spaceflightnow.com/delta/d317/060627launch/03.html

*this photo captures the rocket as the twin solid motors separate with a bright JUPITER visible above!

Maria, Mirjam, Marjan or Mari.anne 235 views"As light divides itself from darkness, so does woman possess the gift to divide in man good intent from the thought of evil. Your best thoughts must belong to woman. Gather from them your moral strength, which you must possess to sustain your near ones. Do not humiliate her, for therein you will humiliate yourselves. And all which you will do to mother, to wife, to widow or to another woman in sorrow-that shall you also do for the Spirit."
Quote Saint ISSA; From 'the Unknown Life of Jesus Christ', by Nicolai Notovitch (Leh-1896): At this time, an old woman approached the crowd, but was pushed back. Then Issa said, "Reverence Woman, mother of the universe,' in her lies the truth of creation. She is the foundation of all that is good and beautiful. She is the source of life and death. Upon her depends the existence of man, because she is the sustenance of his labors. She gives birth to you in travail, she watches over your growth. Bless her. Honor her. Defend her. Love your wives and honor them, because tomorrow they shall be mothers, and later-progenitors of a whole race. Their love ennobles man, soothes the embittered heart and tames the beast. Wife and mother-they are the adornments of the universe."

Smiljan, tesla placeofbirth.jpg
Smiljan, Tesla place of Birth235 viewsNikola Tesla was born in the family of an Orthodox priest on July 10th 1856 in Smiljan, today in the Republic of Croatia. His parents, Milutin and Georgina, had beside him a son Dane and daughters Angelina and Milka, older than Nikola, and Marica, the youngest child in the Tesla family.

Autor: Stojanović Sa?a

Smiljan, the place of birth of Nikola Tesla
Tesla received his name after his paternal grandfather. He began his schooling in his hometown, where he spent the most careless years of his life. After a tragic accident in which the first-born son in the Tesla family, Dane, lost his life, the family moved to Gospic where the young Tesla continued his schooling. While in school in Gospic, and later at the High Real Gymnasium in Karlovac, he was tormented by the fact that he would have to continue his family tradition and become a priest. This circumstance did not give him peace because he was genuinely interested in natural sciences. After completing the Karlovac gymnasium, on vacation, having come back to Gospic, the young Tesla became ill of cholera. At that time, this wicked illness was taking many lives.

?In a moment close to death when they thought it was my last, the father burst into my room. I still remember his pale face while he tried to cheer me up, with a faltering voice. I told him: ?Maybe I could recover if you let me study engineering.? ?You will go to the best engineering school in the world, he told me solemnly, and I knew he meant it.?

de Chemtrailers in beeld - 7 maart 2006, 15.00u235 viewses - espa?ol

INFORME 140k 109k

14 de enero de 1999 PE 227.710/def. A4-0005/99

sobre medio ambiente, seguridad y pol?tica exterior
Ponente de opini?n: Sr. Olsson, Comisi?n de Medio Ambiente, Salud P?blica y Protecci?n del Consumidor
(Procedimiento "Hughes")
Comisi?n de Asuntos Exteriores, Seguridad y Pol?tica de Defensa
Ponente: Maj Britt Theorin

En la sesi?n del 13 de julio de 1995, el Presidente del Parlamento anunci? que hab?a remitido la propuesta de resoluci?n presentada por la Sra. Rehn Rouva, conforme al art?culo 45 del Reglamento, sobre la utilizaci?n potencial de recursos de car?cter militar para estrategias medioambientales, (B4-0551/98), a la Comisi?n de Asuntos Exteriores, Seguridad y Pol?tica de Defensa, para examen del fondo, y, para opini?n, a la Comisi?n de Medio Ambiente, Salud P?blica y Protecci?n del Consumidor.
Anexo I

En la sesi?n del 13 de julio de 1995, el Presidente del Parlamento anunci? que hab?a remitido la propuesta de resoluci?n presentada por la Sra. Rehn Rouva, conforme al art?culo 45 del Reglamento, sobre la utilizaci?n potencial de recursos de car?cter militar para estrategias medioambientales, (B4-0551/98), a la Comisi?n de Asuntos Exteriores, Seguridad y Pol?tica de Defensa, para examen del fondo, y, para opini?n, a la Comisi?n de Medio Ambiente, Salud P?blica y Protecci?n del Consumidor.

En la reuni?n del 15 de noviembre de 1996 y tras la petici?n de la Conferencia de Presidentes de Comisi?n, el Presidente del Parlamento anunci? que la Comisi?n de Asuntos Exteriores, Seguridad y Pol?tica de Defensa estaba autorizada a presentar un informe a este respecto.

En la reuni?n del 19 de noviembre de 1996, la Comisi?n de Asuntos Exteriores, Seguridad y Pol?tica de Defensa design? ponente a la Sra. Maj Britt Theorin.

En la reuni?n del 19 de junio de 1998, el Presidente del Parlamento anunci? que este informe deb?a ser elaborado, de acuerdo al procedimiento Hughes, por la Comisi?n de Asuntos Exteriores, Seguridad y Pol?tica de Defensa y por la Comisi?n de Medio Ambiente, Salud P?blica y Protecci?n del Consumidor.

En las reuniones de los d?as 5 de febrero de 1998, 29 de junio de 1998, 21 de julio de 1998, 3, 23 y 28 de septiembre de 1998, 13, 27 y 29 de octubre de 1998 y 4 y 5 de enero de 1999, la Comisi?n de Asuntos Exteriores, Seguridad y Pol?tica de Defensa examin? el proyecto de informe, as? como la Subcomisi?n de Seguridad y Desarme en las reuniones de los d?as 5 de febrero de 1998 y 3 y 23 de septiembre de 1998.

En la ?ltima de estas reuniones, la Comisi?n de Asuntos Exteriores, Seguridad y Pol?tica de Defensa aprob? la propuesta de resoluci?n por 28 votos a favor y 1 abstenci?n.

Estuvieron presentes en la votaci?n los diputados: Spencer, presidente; Theorin, ponente, Aelvoet, Andr?-L?onard, Bar?n Crespo, Bertens, Bianco, Burenstam Linder, Carnero Gonz?lez, Carrozzo (suplente de Colajanni), Dillen, Dupuis, Gahrton, Goerens (suplente de Cars), Graziani, G?nther (suplente de Gomolka), Lalumi?re, Lambrias, Pack (suplente de Habsburg-Lothringen), Pettinari (suplente de Imbeni, de conformidad con el apartado 2 del art?culo 138 del Reglamento), Piha, Rinsche, Sakellariou, Salafranca S?nchez-Neyra, Schroedter (suplente de Cohn-Bendit), Schwaiger (suplente de Lenz), Speciale, Swoboda (suplente de Hoff), Tindemans, Titley y Truscott.

La opini?n de la Comisi?n de Medio Ambiente, Salud P?blica y Protecci?n del Consumidor se adjunta al presente informe.

El informe se present? el 14 de enero de 1999.

El plazo de presentaci?n de enmiendas a este informe figurar? en el proyecto de orden del d?a del per?odo parcial de sesiones en que se examine.


Resoluci?n sobre medio ambiente, seguridad y pol?tica exterior

El Parlamento Europeo,

- Vista la propuesta de resoluci?n presentada por la Sra. Rehn Rouva sobre la utilizaci?n potencial de recursos militares para las estrategias medioambientales (B4-0551/95),

- Visto el estudio de las Naciones Unidas "Registro de los usos potenciales de los recursos asignados a actividades militares para esfuerzos civiles de protecci?n del medio ambiente" (UN A46/364, 17 de septiembre 1991),

- Vista su resoluci?n de 17 de julio de 1995 sobre "Las minas antipersonal: un obst?culo mort?fero para el desarrollo"(1),

- Vistas sus anteriores resoluciones sobre ensayos nucleares y no proliferaci?n de armas nucleares, as? como el informe de la Comisi?n de Camberra de agosto de 1996 sobre la abolici?n de las armas nucleares,

- Vista la resoluci?n un?nime del Tribunal Internacional sobre la obligaci?n de los Estados en posesi?n de armas nucleares de negociar una prohibici?n de las armas nucleares (dictamen consultivo n? 96/22, de 8 de julio de 1996),

- Vista su resoluci?n de 19 de abril de 1996 sobre la propuesta de decisi?n del Consejo para la creaci?n de un programa de acciones comunitarias en favor de la protecci?n civil(2),

- Vistas sus anteriores resoluciones sobre las armas qu?micas,

- Vistos los resultados de las conferencias de las Naciones Unidos de Kyoto de 1997 y de R?o de Janeiro de 1992,

- Vista la audiencia sobre el programa HAARP y las armas no letales celebrada por la Subcomisi?n de Seguridad y Desarme de la Comisi?n de Asuntos Exteriores en Bruselas el 5 de febrero de 1998,

- Visto el art?culo 148 de su Reglamento,

- Visto el informe de la Comisi?n de Asuntos Exteriores, Seguridad y Pol?tica de Defensa y la opini?n de la Comisi?n de Medio Ambiente, Salud P?blica y Protecci?n del Consumidor (A40005/99),

A. Constatando que el final de la guerra fr?a ha modificado sustancialmente la situaci?n geopol?tica en materia de seguridad y que la distensi?n militar ha dado lugar a un desarme considerable en el sector militar en general y en el sector de las armas nucleares en particular, lo que ha supuesto una considerable liberaci?n de recursos militares;

B. Considerando que, pese a esta transformaci?n total de la situaci?n geoestrat?gica desde el final de la guerra fr?a, no ha disminuido sensiblemente el riesgo de un atentado catastr?fico contra la integridad y durabilidad del medio ambiente global, en particular su biodiversidad, tanto en lo que se refiere a la activaci?n accidental o no autorizada de armas nucleares, como a la utilizaci?n autorizada de armas nucleares por miedo, aunque infundado, a una amenaza de ataque inminente,

C. Considerando que este riesgo podr?a reducirse considerablemente en un plazo muy corto de tiempo si todos los Estados que poseen un arsenal nuclear aplicaran r?pidamente las seis medidas incluidas en el informe de la Comisi?n de Camberra relativas, en particular, a la retirada de todas las armas nucleares del actual dispositivo de alerta roja y la transferencia progresiva de todas las armas a la reserva estrat?gica,

D. Considerando que el art?culo VI del Tratado sobre la no proliferaci?n de las armas nucleares (TNP) de 1968 compromete a todas las partes a "celebrar negociaciones de buena fe... sobre un tratado de desarme general y completo" y que los principios y objetivos adoptados en la Conferencia TNP de 1995 reiteraban que el objetivo ?ltimo del Tratado era la eliminaci?n completa de las armas nucleares,

E. Observando que las amenazas sobre el medio ambiente, los flujos de refugiados, los antagonismos ?tnicos, el terrorismo y la delincuencia internacional constituyen nuevas y graves amenazas para la seguridad y que, al cambiar la situaci?n de seguridad, cobra cada vez mayor importancia la capacidad de enfrentarse a distintas formas de conflictos y, dado que las amenazas para la seguridad son tambi?n de car?cter no militar, es importante que los recursos de car?cter militar se utilicen tambi?n para fines no militares;

F. Constatando que los recursos del planeta se est?n utilizando como si fueran inacabables y que esto ha producido una mayor frecuencia de cat?strofes naturales y medioambientales; constatando asimismo que esto estos problemas ecol?gicos locales y regionales pueden tener consecuencias importantes en las relaciones internacionales, y lamentando que esto no se haya reflejado m?s claramente en la pol?tica exterior, de seguridad y de defensa de los Estados miembros;

G. Considerando que los conflictos en el mundo son predominantemente conflictos dentro de los Estados en lugar de entre Estados, y que, cuando surgen conflictos entre Estados, ?stos est?n cada vez m?s relacionados con el acceso a recursos vitales b?sicos o su disponibilidad, especialmente agua, alimentos y combustible,

H. Considerando que el acceso a dichos recursos naturales vitales y su disponibilidad est?n intr?nsecamente relacionados, como causa y efecto, con la degradaci?n y contaminaci?n del medio ambiente, de lo que se deduce l?gicamente que la prevenci?n de conflictos debe centrarse m?s en estas cuestiones,

I. Considerando que la presi?n sobre la tierra, tanto f?rtil como habitable, que hist?ricamente ha sido una de las principales causas de tensi?n y conflictos, es cada vez m?s el resultado de la degradaci?n del medio ambiente, especialmente del cambio clim?tico y del consiguiente aumento de los niveles del mar,

J. Considerando que todos estos factores, que afectan sobre todo a las poblaciones m?s pobres y m?s vulnerables del mundo, producen un incremento constante de la incidencia de los denominados "refugiados medioambientales", lo que produce una presi?n directa en las pol?ticas de inmigraci?n y justicia de la UE, en la ayuda al desarrollo y en el gasto de ayuda humanitaria e, indirectamente, hace que aumenten los problemas de la UE en materia de seguridad en forma de inestabilidad regional en otras partes del mundo,

K. Considerando que, seg?n resultados detallados de la investigaci?n internacional filtrados y publicados por el Climate Institute de Washington, el n?mero de "refugiados medioambientales" es actualmente superior al n?mero de "refugiados tradicionales" (25 millones frente a 22 millones) y que se prev? que esta cifra se duplique para el a?o 2010 o que, en el peor de los casos, sea mucho mayor,

L. Considerando que la cuesti?n de los "refugiados medioambientales" es simplemente el s?ntoma de un desastre humanitario de una amplitud mucho mayor teniendo en cuenta que, seg?n la definici?n de las Naciones Unidas, 1.300 millones de personas viven en absoluta pobreza; que una cuarta parte de estas personas tratan de subsistir en zonas del mundo que son extremadamente vulnerables desde un punto de vista medioambiental y que son las que m?s contribuyen a problemas medioambientales globales como la deforestaci?n y la desertizaci?n,

M. Considerando que, desde el final de la Guerra Fr?a, la gesti?n de cuestiones globales se ha desprovisto de su aspecto ideol?gico previamente dominante y est? actualmente menos determinada por la cuesti?n del equilibrio militar pero que esto no se ha reflejado a?n en el sistema de gobernaci?n global de las Naciones Unidas mediante un mayor ?nfasis en la coherencia y efectividad de los componentes militar y no militar de la pol?tica de seguridad,

N. Considerando, no obstante, el ?nfasis en el hecho de que una parte cada vez mayor del trabajo de las Naciones Unidas sobre cuestiones pol?ticas y de seguridad es esencialmente no militar y se refiere especialmente a la relaci?n entre comercio, ayuda, medio ambiente y desarrollo sostenible,

O. Considerando que existe una urgente necesidad de movilizar recursos adecuados para hacer frente a los retos medioambientales y observando que los recursos disponibles para la protecci?n del medio ambiente son muy limitados, lo cual obliga a una nueva forma de pensar en lo que respecta a la utilizaci?n de los recursos existentes;

P. Observando que, a la vez que se liberan los recursos militares, se ofrece a los militares la oportunidad ?nica de contribuir con su enorme capacidad a los esfuerzos civiles para enfrentarse a los crecientes problemas medioambientales;

Q. Constatando que los recursos militares son recursos nacionales y que el desaf?o medioambiental es global; que, por consiguiente, existe la necesidad de encontrar formas de cooperaci?n internacional para la reasignaci?n y utilizaci?n de recursos militares en favor del medio ambiente;

R. Observando que los costes a corto plazo de la protecci?n del medio ambiente deben compararse con los costes a largo plazo que implicar?a la falta de acci?n en este ?mbito, y que existe una creciente necesidad de realizar un an?lisis de la relaci?n coste/beneficio de las distintas estrategias medioambientales, que deber?a incluir potenciales reasignaciones, reorientaciones y transferencias de recursos militares;

S. Considerando que el objetivo com?n de reparar el da?ado ecosistema terrestre no puede conseguirse sin tenerse en cuenta tambi?n la cuesti?n de una utilizaci?n justa de los recursos globales, y que existe la necesidad de facilitar la cooperaci?n t?cnica internacional y apoyar la transferencia de tecnolog?as militares adecuadas;

T. Considerando que, pese a los convenios existentes, la investigaci?n en el sector militar sigue basandose en la manipulaci?n medioambiental como arma, tal y como pone, por ejemplo, de manifiesto el sistema HAARP con base en Alaska,

U. Considerando que la experiencia adquirida con el desarrollo y la utilizaci?n de la energ?a nuclear "para fines pac?ficos" constituye una advertencia contra la invocaci?n del secreto militar para impedir una evaluaci?n y supervisi?n claras de las tecnolog?as combinadas civil/militar cuando la transparencia se encuentra, en cualquier caso, comprometida,

V. Considerando que la inquietud general sobre la degradaci?n ecol?gica y las crisis medioambientales exigen prioridades en la toma de decisiones nacionales y que el conjunto de las naciones debe reaccionar de forma eficaz ante las cat?strofes medioambientales.

1. Pide a la Comisi?n que presente al Consejo y al Parlamento una estrategia com?n tal como se prev? en el Tratado de Amsterdam, que a?ne los aspectos de la PESC en la pol?tica de la UE con el comercio, la ayuda al desarrollo y las pol?ticas internacionales en materia de medio ambiente entre los a?os 2000 y 2010 con el fin de hacer frente a las siguientes cuestiones y a su interrelaci?n:

a) producci?n agr?cola y alimentaria y degradaci?n del medio ambiente;

b) escasez de agua y suministro transfronterizo de agua;

c) deforestaci?n y restablecimiento de las cuencas carbon?feras;

d) desempleo, subempleo y pobreza absoluta;

e) desarrollo sostenible y cambio clim?tico;

f) deforestaci?n, desertizaci?n y aumento de la poblaci?n;

g) la relaci?n entre estas cuestiones con el calentamiento del planeta y el impacto humanitario y medioambiental de acontecimientos clim?ticos cada vez m?s extremos;

2. Constata que las acciones medioambientales preventivas son un instrumento importante de la pol?tica de seguridad; pide en consecuencia a los Estados miembros que establezcan objetivos medioambientales y sanitarios en sus evaluaciones, investigaci?n militar y planes de acci?n a largo plazo en el ?mbito de la defensa y de la seguridad;

3. Reconoce el importante papel del ej?rcito en la sociedad democr?tica y sus tareas en la defensa nacional, as? como el hecho de que las iniciativas destinadas a garantizar y fomentar la paz pueden contribuir de forma considerable a evitar los da?os en el medio ambiente;

4. Considera que las pruebas nucleares atmosf?ricas y subterr?neas han diseminado, como consecuencia de la lluvia radiactiva, importantes cantidades de cesio-137 radiactivo, estroncio 90 y otros is?topos cancer?genos en todo el planeta y han ocasionado importantes perjuicios medioambientales y para la salud en las zonas en que se han realizado las pruebas;

5. Considera que algunas partes del mundo se encuentran amenazadas por el almacenamiento y la inmersi?n incontrolados, inseguros y poco profesionales de los submarinos nucleares, as? como por su combustible radiactivo y las fugas de los reactores nucleares; considera que, a causa de ello, son muchas las posibilidades de que grandes regiones puedan verse pronto contaminadas por la radiaci?n;

6. Considera que todav?a se ha de encontrar una soluci?n adecuada al problema de las armas qu?micas y convencionales sumergidas despu?s de las dos guerras mundiales en numerosos puntos de los mares que rodean a Europa como una soluci?n "f?cil" para deshacerse de estas reservas, sin que nadie sepa todav?a hoy en d?a cu?les pueden ser las repercusiones ecol?gicas a largo plazo, en particular para la fauna marina y la vida costera;

7. Considera que la Uni?n Europea deber? contribuir a encontrar una soluci?n al problema de que, como consecuencia de las actuales guerras en regiones enteras de ?frica, se hayan arruinado estructuras agr?colas y humanas, con lo que las tierras est?n sufriendo ahora un desastre medioambiental, en particular a causa de la deforestaci?n y la erosi?n, con la consiguiente desertificaci?n;

8. Pide, en consecuencia, al ej?rcito que ponga fin a todas aquellas actividades que contribuyen a perjudicar el medio ambiente y la salud y que tomen todas las medidas necesarias para limpiar y descontaminar las zonas contaminadas;

Utilizaci?n de recursos militares con fines medioambientales

9. Considera que los recursos disponibles para restablecer y preservar el medio ambiente deteriorado no son suficientes para hacer frente a la amenaza ecol?gica mundial y, por consiguiente, pide a los Estados miembros que utilicen los recursos militares en favor del medio ambiente mediante la adopci?n de medidas destinadas a:

a) establecer una formaci?n de soldados del medio ambiente, con vistas a crear una brigada medioambiental coordinada a nivel europeo;

b) realizar un inventario de sus necesidades medioambientales y de los recursos militares disponibles para fines medioambientales y utilizar dichos recursos en los planes medioambientales nacionales;

c) examinar los recursos militares que se pueden poner a disposici?n de las Naciones Unidas

o de la Uni?n Europea, de forma puntual, a largo plazo o listos para intervenir en caso de necesidad, como instrumento de la cooperaci?n internacional ante cat?strofes o crisis medioambientales;

d) desarrollar planes para la creaci?n de grupos de protecci?n internacionales y europeos con utilizaci?n de personal, equipos e instalaciones del sector militar, que est?n disponibles en el marco de la Asociaci?n por la paz para su intervenci?n en situaciones de emergencia relacionadas con el medio ambiente;

e) integrar en su concepto de seguridad los objetivos de conservaci?n del medio ambiente y desarrollo sostenible;

f) garantizar que el sector militar respete determinadas normas medioambientales y se corrijan los efectos de los da?os medioambientales debidos a actividades militares;

g) tomar en consideraci?n el medio ambiente en sus programas militares de investigaci?n y desarrollo;

10. Pide a los Estados miembros de la Uni?n Europea que, dado que las experiencias pr?cticas en este ?mbito son limitadas:

a) establezcan centros de intercambio de informaci?n sobre experiencias nacionales de aplicaci?n medioambiental de recursos militares;

b) faciliten la divulgaci?n mundial de informaci?n medioambiental, incluyendo la informaci?n que se consigue a trav?s de sat?lites militares y otras plataformas de recogida de informaci?n;

11. Pide a los Estados miembros que apliquen a la actividad militar la legislaci?n medioambiental aplicable a la sociedad civil y que el sector militar se responsabilice y financie la investigaci?n, el saneamiento y descontaminaci?n de las zonas da?adas por anteriores actividades militares, de manera que dichas zonas puedan volver a ser utilizadas con fines civiles, lo cual es especialmente importante en lo que se refiere a los grandes dep?sitos de municiones qu?micas y convencionales a lo largo de las costas de la UE;

12. Pide a todos los Estados miembros que establezcan objetivos medioambientales y sanitarios y planes de acci?n para mejorar la protecci?n del medio ambiente y la salud en el ?mbito de sus fuerzas armadas respectivas;

13. Pide a los Gobiernos de los Estados miembros que mejoren la seguridad medioambiental en el ?mbito militar mediante la formaci?n, el desarrollo tecnol?gico y una formaci?n medioambiental b?sica de todo el personal militar y de remplazo;

14. Pide a la Uni?n Europea que una sus esfuerzos para establecer una nueva estrategia medioambiental en la que se utilicen recursos militares para una protecci?n del medio ambiente com?n;

15. Considera que las estrategias medioambientales deben incluir la vigilancia del medio ambiente mundial, la evaluaci?n de la informaci?n recogida, la coordinaci?n del trabajo cient?fico y la divulgaci?n de la informaci?n, aprovechando la informaci?n relevante de los sistemas de alerta y vigilancia nacionales, con el fin de disponer de una visi?n de conjunto permanente de la situaci?n medioambiental;

16. Subraya que la importante reducci?n de los gastos militares puede dar lugar a problemas regionales graves y pide a los Estados miembros que intensifiquen sus esfuerzos con vistas a reconvertir la producci?n y la tecnolog?a militar para fines civiles mediante programas nacionales e iniciativas comunitarias como el programa KONVER;

17. Subraya la importancia de reforzar el trabajo medioambiental preventivo con el fin de poder enfrentarse a las cat?strofes naturales y medioambientales;

18. Pide a la Comisi?n que elabore un estudio exhaustivo de las amenazas medioambientales para la seguridad en Europa y que elabore un "libro verde" sobre las repercusiones en el medio ambiente de la actividad militar;

19. Insta al Consejo a que intervenga en?rgicamente para que los EEUU, Rusia, India y China firmen sin demora el Convenio de Ottawa de 1997 sobre la prohibici?n y destrucci?n de minas antipersonas.

20. Considera que la UE debe ayudar en mayor medida a las v?ctimas de las minas, apoyar el desarrollo de tecnolog?as para la retirada de minas y acelerar el desarrollo de m?todos de retirada de minas;

21. Considera que debe lucharse contra el secreto que rodea la investigaci?n militar y que debe promoverse el derecho de transparencia y control democr?tico de los proyectos de investigaci?n militar;

22. Pide a los Estados miembros que desarrollen tecnolog?as limpias y ecol?gicas para la destrucci?n de armas;

23. Subraya que una de las amenazas medioambientales m?s graves en zonas pr?ximas a la UE es la falta de control de los residuos de la industria nuclear, de las existencias de armas biol?gicas y qu?micas, as? como el saneamiento de zonas en las que se han desarrollado actividades militares; subraya que es importante que los Estados miembros act?en en favor del refuerzo de la cooperaci?n internacional, por ejemplo en el marco de las Naciones Unidas

o de la Asociaci?n por la Paz, con vistas a destruir estas armas de una manera tan respetuosa con la protecci?n del medio ambiente como sea posible;

24. Considera que todas las negociaciones que se celebren en el futuro sobre la reducci?n y posible eliminaci?n de las armas nucleares deber?n basarse en los principios relativos a los compromisos contra?dos para una reducci?n mutua y equilibrada;

25. Considera que, dadas las circunstancias de especial dificultad que afectan a los pa?ses de la antigua Uni?n Sovi?tica, la amenaza al medio ambiente mundial y local planteada por la degradaci?n de las condiciones de las armas y materiales nucleares a?n en posesi?n de estos pa?ses hace m?s urgente la prioridad de alcanzar un acuerdo sobre la eliminaci?n progresiva de las armas nucleares;

Aspectos jur?dicos de la actividad militar

26. Pide a la Uni?n Europea que act?e de manera que las tecnolog?as de armas denominadas no letales y el desarrollo de nuevas estrategias de armas est?n cubiertas y reguladas por convenios internacionales;

27. Considera que el HAARP (Programa de Investigaci?n de Alta Frecuencia Auroral Activa) es un asunto de inter?s mundial debido a sus considerables repercusiones sobre el medio ambiente y exige que los aspectos jur?dicos, ecol?gicos y ?ticos sean investigados por un ?rgano internacional independiente antes de continuar la investigaci?n y los ensayos; lamenta que el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos se haya negado reiteradamente a enviar a un representante que preste declaraci?n, ante la audiencia p?blica o cualquier reuni?n posterior que celebre su comisi?n competente, sobre los riesgos medioambientales y para la poblaci?n del Programa de Investigaci?n de Alta Frecuencia Auroral Activa (HAARP) que se est? financiando en la actualidad en Alaska;

28. Pide que el grupo encargado de evaluar las opciones cient?ficas y tecnol?gicas (STOA) acepte examinar las pruebas cient?ficas y t?cnicas disponibles en todos las conclusiones de las investigaciones que se est?n llevando a cabo en la actualidad sobre el programa HAARP, con el objeto de evaluar la naturaleza exacta y el grado de riesgo de este programa para el medio ambiente local y mundial, as? como para la salud p?blica en general;

29. Pide a la Comisi?n que, en colaboraci?n con los Gobiernos de Suecia, Finlandia, Noruega y la Federaci?n Rusa, examine las repercusiones medioambientales y para la salud p?blica del programa HAARP para el Ant?rtico y que le informe de sus conclusiones;

30. Pide, en particular, que se celebre un convenio internacional para la prohibici?n global de toda la investigaci?n y desarrollo, ya sea militar o civil, que tenga como finalidad aplicar los conocimientos qu?micos, el?ctricos, de vibraci?n de sonido u otro tipo de funcionamiento del cerebro humano al desarrollo de armas que puedan permitir cualquier forma de manipulaci?n de seres humanos, incluyendo la prohibici?n de cualquier despliegue actual o posible de dichos sistemas;

31. Pide a la Uni?n Europea y a sus Estados miembros que se esfuercen por conseguir un acuerdo internacional para, en caso de guerra, proteger al medio ambiente de da?os innecesarios;

32. Pide a la Uni?n Europea y sus Estados miembros que act?en en favor del establecimiento de normas internacionales aplicables a la actividad militar en tiempo de paz en relaci?n con sus repercusiones sobre el medio ambiente;

33. Pide al Consejo de la UE que act?e en favor de la aplicaci?n de las propuestas de la Comisi?n de Camberra y del art?culo 6 del Acuerdo de no proliferaci?n sobre eliminaci?n de armas nucleares;

34. Pide al Consejo, y en particular a los Gobiernos del Reino Unido y de Francia, que tomen la iniciativa en el marco del TNP y de la Conferencia sobre Desarme de proseguir las negociaciones destinadas a lograr la plena aplicaci?n de los compromisos sobre reducci?n y eliminaci?n de armas nucleares lo m?s r?pidamente posible hasta un nivel provisional en el que las existencias mundiales de armas nucleares no planteen una amenaza a la integridad y sostenibilidad del medio ambiente mundial;

35. Pide a la Presidencia del Consejo, a la Comisi?n y a los Gobiernos de los Estados miembros que aboguen en favor del enfoque adoptado en esta resoluci?n en todas las pr?ximas reuniones de las Naciones Unidas que se celebren bajo los auspicios o en el marco del TNP, as? como de la Conferencia sobre desarme;

36. Pide a la Presidencia del Consejo y a la Comisi?n que, de conformidad con el art?culo J.7 del Tratado de la Uni?n Europea, informen sobre la posici?n de la Uni?n respecto a los puntos espec?ficos incluidos en la presente resoluci?n en el contexto de las pr?ximas sesiones de las Naciones Unidas, sus agencias y organismos, especialmente el Comit? preparatorio del TNP de 1999, la Conferencia sobre Desarme y otros foros internacionales relevantes;

37. Encarga a su Presidente que transmita la presente resoluci?n al Consejo, a la Comisi?n, a los Estados miembros y a las Naciones Unidas.

(1) () DO C 183 de 17.7.1995, p?g. 47 (A4-0149/95).
(2) () DO C 141 de 13.5.1996, p?g. 258 (A4-0100/96).


Una defensa contra los peligros medioambientales

La situaci?n en materia de pol?tica de seguridad ha cambiado considerablemente en un tiempo relativamente corto. Hace menos de 10 a?os el tel?n de acero atravesaba una Europa saturada de armas nucleares. Actualmente, Europa se unifica y la Uni?n Europea se est? ampliando para incluir a los antiguos pa?ses del Pacto de Varsovia. La guerra fr?a ha terminado y una guerra generalizada en Europa parece hoy d?a imposible. Simult?neamente, surgen nuevos peligros. Los importantes flujos de refugiados, los antagonismos ?tnicos, el terrorismo y la delincuencia internacional son algunos ejemplos de las actuales amenazas a la seguridad. Otra grave amenaza la constituyen las cat?strofes naturales y los problemas medioambientales, causados por la propia naturaleza y por la manera en que los hombres utilizan los recursos naturales.

Una serie de cat?strofes ecol?gicas han situado a la humanidad ante nuevos problemas; el ?ltimo caso fue el accidente de la presa en Espa?a. La erosi?n de la tierra en Italia, los estragos causados por el fen?meno natural El Ni?o y el accidente nuclear de Chernobil son otros ejemplos actuales de las terribles consecuencias de las cat?strofes naturales y ecol?gicas. En algunas partes del mundo la sequ?a ha destruido las cosechas de varios a?os, con sus consecuencias de hambre y muerte de gran parte de la poblaci?n. La defensa de la humanidad ante estas cat?strofes es hoy en d?a muy d?bil.

Las cat?strofes naturales y ecol?gicas suponen una tragedia para las personas concretas y pueden tener consecuencias catastr?ficas para la sociedad y para todas las naciones. Los costes que este tipo de cat?strofes producen son considerables, tanto en t?rminos de vidas humanas como en recursos para restaurar los da?os materiales. Cada vez que ocurre una de estas cat?strofes resulta evidente que no existen suficientes recursos para detectarla y/o prevenirla. Los esfuerzos se realizan normalmente demasiado tarde. Por consiguiente, debe reforzarse el trabajo preventivo. El esfuerzo que se exige para ello es enorme y los recursos disponibles son muy limitados. Esto exige una nueva manera de pensar para utilizar los recursos disponibles, a la vez que se echa mano de nuevos recursos. Es evidente que una naci?n por s? misma no puede enfrentarse a las cat?strofes ecol?gicas y que los problemas medioambientales exigen que las naciones colaboren. Las amenazas son mundiales y la cooperaci?n internacional es fundamental.

Los problemas ecol?gicos locales y regionales pueden tener consecuencias importantes para las relaciones internacionales. La lluvia radiactiva, las inundaciones o la sequ?a no se detienen ante las fronteras nacionales. Los refugiados medioambientales cruzan las fronteras nacionales hacia naciones igual o m?s pobres. Estas nuevas causas de inestabilidad e inseguridad deben reflejarse en el contenido y la forma del modo en que las naciones crean y mantienen la paz y la seguridad. Dado que los problemas medioambientales y ecol?gicos constituyen graves amenazas para la paz y la seguridad, estos problemas deben reflejarse en la pol?tica exterior, de defensa y de seguridad. Existe la necesidad de analizar la manera en que los recursos militares pueden utilizarse contra esta creciente amenaza y para eliminar estas nuevas fuentes de inestabilidad e inseguridad. Existe una necesidad urgente de movilizar recursos para hacer frente al desaf?o medioambiental.

El cambio de la situaci?n en la pol?tica de seguridad ha dado como resultado la distensi?n militar, el desarme y medidas de confianza entre los antiguos enemigos EE.UU. y Rusia. Esto ha resultado en una reducci?n sustancial de fuerzas militares y en la disoluci?n de unidades militares y esto a su vez ha hecho que el material militar se haya convertido en superfluo. Especialmente Rusia y los EE.UU. han reducidos sustancialmente su defensa militar, pero tambi?n en Europa se han reducido los gastos militares (1).

La liberaci?n de recursos militares proporciona a los militares una oportunidad ?nica y una gran capacidad para enfrentarse a los crecientes problemas medioambientales. Los militares tienen una excelente organizaci?n y considerables recursos t?cnicos que pueden utilizarse sin grandes costes para fines de protecci?n del medio ambiente. Esto se puede conseguir mediante una reasignaci?n o transferencia de recursos. La Uni?n Europea puede unirse en torno a una nueva estrategia medioambiental en la que los recursos militares se utilicen en una defensa medioambiental com?n. La Uni?n Europea puede jugar un importante papel de promoci?n de una responsabilidad ecol?gica mundial y, al mismo tiempo, fomentar la paz y la confianza.

Los Estados miembros de la Uni?n Europea disponen de los requisitos t?cnicos y econ?micos para asumir una responsabilidad medioambiental considerable. Tambi?n saben lo que significar?a hacer caso omiso del desaf?o medioambiental. El deterioro ecol?gico influye en las condiciones de crecimiento y desarrollo econ?mico, pero, a pesar de ello, los gastos militares mundiales son de 3 a 5 veces superiores a los gastos de protecci?n del medio ambiente (2).

El sector militar en s? mismo constituye un importante factor de destrucci?n medioambiental. Por esta raz?n, deben asumir una especial responsabilidad con el medio ambiente.

Las modernas amenazas a la seguridad

Existe una conciencia internacional cada vez mayor sobre la importancia de los problemas medioambientales, como lo muestran las conferencias de seguimiento de las Naciones Unidas sobre el agua (Mar del Plata), la desertificaci?n (Nairobi), el medio ambiente y el desarrollo (R?o de Janeiro) y los cambios clim?ticos (Kyoto). Los problemas medioambientales pueden dar lugar a problemas tan graves que pueden poner en peligro la seguridad de las personas y de los Estados. Los problemas medioambientales tambi?n pueden tener consecuencias para las relaciones entre los Estados. El aire y el agua no se detienen ante las fronteras nacionales. Veamos algunos ejemplos concretos de amenazas medioambientales potenciales o existentes:

Recursos acu?feros limitados

A la vez que aumenta la poblaci?n mundial, aumenta tambi?n la demanda de agua limpia. El agua dulce es un recurso natural repartido muy desigualmente, menos de 10 pa?ses poseen el 60% de los recursos mundiales de agua dulce (3) y algunos Estados de Europa dependen de las importaciones de agua. En futuros conflictos, un ataque contra las fuentes de agua dulce puede ser no s?lo un objetivo en s? mismo sino tambi?n la causa de conflictos. Los conflictos sobre qui?n tiene derecho al agua pueden resultar en una mayor tensi?n internacional, as? como en conflictos locales y/o internacionales. Por ejemplo, las disputas sobre el r?o Indo podr?an desencadenar un conflicto armado en las tensas relaciones entre la India y el Pakist?n. La lista de potenciales conflictos causados por el agua puede hacerse muy larga. Se calcula que 300 r?os, lagos y fuentes de agua subterr?nea se encuentran en zonas fronterizas internacionales (4). En el Oriente Medio 9 de 14 pa?ses tienen escasez de agua y existe el peligro real de que los otros pa?ses puedan verse afectados (5). En 1995 una quinta parte de la poblaci?n mundial no ten?a acceso a agua limpia y se calcula que esta cifra aumentar? en el a?o 1995 (6).

Cambios clim?ticos

La temperatura de la Tierra ha aumentado 5? en este siglo debido a un aumento de las emisiones, sobre todo de di?xido de carbono (7). El calor tambi?n se ha hecho m?s intenso. Los investigadores han descubierto que la humedad del aire ha aumentado en un 10% en los ?ltimos 20 a?os. La mayor humedad del aire puede ser la causa de que en algunas zonas se produzcan tormentas cada vez m?s fuertes y con mayor frecuencia, a la vez que otras zonas se ven afectadas por la sequ?a. Se necesitar?n dos d?cadas de investigaci?n intensa sobre los cambios clim?ticos mundiales para poder tomar decisiones m?s concretas sobre las medidas que es necesario adoptar.

El Panel Intergubernamental sobre el cambio clim?tico (IPCC), una organizaci?n internacional con 2.000 de los m?s eminentes investigadores del mundo, prev? que las temperaturas de la tierra aumentar?n entre 1,5 y 4,5 grados y que el nivel del mar se habr? elevado en 50 cm para el a?o 2100 si las emisiones de di?xido de carbono contin?an como hasta ahora. Se calcula que un tercio de la poblaci?n mundial y algo m?s de un tercio de las infraestructuras se encuentran en las zonas costeras del mundo. Un aumento del nivel del mar sumergir?a extensas zonas y varios millones de personas estar?an afectadas por el hambre debido a la p?rdida de grandes extensiones agr?colas.

Estas y otras amenazas medioambientales pueden dar lugar a un ?xodo de refugiados. Cada vez en mayor medida los refugiados medioambientales est?n siendo objeto de la atenci?n internacional. Se calcula que 25 millones de personas son refugiados de la sequ?a, la erosi?n terrestre, la desertificaci?n y otros problemas medioambientales, frente a 22 millones de refugiados "tradicionales". Los refugiados medioambientales pueden, seg?n los expertos, ser la causa de una de las peores crisis humanitarias de nuestra ?poca (8). Estos refugiados sufren problemas sociales, pol?ticos y econ?micos que pueden dar lugar a conflictos y violencia. Debe reconocerse oficialmente a los refugiados medioambientales. Es necesaria una mayor cooperaci?n internacional para limitar estos problemas y una mayor ayuda a los pa?ses afectados y a sus habitantes.

Impacto militar sobre el medio ambiente en ?poca de guerra y de paz

La actividad militar es la causa de una considerable destrucci?n medioambiental en la sociedad. Las actividades militares tienen consecuencias muy negativas para el medio ambiente, tanto en tiempo de paz como en tiempo de guerra, tanto intencionalmente como de manera no deseada. La destrucci?n del medio ambiente ha sido desde la antig?edad un m?todo de guerra. La guerra tambi?n constituye la amenaza m?s grave para el medio ambiente. Un ejemplo actual son las devastadoras consecuencias de la guerra del Golfo, con cientos de pozos de petr?leo en llamas y grandes cantidades de sustancias t?xicas liberadas en la atm?sfera de forma incontrolada. Pasar? mucho tiempo hasta que se restablezca el medio ambiente. Algunos de los da?os pueden ser irreparables.

Los militares desarrollan armas cada vez m?s potentes que producen extensos y devastadores da?os en el medio ambiente. Una guerra moderna conlleva mayores da?os medioambientales que cualquier otra actividad perjudicial para el medio ambiente. A continuaci?n se describen algunos sistemas de armas que pueden tener consecuencias graves para el medio ambiente tambi?n en tiempo de paz.


Las minas son enormemente da?inas para el medio ambiente. Seg?n el programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente (PNUMA) las minas terrestres son unos de los restos de material de guerra m?s extendido y puede afectar al equilibrio ecol?gico. La colocaci?n de minas puede destruir extensas zonas, a menudo zonas agr?colas, que durante mucho tiempo ser?n inutilizables. Las minas constituyen el mayor obst?culo para el desarrollo en muchas de las zonas m?s pobres del mundo. Hay colocadas entre 80 y 110 millones de minas en 65 pa?ses, que pueden detonar d?cadas despu?s de su colocaci?n y la mayor?a de las v?ctimas son civiles, sobre todo ni?os. El levantamiento de minas es un proceso peligroso, lento y costoso. El desarrollo de nuevos m?todos de levantamiento de minas se est? produciendo muy lentamente y debe acelerarse.

Un dato positivo es que la Conferencia de Oslo de 1997 tuvo como resultado la prohibici?n sin excepci?n de todas las minas antipersonas, la obligaci?n de destruir las existencias de minas (9) en un plazo de 4 a?os y la concesi?n de mayor ayuda a los pa?ses afectados por las minas. Un gran n?mero de Estados firm? el Convenio de Ottawa de 1997, pero algunos Estados, entre los que se encuentran los EE.UU., Rusia, India y China, no lo han hecho. La Uni?n Europea debe actuar para que estos pa?ses se adhieran al acuerdo. La Uni?n Europea debe ayudar en mayor medida a las v?ctimas de las minas y apoyar el desarrollo de t?cnicas de levantamiento de minas.

Armas denominadas no letales(10)

Las denominadas armas no letales no son un nuevo tipo de armas sino que han existido en muchos a?os en forma de, por ejemplo, ca?ones de agua, balas de goma y gas lacrim?geno. Pero actualmente se han desarrollado t?cnicas m?s avanzadas que, a pesar de que pueden causar da?os graves e incluso la invalidez o la muerte, se denominan no letales.

Se han desarrollado tecnolog?as contra material y contra personas. Un ejemplo son las armas ac?sticas que, al producir un ruido de bajo nivel, pueden confundir y desorientar, y de esa manera neutralizar, al enemigo. Otros ejemplos son la espuma adhesiva y el l?ser cegador. Los productos qu?micos que decoloran el agua pueden afectar tanto a la agricultura como a la poblaci?n. Mediante rayos electromagn?ticos se pueden destruir los sistemas de informaci?n, navegaci?n y comunicaci?n del enemigo. Las denominadas amas no letales tambi?n pueden utilizarse contra las infraestructuras y las autoridades de un Estado, pueden destruir el sistema de ferrocarril o producir el caos en el sector financiero de un pa?s. La caracter?stica com?n de estas armas es que tienen como objetivo retrasar, obstruir y vencer a un potencial enemigo a "nivel estrat?gico"(11).

El hecho de que estos tipos de armas se conozcan con la denominaci?n com?n de no letales es gravemente enga?oso. La denominaci?n de "no letales" pretende presentar estas armas como m?s humanas que las armas convencionales -pero no hay armas humanas. La utilizaci?n de un tipo de armas constituye un peligro de da?os o muerte que es precisamente el objetivo de las armas. Las denominadas armas no letales se aplicar?an en los primeros momentos de un conflicto y pueden en s? mismas ser la causa del conflicto. El recurso a la violencia por parte de soldados y polic?as puede aumentar debido a que las armas se presentan como menos peligrosas. Existe el riesgo real de que estas armas reduzcan el umbral del recurso a la violencia para la soluci?n de conflictos.

El objetivo es neutralizar al enemigo sin sufrimientos prolongados y sin muertes. Pero c?mo y contra qui?n se utilizar?n las armas no letales es un aspecto importante para los efectos que puedan tener dichas armas. Un arma que puede neutralizar a un soldado puede herir e incluso matar a un ni?o o a una persona anciana. La distancia a la que se disparen y en qu? cantidad son otros factores que hay que tener en cuenta al calcular los efectos de las armas. Como punto de referencia se puede mencionar que las armas convencionales "s?lo" producen un 25% de muertes (12).

Las denominadas armas no letales se utilizan como medio efectivo en la guerra moderna, aisladamente o junto con las armas convencionales. Por ejemplo, los EE.UU. utilizaron armas de radiofrecuencia en la guerra del Golfo para destruir el sistema energ?tico de Iraq (13), a pesar de que no se conoc?an los efectos antipersonas de las armas de radiofrecuencia. Por lo tanto, las armas no letales no deben considerarse separadamente sino como un componente de un sistema letal. El desarrollo de las denominadas armas no letales ofrece un mayor n?mero de opciones en la guerra. El resultado es, por lo tanto, una mayor utilizaci?n de la fuerza en lugar de lo contrario. Las denominadas armas no letales no dan como resultado conflictos no letales.

A la vez que se desarrollan m?s tipos de armas no letales, aumenta el inter?s de los militares, la polic?a y el ?mbito pol?tico de probar la manera en que funcionan. Las armas no letales no deben utilizarse como un instrumento de interferencia y dominio pol?tico de los pa?ses del norte sobre los pa?ses del sur.

Hace falta una legislaci?n efectiva para las armas no letales. S?lo una peque?a parte de las armas y t?cnicas no letales pueden prohibirse en virtud de la interpretaci?n de normas de control de armas, por ejemplo la espuma adhesiva, que se utiliz? en Somalia y Bosnia. Algunos tipos de l?ser (el l?ser cegador) tambi?n se ha limitado en el Convenio sobre determinadas armas convencionales. Las toxinas biol?gicas (por ejemplo, la salmonela y otras bacterias) est?n prohibidas por el Convenio sobre armas biol?gicas. Algunas de estas armas tienen graves consecuencias para el medio ambiente. Por consiguiente la legislaci?n internacional debe reforzarse para regular las nuevas armas que siguen desarroll?ndose.

El proyecto Cyrus del Comit? de la Cruz Roja Internacional podr?a utilizarse a falta de otras normas internacionales adecuadas para las armas no letales. El proyecto Cyrus ha clasificado y establecido criterios m?s estrictos para las armas convencionales en lo que se refiere a mortalidad, invalidez, tratamiento necesario, transfusi?n de sangre, etc. La Uni?n Europea debe actuar de manera que los convenios internacionales regulen tambi?n las nuevas tecnolog?as de armas y el desarrollo de nuevas estrategias de armas.

Armas qu?micas

Las medidas de las Naciones Unidas destinadas a destruir las armas qu?micas y otros tipos de armas de destrucci?n masiva en Iraq ha producido una grave preocupaci?n sobre las repercusiones medioambientales de las actividades militares y ha subrayado la necesidad de buscar m?todos ecol?gicos para neutralizar las armas. El convenio sobre armas qu?micas (CWC) entr? en vigor en abril de 1997. El art?culo 1 obliga a los Estados que han ratificado el convenio a no desarrollar, producir o exportar armas qu?micas en ninguna circunstancia. Tambi?n obliga a no utilizar armas qu?micas y a destruir las armas qu?micas existentes. En virtud del art?culo 3, los Estados deber?n notificar, en un plazo de 30 d?as tras la entrada en vigor del convenio, informaci?n sobre la posesi?n de armas qu?micas y su localizaci?n, as? como presentar un plan para la destrucci?n de dichas armas. La destrucci?n debe comenzar con las existencias m?s antiguas. 165 Estados han firmado el convenio y 110 lo han ratificado. 26 Estados no han firmado el convenio, entre ellos algunos pa?ses importantes del Oriente Medio.

La destrucci?n de armas qu?micas ha dado lugar a una grave preocupaci?n por el medio ambiente - estas armas representan decenas de miles de toneladas de gas de mostaza, gas nervioso y otras sustancias qu?micas. Las armas qu?micas pueden destruirse mediante incineraci?n, pero muy pocos pa?ses tienen instalaciones adecuadas para ello. La neutralizaci?n de las armas qu?micas es un proceso caro, entre 3 y 10 veces m?s caro que el proceso de producci?n de dichas armas. Para que Rusia, que tiene existencias muy importantes, pueda hacerlo, es necesaria la ayuda econ?mica de otros pa?ses. En Kambarka, una ciudad rusa, se encuentran 6.000 toneladas de armas qu?micas almacenadas en construcciones de madera a 2 kil?metros de una zona muy poblada. El tratamiento de estas cantidades de sustancias peligrosas exige esfuerzos importantes y el proceso durar? algunos a?os. Existe un claro riesgo de que se produzcan accidentes o de que las armas caigan en poder de destinatarios no deseados.

Se ha confirmado que aproximadamente 150.000 toneladas de bombas, obuses y minas con armas qu?micas, principalmente gas de mostaza, fosgeno, tabun y ars?nico, se depositaron en Skagerack al final de la segunda guerra mundial. En el Mar B?ltico la cifra es de 40.000 toneladas. Muchos de los contenedores se encuentran completamente oxidados y las armas qu?micas est?n en contacto directo con el agua del mar. De todas formas, se ha decidido que deben permanecer en el fondo del mar ya que el riesgo de recuperarlas se considera a?n mayor.

Armas nucleares

Las repercusiones medioambientales de las armas nucleares podr?an ser enormes. Es probable que el efecto combinado de la lluvia radiactiva en extensas zonas, el deterioro de la capa de ozono por los ?xidos de nitr?geno de las explosiones nucleares y el cambio clim?tico producido por extensos y continuos incendios dar?a lugar a graves cat?strofes ecol?gicas en grandes zonas del planeta.

Los ensayos nucleares tienen tambi?n efectos perjudiciales sobre el medio ambiente. La cantidad total de radiactividad liberada a la atm?sfera en los ensayos atmosf?ricos se calcula entre 100 y 1.000 veces mayor que la producida en Chernobil (14). El acuerdo de 1963 entre los EE.UU., la URSS y el Reino Unido sobre prohibici?n parcial de ensayos nucleares proh?be los ensayos en la atm?sfera, en el espacio exterior y subacu?ticos, es decir todos los ensayos menos los subterr?neos.

Francia ha realizado 180 ensayos nucleares en el atol?n Mururoa en el Oc?ano Pac?fico desde 1966 con importantes repercusiones sobre el medio ambiente (15). Se ha encontrado una peligrosa cantidad de varios kilos de plutonio en el fondo de las lagunas en Mururoa y Fangataufa. Tambi?n se han esparcido part?culas de plutonio en la tierra de tres islas en las proximidades de Mururoa (16). La India y el Pakist?n tambi?n han realizado recientemente ensayos nucleares (17). Su desarrollo t?cnico no se considera lo suficientemente controlado, lo que supone que los ensayos nucleares pueden tener repercusiones medioambientales en zonas muy lejanas de estas regiones. Debe efectuarse inmediatamente una investigaci?n internacional independiente del impacto medioambiental en los lugares donde se realizaron los ensayos y en las zonas pr?ximas.

El plutonio es ciertamente la sustancia m?s peligrosa que se conoce. Muchos pa?ses poseen grandes cantidades de plutonio militar y pueden producirse armas nucleares de una forma relativamente simple a partir de plutonio "civil". Las instalaciones que actualmente tienen una funci?n civil pueden convertirse r?pidamente en f?bricas de armas. En la fabricaci?n del plutonio se producen grandes cantidades de residuos l?quidos altamente radiactivos. El tratamiento de los residuos radiactivos causa problemas enormes. La producci?n en gran escala de armas de destrucci?n masiva durante las ?ltimas d?cadas ha producido grandes cantidades de residuos. No existe ning?n m?todo adecuado conocido para almacenar los residuos radiactivos. Se almacenan normalmente en contenedores, pero grandes cantidades se liberan en la naturaleza. Los residuos radiactivos son extremadamente inflamables y pueden explotar si no est?n ventilados o refrigerados. En 1957 ocurri? un accidente en la planta nuclear Chelyabinsk-65 cerca de la ciudad de Kystym en los Urales. Un contenedor radiactivo explot? y los residuos radiactivos se extendieron en una zona de 1.000 Km2. Fue preciso evacuar a 10.000 personas. Cerca del lago Karachay, en las proximidades de Chelyabinsk-65, todav?a es posible recibir, situ?ndose simplemente en la orilla del lago, un nivel de radiactividad tal que produce la muerte instant?nea (18).

En la zona del B?ltico existen extensas ?reas contaminadas por antiguas actividades militares sovi?ticas. En Estonia, se encuentra el lago Sillanm?, tambi?n llamado el lago nuclear, que acoge residuos militares radiactivos equivalentes a miles de armas nucleares, el lago Sillanm? se encuentra a 100 metros del mar B?ltico. Cualquier vertido al mar B?ltico podr?a tener consecuencias devastadoras para el medio ambiente en toda la regi?n del B?ltico.

A finales de la d?cada de los ochenta Rusia dispon?a de m?s armas nucleares que todos los dem?s pa?ses juntos. En la pen?nsula de Kola y en Sevrodvinsk en Rusia se encuentra actualmente la mayor concentraci?n de reactores nucleares del mundo (240 unidades) (19). Grandes cantidades de residuos radiactivos y de submarinos nucleares se han almacenado en astilleros de la pen?nsula de Kola. Rusia y la flota rusa se encuentran en una situaci?n imposible para tratar los reactores fuera de servicio. No tienen posibilidades econ?micas para financiar un desmontaje seguro. Los bajos sueldos han tenido como consecuencia que el personal cualificado abandone los astilleros, lo que produce una gran escasez de personal cualificado.

Incluso en el centro de Mosc? se han encontrado 1.200 fuentes de envenenamiento radiactivo, incluyendo canteras de arena, refugios antia?reos, viviendas privadas, garajes e instalaciones deportivas (20). La posibilidad de que Rusia pueda liberarse de las armas nucleares, qu?micas y biol?gicas de los arsenales militares y de las sustancias de los institutos de investigaci?n o la industria no deben subestimarse. Es preocupante que no existan equipos adecuados para tratar los residuos de una forma que respete el medio ambiente. Tanto desde un punto de vista econ?mico como medioambiental cualquier accidente que pueda ocurrir podr?a tener repercusiones devastadoras. Cada a?o que pasa sin haber adoptado medidas suficientes hace que aumente el riesgo y la gravedad de un accidente.

Existe una propuesta concreta y realista para eliminar progresivamente las armas nucleares del mundo. La propuesta fue presentada en agosto de 1996 por el grupo de expertos independiente que constitu?a la Comisi?n de Camberra (21). En julio de 1996 el Tribunal Internacional de la Haya emiti? el dictamen un?nime de que el art?culo 6 del Tratado de no proliferaci?n obliga a los Estados nucleares a iniciar negociaciones sobre el desarme nuclear. El Tribunal tambi?n decidi? que la amenaza de la utilizaci?n de armas nucleares no era conforme con el Derecho internacional. La Uni?n Europea deber?a actuar en favor de la aplicaci?n de la propuesta de la Comisi?n de Camberra y del art?culo 6 del Tratado de no proliferaci?n.

HAARP - un sistema de armas destructor del clima

El 5 de febrero de 1998 la Subcomisi?n de Seguridad y Desarme del Parlamento Europeo celebr? una audiencia sobre, entre otras cosas, el HAARP. Se invit? a representantes de la OTAN y de los EE.UU., pero declinaron la invitaci?n.

La subcomisi?n lamenta que los EE.UU. no enviaran a un representante para responder a las preguntas o aprovechar la oportunidad de comentar el material presentado (22).

El HAARP (Programa de Investigaci?n de Alta Frecuencia Auroral Activa) es un proyecto que llevan a cabo conjuntamente la fuerza a?rea y la marina de los Estados Unidos, junto con el Instituto Geof?sico de la Universidad de Alaska, Fairbanks. Experimentos similares se est?n realizando tambi?n en Noruega, probablemente en el Ant?rtico, as? como en la antigua Uni?n Sovi?tica (23). El HAARP es un proyecto de investigaci?n que utiliza instalaciones terrestres y una red de antenas, cada una equipada con su propio transmisor, para calentar partes de la ionosfera (24) con potentes ondas de radio. La energ?a generada calienta partes de la ionosfera, lo que produce agujeros en la ionosfera y "lentes" artificiales.

El HAARP puede utilizarse para muchos fines. Mediante la manipulaci?n de las caracter?sticas el?ctricas de la ionosfera se puede controlar una gran cantidad de energ?a. Si se utiliza como arma militar, esta energ?a puede tener un impacto devastador sobre el enemigo. El HAARP puede enviar muchos millones m?s de energ?a que cualquier otro transmisor convencional. La energ?a tambi?n puede dirigirse a un blanco m?vil, lo que podr?a constituir un potencial sistema antimisiles.

El proyecto permite tambi?n una mejor comunicaci?n con submarinos y la manipulaci?n de condiciones clim?ticas globales. Ahora bien, tambi?n es posible hacer lo contrario e interferir las comunicaciones. Mediante la manipulaci?n de la ionosfera se pueden bloquear las comunicaciones globales a la vez que se transmiten las propias. Otra aplicaci?n es la penetraci?n de la tierra (tomograf?a) con rayos X a una profundidad de varios kil?metros para detectar campos de petr?leo y gas o instalaciones militares subterr?neas. Otra aplicaci?n es el radar sobre el horizonte, y definir objetivos a larga distancia. De esta manera, se puede detectar la aproximaci?n de objetos m?s all? del horizonte. Desde la d?cada de los cincuenta los EE.UU. han realizado explosiones de material nuclear en los cinturones Van Allen (25) para investigar el efecto de las explosiones nucleares a esa altura sobre las comunicaciones de radio y la operaci?n del radar gracias al pulso electromagn?tico que desprende una explosi?n. Estas explosiones crearon nuevos cinturones de radiaci?n magn?tica que cubrieron pr?cticamente todo el planeta. Los electrones se movieron en l?neas magn?ticas y crearon una Aurora Boreal artificial sobre el Polo Norte. Con estos ensayos militares se corre el peligro de destruir gravemente el cintur?n Van Allen durante mucho tiempo. El campo magn?tico de la tierra puede destruirse sobre grandes extensiones e impedir las comunicaciones por radio. Seg?n cient?ficos norteamericanos. Pueden pasar muchos a?os antes de que el cintur?n Van Allen se estabilice de nuevo. El proyecto HAARP puede resultar en cambios de la situaci?n clim?tica. Tambi?n puede influir en el ecosistema, especialmente en la regi?n sensible del Ant?rtico.

Otra consecuencia grave de HAARP son los agujeros de la ionosfera causados por las potentes ondas de radio. La ionosfera nos protege de la radiaci?n c?smica. Se espera que los agujeros se cierren de nuevo, pero la experiencia con la capa de ozono hace pensar lo contrario. Esto quiere decir que hay agujeros considerables en la ionosfera que nos protege.

Debido a sus considerables efectos sobre el medio ambiente, HAARP es un asunto de inter?s mundial y debe cuestionarse si las ventajas de este sistema realmente son superiores a los riesgos. Hay que investigar los efectos ecol?gicos y ?ticos antes de proseguir con la investigaci?n y los ensayos. HAARP es un proyecto casi desconocido y es importante que la opini?n p?blica sepa de qu? se trata.

El HAARP est? vinculado a 50 a?os de investigaci?n espacial intensiva de marcado car?cter militar, incluyendo el proyecto "guerra de las estrellas", para controlar la alta atm?sfera y las comunicaciones. Este tipo de proyectos deben considerarse como una grave amenaza para el medio ambiente, con un impacto incalculable sobre la vida humana. Incluso ahora, nadie sabe el impacto que podr? tener el proyecto HAARP. Debemos luchar contra el secreto en la investigaci?n militar. Hay que fomentar la transparencia y el acceso democr?tico a los proyectos de investigaci?n militar y el control parlamentario de los mismos.

Una serie de leyes internacionales (el Convenio sobre la prohibici?n de la utilizaci?n militar o de cualquier utilizaci?n hostil de las t?cnicas de modificaci?n el medio ambiente, el Tratado Ant?rtico, el Tratado sobre los principios que rigen las actividades de los Estados en la exploraci?n y utilizaci?n del espacio exterior, incluyendo la luna y otros cuerpos celestes, as? como el Convenio de las Naciones Unidas sobre la ley del mar) ponen en duda no s?lo la base humanitaria y pol?tica del proyecto HAARP sino tambi?n su base jur?dica. El Tratado Ant?rtico dispone que el Ant?rtico debe utilizarse exclusivamente para fines pac?ficos (26). Esto significa que el proyecto HAARP infringe el Derecho internacional. Todas las implicaciones de los nuevos sistemas de armas deben ser investigadas por ?rganos internacionales independientes. Deben elaborarse tambi?n nuevos acuerdos internacionales para proteger al medio ambiente de su destrucci?n innecesaria en tiempo de guerra.

Impacto de las actividades militares sobre el medio ambiente

No s?lo los sistemas de armas sino todas las actividades militares tienen en general consecuencias sobre el medio ambiente, incluso los ejercicios que se realizan en tiempo de paz. Ahora bien, cuando se debate la destrucci?n medioambiental no se menciona en general el papel de los militares, sino que se critica ?nicamente el impacto sobre el medio ambiente de la sociedad civil. Hay por lo menos dos explicaciones de esto (27). Las actividades militares son m?s dif?ciles de discutir debido al secreto que las rodea y es dif?cil enfrentar las m?s altas prioridades nacionales, la seguridad y la defensa, con el medio ambiente. Hoy en d?a, cuando las cat?strofes naturales y medioambientales constituyen una grave amenaza a la seguridad, este argumento se ha vuelto m?s dudoso.

Las fuerzas armadas se esfuerzan en tiempo de paz por prepararse para situaciones de guerra de la manera m?s realista posible. Por ello, realizan sus maniobras en condiciones similares a las condiciones de guerra, lo que implica una enorme presi?n sobre el medio ambiente. Un ejemplo de ello es la retirada de las tropas sovi?ticas y las bases militares abandonadas en la Europa Central y Oriental, que han dejado una profunda huella en el medio ambiente local. Los ejercicios militares implican da?os generalizados al paisaje y a la vida animal. Los ejercicios con tropas someten extensas ?reas de tierra a una destrucci?n medioambiental generalizada. Los campos de ejercicio de la artiller?a y de misiles t?cticos exigen extensas ?reas para fines militares. De la misma manera, la producci?n de municiones y la industria de fabricaci?n de equipos militares causan considerables problemas medioambientales.

Las fuerzas armadas son responsables de la emisi?n de gases que afectan al clima, principalmente di?xido de carbono, pero tambi?n la incineraci?n de combustibles f?siles y las emisiones de freones, que destruyen la capa de ozono (28). El consumo de queroseno es una de las principales fuentes de emisi?n de sustancias acidificantes como los ?xidos de nitr?geno y el ?xido de azufre. Las fuerzas armadas representan una gran parte de todo el consumo de queroseno y producen una gran parte de todas las emisiones de aviones (29). Los aviones que vuelan a gran altitud, as? como los misiles, causan un impacto especialmente perjudicial sobre el medio ambiente, tanto en forma de ruido como de emisiones de combustible. Todos los misiles que utilizan combustible s?lido emiten grandes cantidades de ?cido clorh?drico y cada vuelo de una nave espacial inyecta aproximadamente 75 toneladas de clorina, que destruye el ozono; de la misma manera, el ruido causado por los ejercicios militares en los que se utiliza munici?n de gran calibre puede tambi?n destruir el medio ambiente.

Los ejercicios de tiro contaminan la naturaleza con metales. A menudo se utilizan grandes cantidades de munici?n de peque?o calibre que contiene plomo y se dispersan en la naturaleza grandes cantidades de este metal. Por desgracia, no existe una investigaci?n exhaustiva sobre el consumo de metales.

Las consecuencias en forma de problemas medioambientales causados por el desarme es un fen?meno que s?lo se ha observado recientemente. Cada a?o, se destruyen, principalmente de forma industrial, grandes cantidades de explosivos. La munici?n que, por distintas razones, no puede destruirse de esta manera, debe hacerse explotar. Evidentemente, el desarme es necesario y positivo pero debe efectuarse de una forma que respete el medio ambiente. Deben desarrollarse tecnolog?as limpias para la destrucci?n de armas.

Algunas naciones ya han empezado a aprovechar la oportunidad de utilizar recursos militares para restaurar el medio ambiente destruido por las fuerzas armadas. Todos los sectores de la sociedad deben responsabilizarse del medio ambiente y el sector militar no debe ser una excepci?n. Como en otros sectores de la sociedad, las cuestiones medioambientales deben ser parte integral de las actividades de las fuerzas armadas y deben incluirse en los procesos presupuestario y de toma de decisiones. En mayo de 1993, el programa de las Naciones Unidas para el medio ambiente (PNUMA) instaba a los gobiernos nacionales a establecer leyes nacionales para el sector militar, "aplicaci?n de normas medioambientales a las actividades militares". Finlandia, por ejemplo, ha elaborado un "Libro Verde" para regular el impacto de las actividades militares en el medio ambiente. Lo mismo ha hecho Suecia (30). En junio de 19996, Suecia elabor? tambi?n, junto con los EE.UU., directrices medioambientales para las actividades medioambientales (31). Las fuerzas armadas deben establecer objetivos medioambientales y proponer medidas para contribuir a la reducci?n del impacto sobre el medio ambiente de conformidad con la Agenda 21 y la Declaraci?n de R?o (32). Tambi?n deben presentar informes en los que se definan los factores que afectan al medio ambiente dentro de las fuerzas armadas. Antes de comenzar nuevos proyectos y de adquirir material para uso militar o civil deben realizarse evaluaciones de su impacto ambiental. Cada gobierno debe realizar un inventario de sus necesidades medioambientales y definir los recursos militares que est?n disponibles para fines medioambientales, elaborar planes medioambientales nacionales e informar de su experiencia a un ?rgano adecuado en la Uni?n Europea y de las Naciones Unidas.

Todo el personal militar, incluyendo el personal de reemplazo, debe recibir una formaci?n b?sica en materia de medio ambiente. Las fuerzas armadas de los Estados Unidos han avanzado mucho
1987 , Gulf Breeze - Florida234 views
Winchester, Hampshire - England - August 13, 2002234 viewsAlien Message:

1. Beware of the false presence and broken promises.
2. Much pain, but there's still time..
3. Believe there's still Good Outthere!
4. We oppose deceive.
5. The conduct is closing.
Animated Quantum Video.jpg
Animated Quantum Video 234 viewswww.youtube/watch?v=x_tNzeouHC4&mode=related&search= (duurt maar 5 minuten en 12 seconden)

Everything is Conscious(ness)..

If this elephant of mind is bound on all sides by the cord of mindfulness,
All fear disappears and complete happiness comes.
All enemies: all the tigers, lions, elephants, bears, serpents (of our emotions);
And all the keepers of hell; the demons and the horrors,
All of these are bound by the mastery of your mind,
And by the taming of that one mind, all are subdued,
Because from the mind are derived all fears and immeasurable sorrows.

NASA satellite picture showing Chemtrails for WeatherModification..234 views
Chemtrails Zeist 2006234 viewsen - English

RAPPORT 155k 116k

14 janvier 1999 PE 227.710/d?f. A4-0005/99

sur l'environnement, la s?curit? et la politique ?trang?re
Rapporteur pour avis ( Proc?dure "Hughes"):
Mr Olsson, commission de l'environnement, de la sant? publique et de la protection des consommateurs
Commission des affaires ?trang?res, de la s?curit? et de la politique de d?fense
Rapporteur: Mme Maj Britt Theorin

Au cours de la s?ance du 13 juillet 1995, le Pr?sident du Parlement a annonc? qu'il avait renvoy? la proposition de r?solution d?pos?e, conform?ment ? l'article 45 du r?glement, par Mme Rehn sur l'utilisation potentielle des ressources ? caract?re militaire pour les strat?gies environnementales, (B4-0551/95) ? la commission des affaires ?trang?res, de la s?curit? et de la politique de d?fense, pour examen au fond, et ? la commission de l'environnement, de la sant? publique et de la protection des consommateurs, pour avis.
Annexe 1

Au cours de la s?ance du 13 juillet 1995, le Pr?sident du Parlement a annonc? qu'il avait renvoy? la proposition de r?solution d?pos?e, conform?ment ? l'article 45 du r?glement, par Mme Rehn sur l'utilisation potentielle des ressources ? caract?re militaire pour les strat?gies environnementales, (B4-0551/95) ? la commission des affaires ?trang?res, de la s?curit? et de la politique de d?fense, pour examen au fond, et ? la commission de l'environnement, de la sant? publique et de la protection des consommateurs, pour avis.

Suite ? la demande de la Conf?rence des pr?sidents des commissions, le Pr?sident du Parlement a annonc? au cours de la s?ance du 15 novembre 1996 que la commission des affaires ?trang?res, de la s?curit? et de la politique de d?fense ?tait autoris?e ? pr?senter un rapport sur ce sujet.

Au cours de sa r?union du 19 novembre 1996,la commission des affaires ?trang?res, de la s?curit? et de la politique de d?fense a nomm? Mme Maj Britt Theorin rapporteur.

Au cours de la s?ance du 19 juin 1998, le Pr?sident du Parlement a annonc? que ce rapport devait ?tre ?labor?, conform?ment ? la proc?dure Hughes, par la commission des affaires ?trang?res, de la s?curit? et de la politique de d?fense et par la commission de l'environnement, de la sant? publique et de la protection des consommateurs.

Le projet de rapport a ?t? examin? par la commission des affaires ?trang?res, de la s?curit? et de la politique de d?fense lors de ses r?unions des 5 f?vrier 1998, 29 juin 1998, 21 juillet 1998, 3, 23 et 28 septembre 1998, 13, 27 et 29 octobre 1998 et 4/5 janvier 1999, ainsi que par la sous-commission de la s?curit? et du d?sarmement lors de ses r?unions des 5 f?vrier 1998, 3 et 23 septembre 1998.

Au cours de la derni?re de ses r?unions, la commission des affaires ?trang?res, de la s?curit? et de la politique de d?fense a adopt? la proposition de r?solution par 28 voix et 1 abstention.

?taient pr?sents au moment du vote les d?put?s Spencer, pr?sident; Theorin, rappporteur; Aelvoet, Andr?-L?onard, Bar?n-Crespo, Bertens, Bianco, Burenstam Linder, Carnero Gonz?lez, Carrozzo (suppl?ant M. Colajanni), Dillen, Dupuis, Gahrton, Goerens (suppl?ant M. Cars), Graziani, G?nther (suppl?ant M. Gomolka), Lalumi?re, Lambrias, Pack (suppl?ant M. Habsburg), Pettinari (suppl?ant M. Imbeni conform?ment ? l'article 138, paragraphe 2, du r?glement), Piha, Rinsche, Sakellariou, Salafranca S?nchez-Neyra, Schroedter (suppl?ant M. Cohn-Bendit), Schwaiger (suppl?ant Mme Lenz), Speciale, Swoboda (suppl?ant Mme Hoff), Tindemans, Titley et Truscott.

L'avis de la commission de l'environnement, de la sant? publique et de la protection des consommateurs est joint au pr?sent rapport.

Le rapport a ?t? d?pos? le 14 janvier 1999.

Le d?lai de d?p?t des amendements sera indiqu? dans le projet d'ordre du jour de la p?riode de session au cours de laquelle le rapport sera examin?.


R?solution sur l'environnement, la s?curit? et la politique ?trang?re: strat?gie en vue de l'utilisation de ressources militaires ? des fins environnementales

Le Parlement europ?en,

- vu la proposition de r?solution d?pos?e par Mme Rehn sur l'utilisation potentielle des ressources ? caract?re militaire pour les strat?gies environnementales (B4-0551/95),

- vu l'?tude des Nations unies "Charting potential uses of resources allocated to military activities for civilian endeavours to protect the environment", (UN A-46/364, 17 septembre 1991),

- vu sa r?solution du 17 juillet 1995 sur "les mines terrestres antipersonnel: un obstacle meurtrier au d?veloppement"(1),

- vu ses r?solutions pr?c?dentes sur la non-prolif?ration des armes nucl?aires et les essais nucl?aires et sur le rapport de la commission de Canberra d'ao?t 1996 concernant l'abolition des armes nucl?aires,

- vu la d?cision unanime de la Cour internationale de justice concernant l'obligation qui incombe aux ?tats nucl?aires de conclure un accord sur l'interdiction des armes nucl?aires (avis consultatif nΊ 96/22 du 8 juillet 1996),

- vu sa r?solution du 19 avril 1996 sur la proposition de d?cision du Conseil instituant un programme d'action communautaire en faveur de la protection civile(2),

- vu ses r?solutions pr?c?dentes sur les armes chimiques,

- vu les r?sultats des conf?rences des Nations unies de Kyoto en 1997 et de Rio de Janeiro en 1992,

- vu l'audition sur le projet HAARP et les armes non l?tales convoqu?e ? Bruxelles, le 5 f?vrier 1998, par la sous-commission "s?curit? et d?sarmement" de la commission des affaires ?trang?res, de la s?curit? et de la politique de d?fense,

- vu l'article 148 du r?glement,

- vu le rapport de la commission des affaires ?trang?res, de la s?curit? et de la politique de d?fense et l'avis de la commission de l'environnement, de la sant? publique et de la protection des consommateurs (A4-0005/99),

. constatant que la fin de la guerre froide a profond?ment modifi? la situation g?opolitique sur le plan de la s?curit? et que, dans le domaine militaire, la d?tente a conduit ? un d?sarmement g?n?ral et, en particulier, ? une limitation des armements nucl?aires, ce qui a permis de lib?rer d'?normes ressources militaires,

B. consid?rant qu'en d?pit de ce bouleversement total de la situation g?ostrat?gique depuis la fin de la guerre froide, le risque d'une atteinte d?sastreuse ? l'int?grit? et ? la durabilit? de l'environnement global n'a pas sensiblement diminu?, tant sur le plan des tirs d'armes nucl?aires accidentels ou non autoris?s que sur celui de l'utilisation licite d'armes nucl?aires dans la crainte infond?e d'une attaque imminente,

C. consid?rant qu'il serait possible de limiter consid?rablement ce risque en tr?s peu de temps si tous les ?tats poss?dant un arsenal nucl?aire mettaient en oeuvre rapidement les six mesures pr?vues par le rapport de la Commission de Canberra, en particulier s'ils retiraient toutes les armes nucl?aires du dispositif d'alerte rouge et transf?raient progressivement toutes les armes dans la r?serve strat?gique,

D. consid?rant que l'article VI du trait? de non-prolif?ration des armes nucl?aires (TNP) de 1968 invite toutes les parties signataires ? s'engager ? "continuer ? n?gocier de bonne foi ... un trait? sur un d?sarmement g?n?ral et complet" et notant que les principes et les objectifs adopt?s lors de la Conf?rence de 1995 sur la non-prolif?ration des armes nucl?aires r?affirmaient que l'objectif ultime du trait? ?tait l'abolition compl?te des armes nucl?aires,

E. notant que les menaces sur l'environnement, l'affluence de r?fugi?s, les conflits ethniques, le terrorisme et le crime international constituent de nouvelles menaces tr?s graves contre la s?curit? et que la facult? de g?rer diff?rentes formes de conflit prend de l'importance ? mesure que se modifie le contexte de la s?curit?, et consid?rant qu'il est important que les ressources affect?es au secteur militaire servent ?galement ? des fins non militaires puisque certaines menaces contre la s?curit? ne sont pas de nature militaire,

F. constatant que l'exploitation outranci?re des ressources de la plan?te est responsable de la fr?quence accrue ? laquelle surviennent les catastrophes naturelles et environnementales, notant que des probl?mes ?cologiques locaux et r?gionaux de cette nature peuvent avoir des incidences consid?rables sur les relations internationales et d?plorant que les ?tats membres n'en aient pas davantage tenu compte dans la mise en oeuvre de leur politique ?trang?re, de s?curit? et de d?fense,

G. consid?rant que, dans le monde, les conflits se d?roulent essentiellement ? un niveau intra?tatique plut?t qu'? un niveau inter?tatique et que, lorsqu'?clatent des conflits inter?tatiques, ces derniers concernent de plus en plus l'acc?s aux ressources vitales ou leur disponibilit?, en particulier l'eau, la nourriture et les combustibles,

H. consid?rant que l'acc?s ? ces ressources naturelles vitales et leur disponibilit? sont ?troitement li?s ? la d?t?rioration et ? la pollution de l'environnement, en ce qui concerne la cause aussi bien que l'effet, et que la pr?vention des conflits doit donc de plus en plus ?tre ax?e sur ces questions,

I. consid?rant que les pressions qui s'exercent sur les terres - ? des fins d'exploitation aussi bien que d'habitation - et qui ont toujours constitu? une des principales causes de tensions et de conflits, sont de plus en plus souvent imputables ? la d?gradation de l'environnement, en particulier les changements climatiques et l'?l?vation du niveau des mers qui en r?sulte,

J. consid?rant que l'ensemble de ces facteurs, qui affectent avant tout les populations les plus pauvres et les plus vuln?rables de la terre, favorisent de plus en plus l'apparition de r?fugi?s dits "environnementaux", ce qui fait na?tre une pression directe sur les politiques de l'immigration et de la justice de l'Union europ?enne (UE), sur l'aide au d?veloppement et sur les ressources affect?es ? l'aide humanitaire, tout en accroissent indirectement les probl?mes de s?curit? de l'UE du fait de l'existence de foyers d'instabilit? r?gionale dans d'autres parties du monde,

K. consid?rant que, selon les r?sultats d'une recherche internationale d?taill?e men?e ? bien et publi?e par le Climate Institute de Washington, le nombre de "r?fugi?s environnementaux" d?passe maintenant celui des "r?fugi?s traditionnels" (25 millions contre 22 millions) et devrait doubler d'ici 2010, voire davantage dans la pire des hypoth?ses,

L. consid?rant que la question des "r?fugi?s environnementaux" n'est que le sympt?me d'un d?sastre humanitaire d'une ampleur beaucoup plus grande, sachant que 1,3 milliard de personnes vivent dans la pauvret? absolue selon la d?finition des Nations unies; que plus d'un quart de ces personnes tentent de subsister dans des r?gions du monde extr?mement vuln?rables sur le plan environnemental o? elles constituent le facteur essentiel de probl?mes environnementaux plan?taires comme la d?forestation et la d?sertification,

M. consid?rant que, depuis la fin de la guerre froide, bien que le contexte id?ologique qui pr?dominait auparavant ait largement disparu de la gestion des questions globales et que cette derni?re d?pende beaucoup moins de la question de l'?quilibre militaire, il n'en reste pas moins que cette situation devrait encore se refl?ter dans le syst?me de gestion globale des Nations unies en mettant l'accent sur la coh?rence et l'efficacit? des ?l?ments ? la fois militaires et non militaires de la politique de s?curit?,

N. consid?rant n?anmoins qu'une part croissante des travaux des Nations unies dans le domaine des questions de politique et de s?curit? globale est essentiellement d'ordre non militaire et porte avant tout sur les relations entre le commerce, l'aide, l'environnement et un d?veloppement durable,

O. constatant qu'il y a lieu de mobiliser d'urgence des ressources appropri?es afin de relever les d?fis environnementaux et notant que les ressources disponibles en mati?re de protection de l'environnement sont tr?s limit?es, ce qui implique une nouvelle conception de l'utilisation des ressources d?j? existantes,

P. notant que les forces arm?es ont une opportunit? unique et une capacit? ?norme de soutenir les efforts du secteur civil en vue de ma?triser les probl?mes environnementaux accrus ? mesure que les ressources militaires sont lib?r?es,

Q. constatant que les ressources militaires rel?vent du domaine national, alors que les d?fis environnementaux ont un caract?re global et que, d?s lors, il y a lieu de poser les jalons d'une coop?ration internationale en mati?re de transfert et d'utilisation des ressources militaires ? la fin de prot?ger l'environnement,

R. consid?rant que les co?ts ? court terme de la protection de l'environnement doivent ?tre ?valu?s par rapport aux co?ts ? long terme de l'inertie dans ce domaine et constatant que s'affirme la n?cessit? de proc?der ? une analyse du rapport co?t-efficacit? de diff?rentes strat?gies environnementales englobant les transferts ?ventuels, le r?am?nagement et le red?ploiement des ressources li?es au secteur militaire,

S. constatant qu'il ne sera pas possible de r?aliser l'objectif commun de l'assainissement des ?cosyst?mes endommag?s de la plan?te sans veiller ? l'exploitation ?quitable des ressources mondiales; qu'il est n?cessaire de faciliter la coop?ration technique internationale et de promouvoir le transfert de technologies militaires appropri?es,

T. consid?rant que la recherche militaire porte actuellement sur la manipulation de l'environnement ? des fins militaires, et ce en d?pit des conventions existantes; c'est le cas, par exemple, du syst?me HAARP bas? en Alaska,

U. consid?rant que l'exp?rience acquise dans le domaine du d?veloppement et de l'utilisation de l'?nergie nucl?aire ? des fins pacifiques constitue une mise en garde salutaire contre l'invocation du secret militaire pour emp?cher une ?valuation correcte et un contr?le des technologies relevant ? la fois des domaines civil et militaire puisque la transparence est de toute fa?on compromise,

V. consid?rant que la crainte g?n?rale d'un d?clin ?cologique et d'une crise environnementale doit inciter les ?tats ? fixer des priorit?s dans leur processus de d?cision et encourager les nations ? r?agir conjointement et efficacement ? l'?gard des catastrophes environnementales,

1. invite la Commission ? pr?senter au Conseil et au Parlement une strat?gie commune telle que pr?vue dans le trait? d'Amsterdam qui, d'ici 2000 ? 2010, ?tablisse les liens entre les aspects de la politique de l'UE li?s ? la politique ?trang?re et de s?curit? commune (PESC) et ses politiques dans les domaines du commerce, de l'aide, du d?veloppement et de l'environnement au plan international, de mani?re ? aborder les questions suivantes et ? examiner leur interaction:

a) la production agricole et alimentaire et la d?t?rioration de l'environnement,

b) la p?nurie d'eau et l'approvisionnement transfrontalier en eau,

c) la d?forestation et le r?tablissement des mines de charbon,

d) le ch?mage, le sous-emploi et la pauvret? absolue,

e) le d?veloppement durable et les changements climatiques,

f) la d?forestation, la d?sertification et la croissance de la population,

g) l'interaction entre l'ensemble des facteurs susmentionn?s et le r?chauffement de la plan?te, de m?me que l'impact de l'augmentation des ?v?nements climatiques extr?mes sur l'homme et l'environnement;

2. constate que les actions environnementales pr?ventives repr?sentent un instrument important sur le plan de la politique de s?curit?; invite, par cons?quent, les ?tats membres ? introduire des objectifs environnementaux et sanitaires dans leurs ?valuations, leur recherche militaire et leurs plans d'action ? long terme dans les domaines de la d?fense et de la s?curit?;

3. reconna?t le r?le important que joue l'arm?e dans la soci?t? d?mocratique et ses t?ches pour la d?fense du territoire, de m?me que le fait que des initiatives visant ? garantir et ? r?tablir la paix peuvent dans une large mesure contribuer ? ?viter les pr?judices environnementaux;

4. constate que les essais nucl?aires atmosph?riques et souterrains comportent des retomb?es radioactives qui ont entra?n? la dispersion d'?normes quantit?s de c?sium 137 radioactif, de strontium 90 et d'autres isotopes canc?rig?nes sur l'ensemble de la plan?te, et qu'ils ont ?t? terriblement pr?judiciables ? l'environnement et ? la sant? dans les zones d'essai;

5. consid?re que plusieurs r?gions du monde sont menac?es par le stockage et l'immersion incontr?l?s, dangereux et inappropri?s de sous-marins nucl?aires et de b?timents de surface, avec leur combustible nucl?aire et leurs r?acteurs nucl?aires fissur?s, vu qu'il est hautement probable que de vastes r?gions pourraient ?tre rapidement contamin?es par les radiations qui s'en d?gagent;

6. note qu'il s'agit encore et toujours de r?soudre le probl?me des armes chimiques et conventionnelles immerg?es ? de multiples endroits dans les mers europ?ennes apr?s les deux guerres mondiales, l'immersion ?tant une solution de facilit? pour se d?barrasser de ces stocks; constate que personne ne sait ? ce jour quelle peut en ?tre l'incidence sur l'environnement ? long terme, notamment sur les poissons et la vie baln?aire;

7. consid?re que l'UE devra apporter sa contribution au r?glement du probl?me; constate que la guerre qui continue de ravager des r?gions enti?res d'Afrique a d?truit les structures sociales et agricoles et qu'un d?sastre environnemental frappe ? pr?sent les terres du fait de la d?sertification r?sultant de la d?forestation et de l'?rosion;

8. demande ? l'arm?e de mettre un terme aux activit?s qui contribuent ? la d?t?rioration de l'environnement et de la sant?, et de prendre toute mesure qui s'impose afin de nettoyer et d'assainir les zones pollu?es;

S'agissant de l'affectation de ressources militaires ? des fins environnementales,

9. consid?re que les ressources disponibles pour assainir et sauver l'environnement ravag? sont insuffisantes pour relever les d?fis ?cologiques globaux; demande en cons?quence que les ?tats membres s'engagnt ? affecter des ressources militaires ? la protection de l'environnement par le biais de:

a) l'introduction d'une formation de soldats de l'environnement dans le but de cr?er une brigade europ?enne commune de protection de l'environnement,

b) l'?valuation de leurs besoins environnementaux et des ressources militaires pouvant ?tre affect?es ? l'environnement, et l'utilisation de ces ressources dans leurs programmes nationaux de protection de l'environnement,

c) l'?valuation des ressources militaires pouvant ?tre mises ? la disposition des Nations unies ou de l'UE ? titre provisoire, ? long terme ou en cas de besoin, en tant qu'instrument de coop?ration internationale dans le cas de d?sastres ou de crises ?cologiques,

d) le d?veloppement de programmes en vue de la cr?ation d'unit?s de protection internationales et europ?ennes utilisant du personnel, des ?quipements et des installations militaires mises ? leur disposition au titre du partenariat pour la paix en cas de situation de crise environnementale,

e) l'introduction des objectifs du d?veloppement durable respectueux de l'environnement dans leur concept de s?curit?,

f) la garantie que les forces arm?es respectent les r?gles environnementales ?tablies et que les d?g?ts ant?rieurs caus?s par celles-ci ? l'environnement seront r?par?s,

g) l'introduction de consid?rations environnementales dans leurs programmes militaires de recherche et de d?veloppement;

10. au regard de l'exp?rience concr?te lacunaire dans ce domaine, prie instamment les gouvernements des ?tats membres:

a) de cr?er des centres pour l'?change d'informations concernant l'exp?rience acquise sur le plan national dans le domaine de l'affectation de ressources militaires ? la protection de l'environnement,

b) de faciliter la diffusion globale de donn?es environnementales, en ce compris celles fournies par leurs satellites militaires ou obtenues par le biais d'autres plates-formes de collecte d'informations,

11. invite les ?tats membres ? appliquer la l?gislation environnementale en vigueur pour la soci?t? civile ? l'ensemble de l'activit? militaire et ? faire en sorte que le secteur militaire se charge et assume le co?t de l'examen et de l'assainissement des zones endommag?es du fait d'activit?s militaires ant?rieures de mani?re ? pouvoir les r?affecter ? des fins civiles; une telle d?marche rev?t une importance particuli?re pour les vastes entrep?ts de munitions chimiques et conventionnelles le long des c?tes de l'UE;

12. invite l'ensemble des ?tats membres ? fixer des objectifs environnementaux et sanitaires ainsi que des plans d'action visant ? am?liorer la protection de l'environnement et de la sant? au sein de leurs forces arm?es respectives;

13. prie instamment les gouvernements des ?tats membres d'am?liorer progressivement la protection de l'environnement dans le secteur militaire par le biais de la formation, du d?veloppement technique et d'une initiation fondamentale de l'ensemble du personnel des forces arm?es et de tous les appel?s ? la connaissance de l'environnement;

14. demande ? l'UE d'unir ses efforts autour d'une nouvelle strat?gie de l'environnement visant ? affecter les ressources militaires ? la protection commune de l'environnement;

15. consid?re que les strat?gies environnementales devraient comporter le contr?le de l'environnement de la terre, l'?valuation des donn?es collect?es, la coordination des activit?s scientifiques, la diffusion de l'information et l'exploitation des donn?es pertinentes fournies par les syst?mes d'observation et de contr?le nationaux afin d'?tablir un bilan continu et exhaustif de l'?tat de l'environnement;

16. souligne que l'importante r?duction des d?penses militaires peut conduire ? d'importantes crises au plan r?gional et invite de ce fait les ?tats membres ? accro?tre leurs efforts de conversion de la production et de la technologie militaires en faveur de produits et d'applications civiles gr?ce ? des programmes nationaux et ? des initiatives communautaires comme le programme KONVER;

17. souligne l'importance d'un renforcement des activit?s environnementales pr?ventives afin de pouvoir lutter contre les catastrophes environnementales et naturelles;

18. prie instamment la Commission d'examiner en profondeur les menaces sur l'environnement r?sultant de la politique de s?curit? en Europe et de r?diger un "livre vert" sur les activit?s militaires ? incidences environnementales;

19. invite le Conseil ? accro?tre ses efforts pour que les ?tats-Unis, la Russie, l'Inde et la Chine signent l'accord conclu ? Ottawa en 1997 sur l'interdiction des mines anti-personnel;

20. consid?re que l'UE devrait renforcer ses mesures de soutien aux victimes de mines terrestres et encourager le d?veloppement de techniques de d?minage; est d'avis que le d?veloppement desdites techniques doit ?tre acc?l?r?;

21. consid?re qu'il y a lieu de d?noncer la politique du secret en mati?re de recherche militaire et qu'il faut privil?gier le droit ? l'information et au contr?le d?mocratique des projets de recherche militaire;

22. prie instamment les ?tats membres de d?velopper des technologies de destruction d'armes compatibles avec l'environnement;

23. souligne qu'une des menaces environnementales les plus graves qui existent ? proximit? de l'UE est le manque de contr?le des d?chets de l'industrie nucl?aire et des stocks d'armes biologiques et chimiques, de m?me que l'absence de mesures d'assainissement ? l'issue d'activit?s militaires; souligne qu'il importe que les ?tats membres oeuvrent en faveur d'un renforcement de la coop?ration internationale, par exemple dans le cadre des Nations unies ou du Partenariat pour la paix, de mani?re ? ce que ces armes soient d?truites d'une mani?re aussi compatible que possible avec la protection de l'environnement;

24. est d'avis que toutes les n?gociations futures sur la limitation et l'abolition ?ventuelle des armements nucl?aires devront tendre ? la r?duction mutuelle et ?quilibr?e des stocks d'armes;

25. estime, compte tenu de la situation particuli?rement difficile des pays de l'ancienne Union sovi?tique, que la menace que la d?t?rioration de l'?tat des armes et des mat?riaux nucl?aires encore d?tenus par ces pays repr?sente pour l'environnement aux niveaux tant global que local rend encore plus urgente la conclusion d'un accord sur la poursuite de l'?limination progressive des armes nucl?aires;

S'agissant des aspects l?gaux des activit?s militaires

26. demande ? l'Union europ?enne de faire en sorte que les nouvelles techniques d'armes dites nonl?tales et le d?veloppement de nouvelles strat?gies d'armements soient ?galement couverts et r?gis par des conventions internationales;

27. consid?re que le projet HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project), en raison de son impact g?n?ral sur l'environnement, pose des probl?mes globaux et demande que ses implications juridiques, ?cologiques et ?thiques soient examin?es par un organe international ind?pendant avant la poursuite des travaux de recherche et la r?alisation d'essais; d?plore que le gouvernement des ?tats-Unis ait ? maintes reprises refus? d'envoyer un repr?sentant pour apporter un t?moignage sur les risques que comporte pour l'environnement et la population le projet HAARP financ? actuellement en Alaska, durant l'audition publique ou ? l'occasion d'une r?union subs?quente de sa commission comp?tente;

28. demande ? l'organe charg? de l'?valuation des choix scientifiques et technologiques (STOA) d'accepter d'examiner les preuves scientifiques et techniques fournies par tous les r?sultats existants de la recherche sur le programme HAARP aux fins d'?valuer la nature et l'ampleur exactes du danger que HAARP repr?sente pour l'environnement local et global et pour la sant? publique en g?n?ral;

29. invite la Commission ? examiner les incidences sur l'environnement et la sant? publique du programme HAARP pour l'Antarctique, en coop?ration avec les gouvernements de Su?de, de Finlande, de Norv?ge et de la F?d?ration de Russie, et ? faire rapport au Parlement sur le r?sultat de ses investigations;

30. demande en particulier que soit ?tabli un accord international visant ? interdire au niveau global tout projet de recherche et de d?veloppement, tant militaire que civil, qui cherche ? appliquer la connaissance des processus du fonctionnement du cerveau humain dans les domaines chimique, ?lectrique, des ondes sonores ou autres au d?veloppement d'armes, ce qui pourrait ouvrir la porte ? toute forme de manipulation de l'homme; un tel accord devrait ?galement interdire toute possibilit? d'utilisation r?elle ou potentielle de tels syst?mes;

31. demande ? l'UE et ? ses ?tats membres d'oeuvrer ? la conclusion de trait?s internationaux visant ? prot?ger l'environnement contre des destructions inutiles en cas de conflit;

32. demande ? l'UE et ? ses ?tats membres de veiller ? ce que les incidences environnementales des activit?s des forces arm?es en temps de paix soient ?galement soumises ? des normes internationales;

33. demande au Conseil des ministres de l'UE de prendre une part active ? la mise en oeuvre des propositions de la Commission de Canberra et de l'article VI du TNP;

34. invite le Conseil et les gouvernements britannique et fran?ais en particulier, ? prendre la t?te dans le contexte du TNP et de la conf?rence sur le d?sarmement en ce qui concerne la poursuite de n?gociations relatives ? la pleine application des engagements pris quant ? la r?duction des armes nucl?aires et ? un d?sarmement aussi rapide que possible, de fa?on ? atteindre un niveau o?, provisoirement, le stock global des armes encore existantes ne constitue plus une menace pour l'int?grit? et la durabilit? de l'environnement global;

35. invite la pr?sidence du Conseil, la Commission et les gouvernements des ?tats membres ? d?fendre la position adopt?e dans la pr?sente r?solution dans le contexte de toutes les prochaines r?unions des Nations unies plac?es sous les auspices du TNP ou en rapport avec celui-ci, et de la Conf?rence sur le d?sarmement;

36. invite la pr?sidence du Conseil et de la Commission, conform?ment ? l'article J.7 du trait? sur l'Union europ?enne, ? lui faire rapport sur la position de l'Union concernant les points sp?cifiques contenus dans la pr?sente r?solution, notamment dans le contexte des prochaines r?unions des Nations unies, de ses agences et de ses organes, en particulier celles de la commission pr?paratoire du TNP de 1999, de la conf?rence sur le d?sarmement et tous les autres forums internationaux comp?tents;

37. charge son Pr?sident de transmettre la pr?sente r?solution au Conseil, ? la Commission, aux ?tats membres de l'Union europ?enne et aux Nations unies.

(1) () JO C 183 du 17.7.1995, p. 47 ( A4-0149/95).
(2) () JO C 141 du 13.5.1996, p. 258 (A4-0100/96).


Des forces arm?es luttant contre les menaces sur l'environnement

En mati?re de politique de s?curit?, la situation a consid?rablement ?volu? depuis quelque temps. Il y a un peu moins de dix ann?es, un rideau de fer se dressait au centre d'une Europe dot?e d'armements nucl?aires. ? pr?sent l'Europe s'unifie. L'Union europ?enne envisage un ?largissement vers d'anciens pays du Pacte de Varsovie. L'?re de la guerre froide est r?volue et il semble aujourd'hui impossible qu'un conflit majeur puisse ?clater en Europe. Parall?lement ? cette ?volution, l'?norme affluence de r?fugi?s, les conflits ethniques, le terrorisme et le crime international constituent autant de nouveaux dangers venant menacer la s?curit? quotidienne. Les catastrophes naturelles et les probl?mes environnementaux, qu'ils aient une cause naturelle, ou qu'ils d?coulent de l'exploitation des ressources de la terre par l'homme font peser une autre menace tout aussi grave.

Une s?rie de catastrophes naturelles a plac? l'humanit? devant de nouveaux probl?mes. La derni?re en date est la rupture d'une digue en Espagne. L'?rosion des terres en Italie, les ravages caus?s par le ph?nom?ne naturel El Ni?o et l'accident nucl?aire de Tchernobyl sont autant de ph?nom?nes et d'accidents ayant provoqu? des catastrophes naturelles et environnementales. Dans certaines parties du monde, la s?cheresse peut interdire toute possibilit? de moisson durant des ann?es, de sorte qu'une grande partie de la population souffre de la famine qui, souvent, conduit ? la mort. Face ? ces catastrophes, l'homme ne peut que constater son impuissance.

Les catastrophes environnementales et naturelles constituent une trag?die pour chaque individu et peuvent avoir des cons?quences d?sastreuses pour la soci?t? et la nation tout enti?re. Leur co?t est ?norme, aussi bien en termes de pertes en vies humaines qu'en termes de d?penses li?es ? la r?paration des d?g?ts mat?riels. Lorsqu'elles surviennent, force est de constater que la d?tection et/ou la pr?vention n'avaient pas ?t? dot?es de ressources suffisantes. De surcro?t, les mesures entreprises sont, souvent, trop tardives. Il faut renforcer les mesures de pr?vention, ce qui n?cessite des investissements ?normes. Mais les ressources sont tr?s limit?es. En cons?quence, il faut repenser l'utilisation des ressources disponibles tout en favorisant l'?mergence de nouvelles ressources. Il est ?vident qu'une nation ne peut mener une lutte isol?e contre les catastrophes naturelles car les probl?mes environnementaux impliquent une coop?ration internationale. Les menaces sont de nature globale et la coop?ration internationale est indispensable.

Les probl?mes ?cologiques locaux et r?gionaux peuvent avoir des incidences ?normes sur les relations internationales. Les retomb?es radioactives, les inondations et la s?cheresse ne respectent pas les fronti?res internationales. Les r?fugi?s fuyant les catastrophes environnementales traversent des fronti?res pour se rendre dans des pays aussi pauvres, voire plus pauvres que le leur. Ces nouvelles causes d'instabilit? et d'ins?curit? doivent ?tre reproduites dans le contenu et la nature des m?thodes utilis?es par les Nations pour le maintien et l'?tablissement de la paix et de la s?curit?. Puisque les probl?mes environnementaux et ?cologiques menacent s?rieusement la paix et la s?curit?, ils devront ?galement sous-tendre la politique ?trang?re, de d?fense et de s?curit?. Il faut analyser comment utiliser les ressources militaires pour s'attaquer ? cette menace accrue sur la s?curit? et annihiler ces nouvelles sources d'instabilit? et d'inqui?tude. Ces ressources doivent ?tre mobilis?es d'urgence afin de relever les d?fis environnementaux.

En mati?re de politique de s?curit?, la nouvelle donne a men? ? la d?tente militaire, au d?sarmement et ? des mesures visant ? instaurer la confiance entre les anciens ennemis que sont les ?tats-Unis et la Russie, ce qui a conduit ? une amputation consid?rable du budget de la d?fense, ? une r?duction des effectifs et ? la mise au rebus de mat?riel militaire.

La d?fense a surtout fait l'objet de mesures de restriction en Russie et aux ?tats-Unis, l'Europe a embo?t? le pas en r?duisant ses d?penses militaires(1).

? mesure que les ressources militaires sont d?gag?es, les forces arm?es disposent d'une opportunit? unique de s'attaquer aux probl?mes environnementaux croissants puisque leur potentiel est ?norme. L'arm?e est une organisation bien entra?n?e dot?e de moyens techniques complets pouvant ?tre utilis?s pour atteindre des objectifs environnementaux sans que cela entra?ne des co?ts ?lev?s. Il suffit de r?affecter ou de red?ployer des ressources. L'union europ?enne peut regrouper ses efforts autour d'une nouvelle strat?gie environnementale visant ? affecter les ressources militaires ? un objectif commun de protection de l'environnement. L'Union europ?enne peut initier la prise de conscience ?cologique commune et globale, et, par la m?me occasion, favoriser les efforts de paix et d'instauration de la confiance.

Les ?tats membres disposent ? la fois des atouts techniques et ?conomiques pour adopter une attitude totalement responsable ? l'?gard de l'environnement. Ils savent aussi quelles seraient les cons?quences d'un refus de relever les d?fis environnementaux. La d?gradation ?cologique influence les conditions de la croissance et du d?veloppement ?conomique, mais il n'emp?che que les d?penses militaires de par le monde sont trois ? cinq fois plus importantes que les sommes consacr?es ? la protection de l'environnement(2).

Le secteur de la d?fense en soi d?grade ?norm?ment l'environnement, ce qui devrait inciter les militaires ? adopter une attitude nettement plus responsable en la mati?re.

Menaces modernes sur la s?curit?

Le monde international prend de plus en plus conscience de l'ampleur des probl?mes environnementaux. En t?moignent les conf?rences de suivi des Nations unies sur l'eau (Mar del Plata), la d?sertification (Nairobi), l'environnement et le d?veloppement (Rio de Janeiro) et le changement climatique (Kyoto). Les probl?mes environnementaux peuvent g?n?rer des probl?mes tellement graves qu'ils sont susceptibles de menacer aussi bien la s?curit? des hommes que celle des ?tats. Ils peuvent aussi avoir une incidence sur les relations internationales des ?tats. L'air et l'eau ne connaissent pas de fronti?res internationales. Voici des exemples concrets de menaces potentielles ou existantes sur l'environnement:

Ressources hydrauliques limit?es

La demande d'eau propre augmente au diapason de la croissance de la population mondiale. La r?partition de l'eau douce naturelle est tr?s d?s?quilibr?e. Moins de 10 pays poss?dent 60 % de la totalit? des ressources d'eau douce de la plan?te(3). D'ailleurs, plusieurs pays d'Europe doivent importer de l'eau. Dor?navant, les attaques contre les sources d'eau potable ne constitueront plus un objectif en soi, mais bien un motif de conflit. Les conflits en mati?re de droit d'acc?s ? l'eau peuvent renforcer la tension internationale et locale et/ou d?boucher sur des conflits mondiaux. Par exemple, dans le cas de l'Inde et du Pakistan dont les relations sont tendues, des litiges ayant trait au fleuve Indus pourraient entra?ner un conflit arm?. Si l'on ?tablissait une liste des conflits potentiels li?s ? la ma?trise de l'eau douce, celle-ci serait longue. Quelque 300 fleuves, lacs et sources souterraines sont situ?s dans des zones frontali?res(4). Au Moyen-Orient, neuf pays sur 14 souffrent d'une p?nurie d'eau, mais il y a de fortes chances que les autres pays soient eux aussi un jour expos?s ? ce risque(5). En 1995, 1/5e de la population mondiale n'avait pas acc?s ? l'eau potable. Selon les estimations, la proportion sera de 2/3 en 2025(6).

Changement climatique

L'accroissement des ?missions, notamment des ?missions de dioxyde de carbone(7) a entra?n? une augmentation de la temp?rature moyenne de la plan?te de l'ordre de 5Ί durant le si?cle pr?sent. La chaleur a ?galement ?t? plus intense. Des chercheurs ont d?couvert que l'humidit? de l'air avait augment? de 10 % au cours des vingt derni?res ann?es. Dans certaines r?gions, cette humidit? accrue peut d?clencher des temp?tes plus violentes et plus fr?quentes, tandis que d'autres r?gions souffrent de la s?cheresse. Vingt ann?es de recherche intensive sur le changement climatique global seront peut-?tre n?cessaires avant de prendre une d?cision quant aux mesures qui s'imposent.

Selon les pr?visions du groupe intergouvernemental pour l'?tude du changement climatique (IPCC), une organisation internationale regroupant 2000 des meilleurs chercheurs mondiaux, la temp?rature de la plan?te augmentera de 1,5 ? 4,5 Ί et le niveau de la mer montera de 50 cm d'ici ? 2100 si les ?missions de dioxyde de carbone se maintiennent au niveau actuel. Les statistiques r?v?lent qu'un tiers de la population mondiale et un tiers des infrastructures sont regroup?s dans les r?gions c?ti?res. Une mont?e du niveau de la mer entra?nerait l'inondation de gigantesques r?gions. Des millions de personnes pourraient alors souffrir de la famine suite ? la perte de vastes zones agricoles.

Ce risque ainsi que d'autres peuvent entra?ner des exodes. Les r?fugi?s fuyant les catastrophes environnementales deviennent une pr?occupation majeure pour les ?tats du monde. Quelque 25 millions d'?tres humains ont ?t? chass?s par la s?cheresse, l'?rosion des terres, la d?sertification et d'autres probl?mes environnementaux, tandis que les r?fugi?s "traditionnels" repr?sentent environ 22 millions de personnes. Selon certains experts, les r?fugi?s de l'environnement peuvent provoquer "une des plus graves crises de notre ?poque"(8). Ils sont confront?s ? des probl?mes socio-politiques et ?conomiques pouvant d?clencher des conflits et des explosions de violence. Il faut leur accorder un statut officiel. Il faut s'attaquer au prob?me par le biais d'une coop?ration internationale renforc?e et augmenter l'aide aux pays menac?s et ? leurs habitants.

Impact environnemental des forces arm?es en temps de guerre et en temps de paix

Les forces arm?es sont un important facteur de d?gradation ?cologique. Leurs activit?s ont des incidences n?gatives ?normes sur l'environnement, aussi bien en temps de paix qu'en temps de guerre (certaines sont intentionnelles, d'autres involontaires). Depuis l'antiquit?, la destruction de l'environnement est une m?thode de guerre classique. D'ailleurs c'est la guerre qui nuit le plus ? l'environnement. En t?moignent les cons?quences terribles de la guerre du golfe o? des centaines de puits de p?trole ont ?t? la proie des flammes et o? des quantit?s de substances toxiques ont ?t? rejet?es dans l'atmosph?re de mani?re incontr?l?e. Il faudra du temps ? l'environnement pour s'en remettre. Certaines d?gradations peuvent ?tre irr?m?diables.

Les militaires d?veloppent des armes toujours plus puissantes provoquant des destructions sur une grande ?chelle. Sur le plan de l'environnement, une guerre moderne est plus destructrice que toute autre activit? polluante. Certains syst?mes d'armement, d?crits ci-dessous, sont ?galement susceptibles de d?grader gravement l'environnement en temps de paix.


Les mines d?truisent ?norm?ment l'environnement. Selon le PNUE (Programme des Nations unies pour l'environnement), les mines terrestres constituent l'arme la plus r?pandue que les guerres laissent derri?re elles; elles peuvent influencer l'?quilibre ?cologique. Le minage d?truit de vastes zones, souvent dans des r?gions agricoles qui deviennent inutilisables pendant longtemps. Les mines constituent l'obstacle majeur au d?veloppement dans de nombreux pays parmi les plus pauvres de la plan?te. 80 ? 110 millions de mines ont ?t? pos?es dans 65 pays. Elles peuvent exploser plusieurs dizaines d'ann?es plus tard, faisant surtout des victimes parmi la population civile, en particulier les enfants. La neutralisation des mines est un processus extr?mement dangereux, lent et co?teux. Le d?veloppement de nouvelles m?thodes de d?minage progresse trop lentement. Il faut acc?l?rer le processus.

Il faut se f?liciter que la conf?rence d'Oslo ait abouti en 1997 ? l'interdiction, sans exception, de toutes les mines antipersonnel, ? l'obligation de d?truire tous les stocks(9) de mines dans un d?lai de quatre ann?es et au renforcement de l'aide aux pays concern?s par ce fl?au. La Convention a ?t? sign?e ? Ottawa en 1997 par un grand nombre d'?tats, ? l'exception toutefois des ?tats-Unis, de la Russie, de l'Inde, de la Chine et d'autres ?tats qui ont pr?f?r? s'abstenir. L'Union europ?enne doit oeuvrer ? l'adh?sion imm?diate de ces pays ? l'accord. L'UE doit renforcer son aide aux victimes des mines et soutenir le d?veloppement de techniques de d?minage.

Armes non-l?tales(10)

Les armes dites non-l?tales ne sont pas un nouveau type d'armes. Elles existent depuis de nombreuses ann?es sous la forme, par exemple, de canons ? eau, de balles en caoutchouc et de gaz lacrymog?ne. Toutefois, les techniques deviennent de plus en plus sophistiqu?es. Elles sont appel?es non-l?tales bien qu'elles puissent faire beaucoup de d?g?ts, voire entra?ner l'invalidit? ou la mort.

Les armes technologiques mises au point peuvent ?tre dirig?es contres des objectifs mat?riels et humains. Citons, ? titre d'exemple, les armes acoustiques ? infrasons, des sons de basse fr?quence permettant de semer la confusion dans les rangs de l'ennemi, de le d?sorienter et, partant, de le neutraliser. La mousse paralysante et les lasers aveuglants sont d'autres exemples au m?me titre que certains produits chimiques qui, colorant l'eau, peuvent avoir un effet n?faste sur l'agriculture et mettre la population en danger. Les rayonnements ?lectromagn?tiques peuvent ?tre utilis?s pour neutraliser les syst?mes de donn?es, de navigation et de communication. Les armes dites non-l?tales peuvent aussi ?tre utilis?es contre les infrastructures et les administrations publiques, neutraliser le r?seau ferroviaire et jeter dans le chaos le syst?me financier d'un pays. Ces armes(11) pr?sentent des aspects communs: elles sont con?ues pour retarder, bloquer et vaincre un adversaire potentiel "sur le plan strat?gique".

Classer toutes ces armes sous la d?nomination commune et fallacieuse d'armes non-l?tales cr?e un grave malentendu. La d?nomination "non-l?tale" signifie que ces armes sont plus humaines que les armes conventionnelles. Or, il n'existe pas d'armes humaines. Tout type d'arme est susceptible de causer des d?g?ts ou de tuer, ce qui est pr?cis?ment sa raison d'?tre. En r?gle g?n?rale, les armes nonl?tales seront utilis?es durant la phase initiale d'un conflit; elles peuvent d'ailleurs constituer l'?l?ment d?clencheur du conflit. Les soldats et les policiers sont peut-?tre devenus plus violents parce que ces armes sont r?put?es moins dangereuses. Le danger majeur est que celles-ci risquent d'abaisser le seuil d'utilisation de la violence pour le r?glement des conflits.

L'objectif est de neutraliser l'ennemi sans lui infliger de longues souffrances et sans causer la mort. Le probl?me est de savoir comment et contre qui utiliser ces armes, car leurs cons?quences sont un aspect important. Une arme pouvant neutraliser un soldat est susceptible de blesser ou de tuer un enfant ou une personne ?g?e. La distance de tir et le nombre de tirs sont autant de facteurs dont il faut tenir compte pour ?valuer l'impact de l'arme. ? titre de comparaison, les armes conventionnelles n'entra?nent la mort "que" dans 25 cas sur 100(12).

Les armes non-l?tales constituent un auxiliaire efficace dans les guerres modernes, qu'elles soient utilis?es s?par?ment ou en m?me temps que des armes conventionnelles. Durant la guerre du Golfe, les ?tats-Unis ont utilis? des armes ? fr?quence radio pour neutraliser le syst?me d'approvisionnement en ?nergie de l'Irak(13), alors que l'on ignorait tout de leurs effets antipersonnel. Ces armes ne constituent donc pas une cat?gorie s?par?e, mais sont une composante d'un syst?me con?u pour tuer.

Le d?veloppement des armes non-l?tales ?largit les options guerri?res. Il en r?sulte une propension accrue ? utiliser la force et non l'inverse. Les armes non-l?tales n'entra?nent pas de conflits ? "z?ro perte".

L'int?r?t que les milieux militaires policiers et politiques portent ? l'essai de ces armes cro?t au rythme de leur diversification. Il ne s'agit pas que des pays du Nord les utilisent comme instrument d'immixtion politique ou de domination contre des pays du Sud.

Ces armes ne sont soumises ? aucune l?gislation efficace. Seule l'interpr?tation de diff?rentes dispositions en mati?re de contr?le des armements permet d'interdire un petit nombre d'armes et de techniques non-l?tales, par exemple, la mousse paralysante (utilis?e en Somalie et en Bosnie). La convention concernant l'utilisation de certaines armes conventionnelles a ?galement limit? l'utilisation de certains types de laser (aveuglant). La convention concernant l'utilisation des armes biologiques interdit le recours aux produits biologiques toxiques (salmonelles et autres bact?ries). Certaines d'entre elles peuvent ?tre d?sastreuses pour l'environnement. En cons?quence, il faut renforcer le droit international afin de r?glementer les armes nouvelles dont le d?veloppement se poursuit en permanence.

Le "projet Cyrus" du Comit? de la Croix Rouge internationale devrait s'appliquer aux armes nonl?tales en l'absence d'autres normes internationales fiables. Ce projet a class? les armes conventionnelles et ?tabli des crit?res en termes de mortalit?, d'invalidit?, de n?cessit? de traitement, de transfusion sanguine, etc. L'Union europ?enne doit faire en sorte que les nouvelles techniques d'armes et le d?veloppement de nouvelles strat?gies d'armement soient, elles aussi, couvertes et r?gies par des conventions internationales.

Armes chimiques

L'action des Nations unies en vue de la destruction des armes chimiques et d'autres armes de destruction massive en Irak a suscit? de graves pr?occupations quant aux incidences environnementales des activit?s militaires et a renforc? la n?cessit? de mettre au point des m?thodes de neutralisation pr?sentant des garanties de s?curit? sur le plan ?cologique. ? l'article 1 de la convention sur l'interdiction des armes chimiques (CWC), entr?e en vigueur en avril 1997, les ?tats parties ? la convention s'engagent ? ne jamais d?velopper, produire ou exporter des armes chimiques quelles que soient les circonstances, ? ne jamais faire usage d'armes chimiques et ? d?truire les armes chimiques courantes. L'article 3 dispose que trente jours apr?s l'entr?e en vigueur de la convention, les ?tats communiquent des informations sur les armes chimiques dont ils disposent, l'endroit o? celles-ci sont entrepos?es et pr?sentent un programme en vue de leur destruction. Les stocks les plus anciens devront ?tre d?truits d'abord. 165 ?tats ont sign? la convention et 110 ont ratifi? celle-ci. 26 ?tats n'ont pas sign? la convention, notamment plusieurs pays importants du Proche-Orient.

La destruction des armes chimiques comporte des aspects tr?s pr?occupants pour l'environnement - elles contiennent des dizaines de milliers de tonnes de gaz moutarde, de gaz neurotoxiques et d'autres produits chimiques. Elles peuvent ?tre d?truites par incin?ration, mais tr?s peu de pays disposent d'installations appropri?es. La neutralisation des armes chimiques est un processus on?reux, trois voire dix fois plus co?teux que leur production. Pour ?tre en mesure de d?truire ses ?normes stocks, la Russie devra recevoir une aide ?conomique d'autres pays. ? Kambarka, une ville de Russie, 6 000 tonnes d'armes chimiques sont entrepos?es dans des abris en bois ? deux kilom?tres d'une agglom?ration. Le traitement de grandes quantit?s de produits dangereux n?cessite des investissements consid?rables. Leur destruction s'?talera sur des ann?es. Il y a ? la fois un risque d'accident et de voir les armes tomber entre de mauvaises mains.

Il a ?t? confirm? que quelque 150 000 tonnes de bombes, d'obus et de mines contenant des armes chimiques, surtout du gaz moutarde, du phosg?ne, du tabun et de l'arsenic ont ?t? immerg?s dans le Skagerack ? la fin de la seconde guerre mondiale. 40 000 tonnes gisent au fond de la Baltique. Bon nombre de conteneurs ont ?t? rong?s par la rouille et les produits chimiques sont en contact direct avec l'eau de la mer. D?cision a ?t? prise de les laisser sur les fonds marins car le risque de perte massive de produit en cas de r?cup?ration est, proportionnellement, beaucoup plus ?lev?.

L'arme nucl?aire

Les cons?quences environnementales d'une guerre nucl?aire seraient ?normes. Il est probable que les effets combin?s des retomb?es radioactives sur une vaste zone, du trou d'ozone cr?? par le dioxyde d'azote lib?r? par les explosions nucl?aires et les modifications climatiques d?clench?es par de gigantesques incendies de longue dur?e entra?neraient des catastrophes environnementales.

Les effets n?fastes des essais nucl?aires sont eux aussi ?vidents. Selon les estimations, la quantit? totale de d?chets radioactifs lib?r?s dans l'atmosph?re durant les essais nucl?aires atmosph?riques est de 100 ? 1 000 fois plus importante que les retomb?es radioactives d?coulant de l'accident de Tchernobyl(14). L'accord partiel sur la limitation des essais nucl?aires conclu en 1963 entre les ?tatsUnis, l'Union sovi?tique et la Grande-Bretagne interdit les essais nucl?aires dans l'atmosph?re dans l'espace et sous l'eau, en l'occurrence dans tous les ?l?ments ? l'exception de la terre.

Depuis 1966, la France a proc?d? ? plus de 180 essais nucl?aire sur l'atoll de Mururoa dans le Pacifique, essais dont les incidences environnementales ont ?t? consid?rables(15). Plusieurs kilos de plutonium dangereux ont ?t? d?couverts dans les couches s?dimentaires des lagons des atolls de Mururoa et de Fangataufa. Des particules de plutonium se sont ?galement r?pandues sur le sol de trois ?les pr?s de Mururoa(16). L'Inde et le Pakistan, viennent d'effectuer des essais nucl?aires(17). Sur le plan technique, ces essais ne semblent pas encore suffisamment contr?l?s, ce qui signifie que leur impact environnemental d?passe largement la r?gion. Une commission d'enqu?te internationale ind?pendante devrait ?tre charg?e sur-le-champ d'examiner les effets environnementaux sur les lieux d'explosion et leurs environs.

Le plutonium est la substance la plus dangereuse que l'on connaisse. Beaucoup de pays d?tiennent d'?normes quantit?s de plutonium militaire. De surcro?t, il est relativement facile de produire des armes nucl?aires au moyen de plutonium "civil". Les installations ? vocation civile peuvent ?tre r?am?nag?es en peu de temps en vue de la production d'armes. La production de plutonium entra?ne une quantit? ?norme de d?chets hautement radioactifs. Le traitement de ces d?chets pose des probl?mes consid?rables.

La fabrication g?n?ralis?e d'armes de destruction massive durant ces derni?res d?cennies a produit des quantit?s ?normes de d?chets. Aucune m?thode n'est efficace lorsqu'il s'agit de stocker des d?chets radioactifs. Ceux-ci sont g?n?ralement plac?s dans des conteneurs, mais des quantit?s ?normes sont aussi d?vers?es dans la nature. Le d?chet radioactif est facilement inflammable et peut exploser en l'absence de ventilation ou de refroidissement. Un accident s'est produit en 1957 ? la centrale nucl?aire de Chelyabinsk-65 pr?s de la ville de Kystym dans l'Oural: un r?servoir rempli de d?chets radioactifs avait explos? et des d?chets s'?taient r?pandus sur une ?tendue de 1 000 km2. 10 000 personnes ont d? ?tre ?vacu?es. Aujourd'hui, au bord du lac Karachay, pr?s de Chelyabinsk-65, la radioactivit? est encore tellement puissante qu'elle peut entra?ner une mort instantan?e(18). Dans la r?gion de la mer Baltique, de vastes zones ont ?t? pollu?es par les activit?s de l'arm?e sovi?tique. En Estonie, le lac Sillanm?, aussi appel? "lac atomique" contient des d?chets radioactifs d'origine militaire, l'?quivalent de milliers d'armes nucl?aires. 100 m s?parent le lac Sillanm? de la Baltique. Toute contamination de la Baltique aurait des cons?quences d?sastreuses pour l'environnement dans toute la r?gion.

? la fin des ann?es 80, la Russie poss?dait plus de sous-marins nucl?aires que tous les autres pays du monde r?unis. La presqu'?le de Kola et Sevrodvinsk, en Russie, abritent aujourd'hui la plus forte concentration de r?acteurs nucl?aires (240)(19) au monde. Des quantit?s ?normes de d?chets radioactifs et d'innombrables sous-marins ? propulsion nucl?aire gisent dans les chantiers navals de Kola. La Russie et sa flotte sont confront?es ? un probl?me insoluble: la gestion des r?acteurs mis au rebut. Sur le plan ?conomique, elles n'ont pas les moyens de financer un d?montage pr?sentant toutes les garanties de s?curit?. La m?diocrit? des salaires a provoqu? l'exode des ?l?ments qualifi?s, de sorte que le personnel des chantiers manque cruellement de comp?tence.

En plein centre de Moscou, ont ?t? d?couvertes 1 200 sources de contamination radioactive, notamment des tas de sable, des abris, des appartements priv?s, des garages et des terrains de sport(20). En Russie, la possibilit? de se procurer des armes nucl?aires, chimiques et biologiques provenant d'entrep?ts militaires ou des substances issues d'instituts de recherche ou de l'industrie ne doit pas ?tre sous-estim?e.

L'absence d'installations appropri?es permettant de traiter les d?chets sans nuire ? l'environnement se fait fortement sentir. Les cons?quences d'un accident pourraient ?tre d?sastreuses, ? la fois pour l'?conomie et l'environnement. Les risques et l'ampleur d'un accident s?rieux ne font que cro?tre ? mesure que les ann?es se succ?dent sans que soient prises des mesures ad?quates.

Il existe une proposition concr?te et r?aliste en vue de la destruction progressive de l'arsenal nucl?aire de la plan?te. Cette proposition a ?t? pr?sent?e en ao?t 1996 par le groupe d'experts ind?pendant qui constituait la commission de Canberra(21). En juillet 1996, la Cour internationale de La Haye proclamait dans un arr?t unanime que l'article 6 du trait? sur la non-prolif?ration des armes nucl?aires obligeait les ?tats nucl?aires ? engager des n?gociations sur le d?sarmement nucl?aire. La Cour de justice a ?galement proclam? que toute menace d'utiliser les armes nucl?aires ou l'utilisation de cellesci ?tait incompatible avec le droit international. L'Union europ?enne doit prendre une part active ? la mise en oeuvre de la proposition de la commission de Canberra et de l'article 6 du trait? sur la nonprolif?ration des armes nucl?aires.

HAARP - Un syst?me d'armement modifiant le climat

Le 5 f?vrier 1998, la sous-commission s?curit? et d?sarmement du Parlement a proc?d? ? une audition portant notamment sur HAARP. Des repr?sentants de l'OTAN et des ?tats-Unis avaient ?t? convi?s ? la r?union. Ils ont toutefois choisi de ne pas venir. La sous-commission a d?plor? que les ?tats-Unis n'aient envoy? aucun repr?sentant ? l'audition et qu'ils n'aient pas saisi l'opportunit? de faire des commentaires sur le mat?riel pr?sent?(22).

HAARP est un programme de recherche sur le rayonnement ? haute fr?quence (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project). Il est conduit conjointement par l'arm?e de l'air et la marine des ?tats-Unis et par l'Institut de g?ophysique de l'universit? d'Alaska ? Fairbanks. Des tentatives analogues ont lieu en Norv?ge, dans l'Antarctique, mais aussi dans l'ex-Union sovi?tique(23). HAARP est un projet de recherche utilisant un ?quipement terrestre, un r?seau d'antennes. Chacune est aliment?e par son propre ?metteur pour r?chauffer des parties de l'ionosph?re(24) au moyen d'ondes radio puissantes. L'?nergie ainsi g?n?r?e r?chauffe certaines parties de l'ionosph?re, ce qui cr?e des trous dans l'ionosph?re et des "lentilles" artificielles.

HAARP peut avoir de multiples applications. La manipulation des particularit?s ?lectriques de l'atmosph?re permet de contr?ler des ?nergies gigantesques. Utilis?e ? des fins militaires contre un ennemi, cette technique peut avoir des cons?quences terribles. HAARP permet d'envoyer ? un endroit d?termin? des millions de fois plus d'?nergie que tout autre ?metteur traditionnel. L'?nergie peut aussi ?tre dirig?e contre un objectif mobile, notamment contre des missiles ennemis.

Le projet am?liore la communication avec les sous-marins et permet de manipuler les conditions m?t?orologiques mondiales. Mais l'inverse, perturber les communications, est ?galement possible. En manipulant l'ionosph?re, on peut bloquer la communication globale tout en conservant ses propres possibilit?s de communications. La radiographie de la terre sur une profondeur de plusieurs kilom?tres (tomographie terrestre p?n?trante) ? la fin de d?couvrir les champs de p?trole et de gaz, mais aussi les ?quipements militaires sous-terrains, et le radar transhorizon qui identifie des objects ? grande distance au-del? de la ligne d'horizon sont d'autres applications du syst?me HAARP.

Depuis les ann?es 50, les ?tats-Unis proc?dent ? des explosions nucl?aires dans les ceintures de Van Allen(25) afin d'examiner les effets des impulsions ?lectromagn?tiques qu'elles d?clenchent sur les communications radio et le fonctionnement des ?quipements radars. Ces explosions ont g?n?r? de nouvelles ceintures de rayonnement magn?tique qui ont pratiquement entour? la terre tout enti?re. Les ?lectrons se d?pla?aient le long de lignes de champs magn?tiques et cr?aient une aurore bor?ale artificielle au-dessus du p?le nord. Ces essais militaires risquent de perturber ? long terme les ceintures de Van Allen. Le champ magn?tique terrestre pourrait s'?tendre sur de vastes zones et emp?cher toute communication radio. Certaines scientifiques am?ricains estiment qu'il faudra plusieurs centaines d'ann?es avant que les ceintures de Van Allen retrouvent leur ?tat initial. HAARP peut bouleverser les conditions climatiques. Tout l'?cosyst?me peut ?tre menac?, en particulier dans l'Antarctique o? il est fragile.

Les trous dans l'ionosph?re caus?s par les ondes radio puissantes qui y sont envoy?es constituent un autre effet tr?s grave d'HAARP. L'ionosph?re est notre bouclier contre le rayonnement cosmique. L'on esp?re que ces trous se refermeront, mais l'exp?rience acquise suite ? la modification de la couche d'ozone donne ? penser le contraire. Le bouclier de l'ionosph?re est fortement perc? ? plusieurs endroits.

En raison de l'ampleur de ces incidences sur l'environnement, HAARP constitue un probl?me global et il faudrait ?valuer si les avantages que procure ce syst?me compensent les risques encourus. Ses incidences ?cologiques et ?thiques doivent ?tre ?valu?es avant la poursuite des travaux de recherche et la r?alisation d'essais. L'opinion publique ignore pratiquement tout du projet HAARP et il est important qu'elle soit mise au courant.

HAARP est li? ? la recherche spatiale intensive men?e depuis 50 ans ? des fins clairement militaires, par exemple en tant qu'?l?ment de la "guerre des ?toiles" en vue du contr?le de la haute atmosph?re et des communications. Ces travaux de recherche doivent ?tre consid?r?s comme extr?mement n?fastes pour l'environnement et la vie humaine. Personne ne sa?t avec certitude ce que peuvent ?tre les effets de HAARP. Il faut lutter contre la politique du secret en mati?re de recherche militaire. Il faut promouvoir le droit ? l'information et au contr?le d?mocratique des projets de recherche militaire ainsi que le contr?le parlementaire.

Une s?rie d'accords internationaux ("la convention sur l'interdiction d'utiliser ? des fins militaires ou ? d'autres fins hostiles des processus modifiant l'environnement, le trait? sur l'Antarctique, l'accord ?tablissant les principes des activit?s des ?tats en mati?re de recherche spatiale, en ce compris la lune et d'autres corps spatiaux ainsi que la convention des Nations unies sur le droit maritime) font que HAARP est un projet hautement contestable non seulement sur les plans humain et politique mais aussi du point de vue l?gal. En vertu du trait? sur l'Antarctique, l'Antarctique ne peut ?tre utilis?e qu'? des fins pacifiques(26), ce qui signifie que HAARP enfreint le droit international. Tous les effets des nouveaux syst?mes d'armement doivent ?tre ?valu?s par des organes internationaux ind?pendants. Il faut encourager la conclusion d'autres accords internationaux afin de prot?ger l'environnement contre toute destruction inutile en temps de guerre.

Incidences des activit?s militaires sur l'environnement

Outre le syst?me d'armement militaire, toutes les activit?s militaires, m?me les manoeuvres en temps de paix ont, d'une mani?re ou d'une autre, des effets n?fastes sur l'environnement. Toutefois, lorsqu'il est question de d?vastation de l'environnement, le r?le de l'arm?e n'est, g?n?ralement, pas ?voqu?; c'est la soci?t? civile qui est la cible de toutes les critiques. Il y a au moins deux explications ? cela(27). Parce qu'elles sont plac?es sous le sceau du secret, les activit?s militaires ne sont pratiquement jamais cit?es, et il est difficile d'opposer le facteur environnement ? l'int?r?t supr?me d'un pays, ? savoir sa s?curit? et sa d?fense.? pr?sent que les catastrophes environnementales et naturelles constituent une menace majeure sur la s?curit?, cet argument devient plus discutable.

L'arm?e se pr?pare dans des conditions les plus r?alistes possibles aux t?ches qui seraient les siennes en cas de conflit. C'est pourquoi ses manoeuvres se d?roulent dans des conditions proches d'une guerre r?elle, ce qui occasionne de graves d?vastations de l'environnement. En t?moignent le retrait des troupes sovi?tiques et les bases militaires abandonn?es par celles-ci en Europe centrale et orientale qui ont fortement endommag? l'environnement local. Les manoeuvres militaires saccagent les sites et d?truisent la vie animale. Elles d?vastent consid?rablement l'environnement de vastes r?gions rurales. La superficie des terrains d'entra?nement pour les tirs d'artillerie et de missiles tactiques augmente. M?me la production d'?quipements militaires et l'industrie fabriquant les produits militaires entra?nent de graves nuisances.

Les militaires sont responsables des ?missions de plusieurs gaz influen?ant le climat, surtout le dioxyde de carbone, mais aussi de l'incin?ration de combustibles fossiles et de l'?mission de CFC qui entra?nent un amincissement de la couche d'ozone(28). Les combustibles utilis?s par les avions ?mettent des substances acides telles que le dioxyde de carbone et l'oxyde de soufre. L'arm?e consomme ?norm?ment de carburant et est responsable d'une large part de la totalit? de la pollution d?coulant des avions(29). Les avions volant ? haute altitude et les missiles sont particuli?rement polluants, tant en termes de nuisances sonores qu'en termes d'?missions. Les gaz d'?missions de tous les missiles utilisant un combustible solide contiennent d'?normes quantit?s d'acide chlorhydrique; chaque vol de la navette spatiale ?met quelque 75 tonnes de chlore qui ira d?truire la couche d'ozone. Le bruit r?sultant de l'utilisation de munitions de gros calibre durant les manoeuvres militaires peut aussi avoir des effets n?faste sur l'environnement.

Les exercices de tirs sont polluants car des ?clats m?talliques sont projet?s dans la nature et d'?normes quantit?s de plomb se r?pandent dans l'environnement suite ? l'utilisation de quantit?s ?normes de munitions de petit calibre contenant du plomb. L'on ne peut que d?plorer l'absence d'informations exhaustives quant ? l'utilisation de m?taux.

L'int?r?t port? aux cons?quences environnementales du d?sarmement est r?cent. Des quantit?s consid?rables de substances explosives sont d?truites chaque ann?e, la plupart de mani?re industrielle. Certains types de munitions, pour diverses raisons, ne
King Arthur233 views
B-2 spirit flanked by two F-22 Raptors233 viewsEdwards Air Force Base: www.edwards.af.mil/main/welcome.asp

Zie "Raptor Force", Nat. Geographic Channel van 19.00u tot 20.00u - zondag 18 maart 2007.

Modern Marvels B-2 Stealth Bomber, part 5 of 5: www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHlQu6VM2D8&NR=1 (3:59)

Budapest, Hungary 2001 - by military pilot233 views
C-17 Hickam AFB - Hawaii233 views
Haunebu233 viewsUFO Area 51: www.youtube.com/watch?v=3G4KnhYuWD8&mode=related&search=
233 viewswww.theUFOstore.com
March 23, 2006 - UFO near Great Pyramid in Egypt - enlarge photo233 views
antigravity- Rectangular Airvehicle233 views
Perseus, Andromeda en het gevleugelde Witte Paard (=Pegasus; the Flying Horse, an Anunna-UFO)233 viewsSecret Places of The Earth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9FtT7xTDeE&feature=related
Triangle 233 viewsIn early 1992 a number of houses (+/- 25) in the northern Netherlands were damaged as a result of a sonic boom. However, there were no aircraft reported in the region that could have caused the boom . . . A Dutch newspaper suggested it came from a top secret plane temporarily based in Scotland for testing.

See the Aurora Aircraft Page: www.wave.prohosting.com/aurora85/
Polar Light - Auroral HAARP Modifications - Michael Cooney Layer 8 by Michael Cooney Previous Article Next Article Giant, 1 million MPH space tornadoes drive northern lights 232 viewsRead more on: http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/41251

Huge space tornadoes blasting gases at speeds of over a million miles per hour channel electric currents toward the Earth and help create the natural phenomena known as the Northern Lights.

NASA space probes made the discovery as they passed through the tornadoes during their orbit of Earth. Ground measurements showed that the space tornadoes channel the electrical curre
Giant UFO Guernsey, France - UK232 viewsFrance UFO Guernsey Sighting by the pilot himself: www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIGXdv-Chjo&NR=1 (3:29)
Chemtrails; de Elektromagnetische Kooi om de Aarde232 viewsen H.A.A.R.P., ELF, Atmospheric heater - Ionicsphere pulsator. Zie officieel rapport Europees Parlement punt 27 elders in dit album waarin het HAARP programma het weer en klimaat werelddwijd ernstige schade hebben toe berokkend.
discovery sts 51232 views
Nazca Lines - Ape232 views
Ancient Hindu Vimana text232 viewsSee: www.hinduwisdom.info/Vimanas.htm#v%20i%20m%20a%20n%20a%20s
Sunspot231 viewsSunspots To Peak in 2012: www.arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/3/7/3086

The year 2012 might not be such a good one if you happen to own a satellite or a lot of shares in the electricity generating business. That's because 2012 is being forecast as the peak of the next sunspot cycle, and physicists are saying it's going to be an active one.
AX-17 wingsweep231 views
Cigar, at Area 51 - S4231 viewsThe base is also know as Groom Lake Air Base, Watertown, the Ranch, or Dream-Land, Watertown Strip, The Box, Red Square, The Farm, Groom Lake, and the romantic name Air Force Flight Test Center, Detachment 3. Area 51's coordinates are 3714'36.52"N, 11548'41.16"W. You can get a great view of it using Google Earth. Just type "Area 51" into the "Fly To" field and the map does the rest. For decades, the base remained hidden from almost everyone, but in 1988 a Soviet satellite photographed the base.
Europees Burgerinitiatief231 viewswww.europeesburgerinitiatief.nl
Flugelrad231 views"Your gift of knowledge concerning space exploration, astronomy and cosmic life is most impressive. I've always enjoyed our talks during my visits to the KSC/MFA (Kennedy Space Center/Manned Flight Awareness) awards presentations."
"Clark, it is as impossible to confirm them (UFOs) in the present as it will be to deny them in the future."

Dr. Wernher von Braun (deceased), space flight pioneer and NASA scientist.
Atlantis Rising.231 viewswww.theUFOstore.com/DivineLightOrbsEverywhere
Project Blue Book Special Reports231 viewswww.theUFOstore.com/Project Blue Book
White Horse Milk Hill Stanton St Bernard nr 8 on 08/08/08 Wiltshire UK231 viewsFigure of 8 formation and its big. To the best of my knowledge there was no one on Milk hill during the night watch. !!! Its interesting to see in the Cherhill formation the eights again. Eight swirls forward and eight swirls backwards. I am glad this date is coming to an end.
Discovery: 080808
Name: Andrew Pyrka
ISS - ESA and Human Spaceflight and Exploiration231 viewsEuropean Space Agency - ISS Info: http://www.esa.int/esaHS/index.html
Jahweh- I AM - Psalm 82231 viewsAdon Olam:

Lord of the universe, who has reigned
Ere all that exists had yet been created.
When by His will all things were wrought,
"Sovereign" was His name was then pronounced.
And when in time, all things shall cease,
He shall still reign in majesty.
He was, He is, He shall remain,
He shall continue gloriously.

Incomparable, unique He is,
No other can His Oneness share.
Without beginning, without end.
Dominion's might is His to bear.

From: Divine Encounters by Zecharia Sitchin
? Z. Sitchin 2000
Reproduced by permission.

Chemtrails Paleis Soestdijk t/m Hilversum op 24-2-2005231 viewsChemtrails Baarn - the Netherlands, June 2nd, 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5BQHe2ak4o

The International Space Station (ISS) March 17th, 2009 - Baarn, The Netherlands: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVC3ERtZxSk

CHEMTRAILS! BAARN - SOEST - AMERSFOORT, NEDERLAND - 22 APRIL 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCjtu-wC1og

IN THE END OF DAYS - THE EXCELLENT DRUM OF GOLDEN LIGHT WILL SHINE! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g_2M_J2d0c
Cigar Area 51230 views
Connecticut 1987230 views
1964, India - Billy Eduard Meijer230 views
Nicola Tesla229 views"My flying machine will have neither wings nor propellers. You might see it on the ground and you would never guess that it was a flying machine. Yet it will be able to move at will through the air in any direction with perfect safety."
Nikola Tesla, interviewed in The New York Herald Tribune, October 15, 1911

IN THE END OF DAYS - THE EXCELLENT DRUM OF GOLDEN LIGHT WILL SHINE! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g_2M_J2d0c
Nimrod/Ninurta, the Tower Of Babel and World Governance229 viewshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribulation

In August of 2008, author Tom Kovach released a book, Tribulation: 2008, which claimed that the Tribulation would begin on 29 September 2008. The claim is based upon a multi-faceted analysis of history, linguistics, military tactics, and even the "decompression of time". That final aspect is based upon 2nd Peter 3:8, which says, "But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." (New King James Version) Tribulation: 2008 claims that all seven seals have already been opened; and, that the first of the seven trumpets (Revelation 8:7) blew in Heaven at the same time that the Hebrew Feast of Trumpets began on Earth in 2008. Seven years later (from the Spring of 2014 to the Spring of 2015), according to Messianic Jewish scholar Pastor Mark Biltz, there will be a series of blood moons and eclipses that matches the predictions that Jesus gave for events "in the sun, moon, and stars" that occur after the Tribulation. (Matthew 24:29) Notably, the book also made other predictions that came true after publication.

[edit] Events
Among Christians who hold a futurist view of the Tribulation, there are differing views about what will happen to Christians during the Tribulation:

Pretribulationists believe that all Christians then alive will be taken bodily up to Heaven (called the Rapture) before the Tribulation begins. Those who become Christians after the rapture will live through (or perish during) the Tribulation. After the Tribulation, Christ will return.
Prewrath tribulationists believe the rapture will occur during the tribulation, halfway through or after, but before the seven bowls of the wrath of God.
Seventh Trumpet Tribulationists believe the rapture will occur during the tribulation, halfway through or after, but before the seven bowls of the wrath of God. Specifically, at the sound of the Seventh Trumpet (Rev. 11:15, 1 Cori. 15:52) of the Seventh Seal.
Midtribulationists believe that the rapture of the faithful will occur halfway through the Tribulation, but before the worst part of it occurs. The seven year period is divided into half - the "beginning of sorrows" and the "great tribulation" proper.
Posttribulationists believe that Christians will not be taken up into Heaven. But, they will be received or gathered by Christ into the Kingdom of God on earth at the end of the Tribulation. "Immediately after the tribulation ... then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man [Jesus] ... and he shall gather his elect" (Matthew 24:29?31; Mark 13:24-27; Luke 21:25-27). The idea of a post-tribulation coming can also be read into 2 Peter 3:10-13 where Christ's return is equated with the "elements being melted" and "the earth also and the works therein shall be burned up."
In pretribulationism and midtribulationism, the rapture and the Second Coming (or Greek, par[a]ousia) of Christ are separate events; while in post-tribulationism the two events are identical or simultaneous. Another feature of the pre- and mid-tribulation beliefs are the idea that after the Rapture, Christ will return still again (a third coming), to set up his kingdom on the earth.

Some?including many Roman Catholic theologians?do not believe in a "time of trouble" period as usually described by tribulationists, but rather that there will be a near utopic period led by the Antichrist. Others, unable to form an opinion or simply desiring to remain non-divisive, describe themselves as pantribulationists believing that everything will "pan out in the end."

Many other groups, such as Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in a rapture at any point.[citation needed] According to Jehovah's Witnesses, the Great Tribulation is coming and is soon to arrive. This period will see the fall of Babylon the Great, the Great Harlot, as spoken of in Revelation. After Babylon the Great has been removed, they say, the world powers shall move against God's chosen people for a short while. This will then usher in the ending of this "world" (not the earth, but the removal of all those who do not wish to follow God by standards).[citation needed] The Great Tribulation ends with the battle of Armageddon.[citation needed]

BBC news - Aurora 1229 viewsMystery Aircraft: www.fas.org/irp/mystery/aurora.htm
229 viewswww.tesla-museum.org
Mayo 2004 - CD Juarez, Mexico229 views
UFO DVDs, UFO Magazines, UFO Books and much more..229 viewswww.theUFOstore.com
Triangle Daytime229 views
Lladudnobeach 1998229 views
Puerto Rico Alien, by Prof. Reinaldo Rios229 views
great Sioux Chief Sitting Bull229 viewsTatanka Iyotake (bij de Grand River (South Dakota), 1831 ? Standing-Rock-reservaat (North Dakota), 15 december 1890), beter bekend als Sitting Bull, was een leider van de Hunkpapa Sioux (zie Lakota) in de Verenigde Staten.


A Sioux Prayer
Translated by Chief Yellow Lark - 1887

Oh, Great Spirit, whose voice I hear in the winds
Whose breath gives life to the world, hear me
I come to you as one of your many children
I am small and weak
I need your strength and wisdom

May I walk in beauty
Make my eyes ever behold the red and purple sunset.
Make my hands respect the things you have made
And my ears sharp to your voice.
Make me wise so that I may know the things you have taught your children.

The lessons you have written in every leaf and rock
Make me strong--------!
Not to be superior to my brothers, but to fight my greatest enemy....myself

Make me ever ready to come to you with straight eyes,
So that when life fades as the fading sunset,
May my spirit come to you without shame.
Chemtrails provincie Utrecht229 views
..what happened at Ramana's Maha-Samadhi 8.47 pm - april 14 - 1950?228 viewsAn enormous Star trailed slowly across the sky and disappeared at the holy Arunachala Hill and was seen by many even as far as Madras:

See: www.video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-40 (10:58)

*Scroll downwards to see all the photo's in this album!
Nabu, Son of Marduk228 viewsevidence for giants nephilim rephaim anunakki: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N63lhtx2q8o&NR=1

Nabu is the Babylonian god of wisdom and writing, worshipped by Babylonians as the son of Marduk and his consort, Sarpanitum, and as the grandson of Ea. Nabu's consort was Tashmetum.
Nabu is mentioned in the Bible as Nebo in Isaiah 46:1 and Jeremiah 48:1.

A statue of Nabu from Calah, erected during the reign of Tiglath-pileser III is on display in the British Museum.
China, old photo from 1942228 viewsNan Jing UFO over China: www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZWF9kCIcGo&NR=1 (40sec)
F22a Raptor, Hickam AFB - Hawaii228 views
Lockheed SR-71; Habu228 viewswww.bibliotecapleyades.net/offlimits/esp_offlimits_8.htm

The SR-71 And UFO Encounter

The SR-71 was designed as a spy plane for the CIA in the 60s and designated the A-12. The Mach 3 plus aircraft first flew in 1962, taking off from Groom AFB in Area 51. Later, once the Air Force operated it as a reconnaissance plane, it was designated the SR-71 black-bird.

Fouche's friend, Chuck, a SR-71 pilot, related to him about an in-flight incident he had in the 1970s. He was returning from a reconnaissance flight, and, while at an altitude of 74,000 feet and at the speed of almost Mach 3, (3 times the speed of sound) he noticed something flickering in his peripheral vision. Hovering over his left wing tip was a ball of dense plasma-like light. It was so bright, that when he stared at it for more than a few seconds, his eyes hurt.

Chuck tried to use his UHF, HF, and VHF communications sets to no avail. There was nothing but static. Repeatedly glancing briefly at the ball of light, he watched in amazement as it moved effortlessly about his aircraft. At one point the light positioned itself a few feet in front of the large spiked cone at the air Intake Inlet. The enormous amount of air rushing into the engines should have sucked in, and shredded almost anything in its path, but the light orb was mysteriously unaffected.

The light, he noted, acted in a curious manner, if something inanimate could act at all. It moved from time to time to other parts of the vehicle, staying with him until his approach to Beale AFB in California. He was in sight of the Air Base when the light swung away from his aircraft in a wide arch with ever increasing speed.

Of course, after reading his incident report, his Operations Commander told him not to ever speak about his experience. When Chuck related the story to Fouche, he said he was absolutely convinced that the ball of light was controlled by some form of intelligence. Fouche gathered about two dozen stories from pilots of similar in flight incidents with UFOs and plasma balls.

Flying Triangles

Fouche claims that he has seen inside information on some of America's most closely-guarded technological secrets, such as the super-secret SR-71 and SR-75 spy planes and the incredible UFO-like TR-3B or 'Flying Triangle'.

According to Fouche, the development of the TR-3B began in 1982 and was part of 'Project Aurora'. The aim of 'Aurora' is to build and test advanced aerospace vehicles including the TR-3B, the triangular-shaped nuclear-powered aerospace platform. Apparently around 35% of the US Government's SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) funds have been siphoned off to help finance it.

The TR-3B is the most exotic aerospace program in existence. 'TR' stands for tactical reconnaissance, which means the craft is designed to get to the target and stay there as long as is necessary in order to send back information.

It is powered by a nuclear reactor and can operate for a long time without refuelling.

This also allows it to hover silently for long periods. Located in the centre of the triangle is the circular crew compartment and surrounding this is a plasma filled accelerator ring called a Magnetic Field Disrupter (MFD). This generates a magnetic vortex which effectively neutralizes the effects of gravity on mass. The MFD also makes the craft considerably lighter, which means it can out manoeuvre any other conventional craft.

Reduced mass means the craft can fly at Mach 9 speeds vertically and horizontally. The MFD doesn't actually power the craft, it just reduces the mass. The propulsion system consists of three multimode thrusters mounted on each corner of the triangle and gases are used as a propellant. A source who worked on the TR-3B said their goal was to put a third propulsion system on board so you could routinely reach the Moon or Mars.

He explained that it may be possible to modify the MFD technology so that it not only reduces mass, but also creates a force that repels gravity. Therefore this would be a true anti-gravity system, which is believed to be in use by UFOs.

Fouche was considered an Air Force expert with classified electronics countermeasures test equipment, cryptological equipment owned by the National Security Agency, and Automatic Test Equipment. He worked with many of the leading military aircraft and electronics manufacturers in the US.

Fouche participated as a key member in design, development, production, and Flight-Operational-Test and Evaluation in classified Aircraft development programs, state-of-the-art avionics, including electronic countermeasures, satellite communications, cryptological and support equipment.

The SR-75

Ed Fouche claims that Area 51's Groom Lake facility has the massive 6km-long runway, which makes it the longest in the world, for the landing of the CIA's latest super-hitech spy plane: the SR-75.

This hypersonic strategic reconnaissance (SR) aircraft is dubbed 'The Penetrator'. It is allegedly capable of positioning itself anywhere in the world within 3 HOURS!!! and can fly at an altitude of 13,000 meters, exceeding Mach 7 speeds of 4,500 kmph.

When the US military retired the SR-71 Blackbird back in 1990, it was stated that the aircraft would not be replaced because satellites would now do the job of spying. However, Fouche claims that the SR-75 has been designed to help the CIA/NSA satellites in orbit.

The SR-75 reportedly acts as a mothership from which the unmanned SR-74, or 'Scramp' is launched. The 'Scramp' is operated by remote control and is used to place small satellites in orbit and is said to be able to reach orbital altitudes of 151 kilometers and attain speeds of Mach 15, or just under 10,000 kmph.

The plane is so top secret that we could only find an artists impression to illustrate what it looks like.
Chemtrails Utrecht 7 maart 2005228 viewsGrote Spinnenwebben weven ze in de luchten.

Een Hopi Indianen profetie luidt: "Als De Grote Schoonmaak nadert, dan zullen er spinnenwebben aan de lucht geweven worden."
Volgens UfodeWaarheid.com ziet dat er naar uit als het zo doorgaat boven heel Nederland en overal ter wereld en alle grote streden en wij vragen ons werkelijk af waarom niemand dit opvalt???
Zeist Chemtrails 2006 zomer227 views
White Horse Milk Hill Stanton St Bernard nr 8 on 08/08/08 Wiltshire UK227 viewswww.cropcircleconnector.com/2008/080808/080808.html

White Horse Milk Hill Stanton St Bernard
Description: Figure of 8 formation and its big. It was cold, it was windy and wet but it was worth the wait. Didn't see the masters at work thou. Formation appears to be a figure of 8 with tear drops. To the best of my knowledge there was no one on Milk hill during the night watch. !!! Its interesting to see in the Cherhill formation the eights again. Eight swirls forward and eight swirls backwards. I am glad this date is coming to an end.
Discovery: 080808
Name: Andrew Pyrka
White Horse Milk Hill Stanton St Bernard nr 8 on 08/08/08227 viewsFigure of 8 formation and its big. It was cold, it was windy and wet but it was worth the wait. Didn't see the masters at work thou. Formation appears to be a figure of 8 with tear drops..

New swirled order (crop circle documentary 2009): http://www.pyrabang.com/view.php?ref=welcome&post_id=30421&visitor=true
Zecharia Sichin: the 12th Planet227 viewswww.sitchin.com
USAF - UfoTech - Boeing227 views
3000 BC Wandjina, Kimberley - Australie227 views
Hermes, Thoth - 2nd Son of Zeus (alias Enki {EA} in Ancient Sumer) is called Ningishzidda in Sumer (now Iraq), Master of Genetics and other sciences; called Tehuti (THOTH) in ancient Egypt; went with followers to the meso-Americas (Aug 13, 3113 BC) 226 viewsThe mythology and legends of many different cultures include monsters of human appearance but prodigious size and strength. "Giant" is the English word commonly used for such beings, derived from one of the most famed examples: the gigantes (greek γίγαντες) of Greek mythology.

In various Indo-European mythologies, gigantic peoples are featured as primeval creatures associated with chaos and the wild nature, and they are frequently in conflict with the gods, be they Olympian, Hindu or Norse.

There are also other stories featuring giants in the Old Testament, perhaps most famously Goliath. Attributed to them are superhuman strength and physical proportions, a long lifespan, and thus a great deal of knowledge as well.

Fairy tales such as Jack and the Beanstalk have formed our modern perception of giants as stupid and violent monsters, frequently said to eat humans, and especially children. However, in some more recent portrayals, like those of Roald Dahl, some giants are both intelligent and friendly. The Epic of Gilgamesh: What is claimed as the oldest surviving epic-story in the world; 'The epic of Gilgamesh' also includes a references to giants. Gilgamesh and Enkidu go together to fight the evil Humbaba at the cedar mountains. The evil giants face was like a lion, a roar like a flood, a mouth of flames, breath that burns trees, and teeth like a dragons. In the end they cut off his head.

(Ref: Ch 2, 3 and 4: The Epic of Gilgamesh)

Herodotus in Book 1, Chapter 68: Describes how the Spartans uncovered in Tegea the body of Orestes which was seven cubits long -- around 10 feet. In his book, The Comparison of Romulus with Theseus Plutarch describes how the Athenians uncovered the body of Theseus, which was of more than ordinary size. The kneecaps of Ajax were exactly the size of a discus for the boy's pentathlon, wrote Pausanias. A boy's discus was about twelve centimetres in diameter, while a normal adult patella is around five centimetres, suggesting Ajax may have been around 14 feet tall. In Greek mythology the gigantes (γίγαντες) were (according to the poet Hesiod) the children of Uranos (Ουρανός) and Gaea (Γαία) (The Heaven and the Earth). They were involved in a conflict with the Olympian gods called the Gigantomachy (Γιγαντομαχία), which was eventually settled when the hero Heracles decided to help the Olympians. The Greeks believed some of them, like Enceladus, to lay buried from that time under the earth, and that their tormented quivers resulted in earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.
Quetzalcoatl? 226 viewsJaime Maussan UFOs: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndzFhcJ_gDw&feature=related
NASA, 26 May 2008 - Mars Surface Pattern Photo 226 views
Tr3A Pumpkinseed and Chemtrails226 views
Sr-75a, Moonrace226 views
Ningishzidda/Thoth of Egypt 226 views
Chemtrails prov. Utrecht226 views
Venus - CAZIMI226 viewsYour world IS changing very soon: www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVg0bkn5fsA (11:00)

Zon-Venus Inferior Conjunction als de Maan voor de Zon schuift in 2012 is zeldzaam en komt maar 1 keer in de 120 jaar voor, Venus heet dan Cazimi.

Op 9 juni 2008 - 18Ge42 - VenD in Tweelingen, Venus Rising. [Evening Star]
Op 6 juni 2012 - 15Ge45 - VenRx in Leeuw, Rising [Morning Star - at Solar Maximum 2012]
Cazimi (also spelled Casimi, and sometimes called Zaminium) is a technical Arabic word meaning "heart of the Sun" or "in the heart of the Sun." It is an astrological/astronomical term meaning a planet that is in exact conjunction with or very near the precise center of the solar disc. A planet that forms a conjunction with the Sun within 17' (arc minutes) of partile (exactitude) is said to be Cazimi, literally engulfed and fortified by Sol and, as it also may be interpreted, "in the heart of the Sun." According to a psychological approach to astrology the Sun, representing the Ego, engulfs the energies of the planet in Cazimi and is said to imbue it with the intensely positive and life-giving energy and power of the Sun.

(Venus inferior/superior conjunction dates:
http://www.alabe.com/VeCycle-1.pdf )

Introduction: the deception of the Lisbon Treaty, which is the renamed EU Constitution, the European Council, Europe member of parlement (parliament) Nigel Farage, Academic Anthony Coughlan, the Irish referendum to be held in the second week of June 2008, the French and the Dutch referendums in 2005.. BOTH resulting in the major NO vote.. the rejection of the EU Constitutional Treaty, NATO and the chemical matrix spraying (chemtrails) "Project Cloverleaf".., George W. Bush pushing for NATO membership of Ukraine and Georgia, the synchronization with the Venus rising date as 'Evening Star' on June 9, 2008 (06/09/2008), the 2000 - 2004 - 2008 elections, the Venus pentagram, World Trade Centre (WTC) attack, Madrid and London bombings, the Mayan long count calendar, or December 21,22,23 as end-date, December 13 Lucia Day, Osama bin Laden threatens Europe and Pope in Rome, terrorists, terror, Bush 'Iraq freedom' speech on March 19, 2008.. UN-NWO 'order from chaos' game of 'Peace and Security'..

and ofcourse.. the American Constitution and Bill of Rights..

This video part explains how the Elite/Illuminati build their New World Order/NWO Religion.. in the background of their 'War on Terror' in order to empower the United Nations.. based on Rituals, Symbols and Numbers (Cycles).. and timely synchronized with the 11-year Sunspot Cycle Solar Maximum and the Transit Cycle of the planet Venus.. including its 'Morning Star' and 'Evening Star' risings.. (Lucifer, Satan)

1990.. +11.. 2001.. and NOW.. THEY are getting ready for 2012.. they mislead YOU.. with the "HALF TRUTH".. of their astrology.. their astrological rituals.. and human sacrifices.. as YOU have witnessed.. when the 3 WTC towers fell to Earth.. as 'one major sacrificial ritual'.. while they are 'drawing their symbolic horoscope' of their High-Tech Babylonian New World Order..

The ratio-formula: x9,:9,x11,:11 symbolized by 9/11.. is now discovered.. (part 5) which was kept hidden from us until now..

The other ratio.. the Venus/Earth orbit ratio: 13/8 was also kept hidden from us until now (part 6).. Their sacred number 13 is discussed and how it relates to the worship of planet Venus and our governmental leaders..

Bertie Ahern meets the council of foreign relations, discussing the European Constitution (Lisbon Treaty). To ratify this treaty would nullify the Irish constitution. Vote No!

George Washington Vision Union Militia Freedom, deceit of Chancellor Angela Merkel (Germany), No Vote Ireland, Luck Cloverleaf Shamrock, Democratic Rights, Democracy, Political occultist, occultists, Occult Agenda ratification Spain (Espana) Madrid, United Kingdom (England) London, Germany (Deutschland) Berlin, Italy (Italia) Rome, France Paris the Final Countdown terror attack Osama bin Laden threat Europe Pope Rome Maya Mayans pentagram sunspots sunspot cycle solar maximum Babel Babylon Egypt Netherlands Holland Amsterdam Final Countdown Globalisation Globalization false flag terror attack on Pope in Rome
Venus Phase Cycle, 1900-2050
Venus takes only 225 days to orbit the Sun. However, when she is
viewed from Earth, her full synodic cycle (from inferior
conjunction to inferior conjunction with the Sun) takes 584 days,
or about 1.6 years. This is due to the interaction of Venus?s 225-
day orbital period with the 365-day orbital period of the Earth.
Below is a listing of the principal stages in each Venus
phase cycle, with a line space between each 1.6-year cycle. Note
that each new Venus phase cycle begins about a biquintile (144
degrees) earlier in the zodiac than the previous one. In five
successive phase cycles the inferior conjunction points (or other
comparable points in the cycles) trace a pentagram around the
Five Venus phase cycles take almost exactly eight years.
At the end of every five cycles, we have inserted an extra line
space. This marks the beginning of a new series of five cycles. The
new series traces a similar pentagram, but everything is displaced
approximately two degrees earlier.
Note also that every four years the superior conjunction
takes place at almost exactly the same zodiacal degree (within
only a few minutes of arc) and usually on the same day of the year
as the preceding inferior conjunction.
4 28 1900 Max. Elong. E. 23:10 GMT ... 23Ge41
6 16 1900 Retro. Station 22:22 GMT ... 24Cn00
7 8 1900 Inferior Conj. 11:06 GMT ... 15Cn48
7 30 1900 Direct Station 2:32 GMT ... 7Cn30
9 17 1900 Max. Elong. W. 18:27 GMT ... 8Le22
5 1 1901 Superior Conj. 2:04 GMT ... 10Ta00
12 5 1901 Max. Elong. E. 9:41 GMT ... 29Cp50
1 25 1902 Retro. Station 3:05 GMT ... 3Pi22
2 14 1902 Inferior Conj. 22:58 GMT ... 25Aq21
3 7 1902 Direct Station 12:48 GMT ... 17Aq32
4 25 1902 Max. Elong. W. 23:31 GMT ... 18Pi37
11 29 1902 Superior Conj. 2:37 GMT ... 5Sg57
7 10 1903 Max. Elong. E. 4:16 GMT ... 2Vi14
8 27 1903 Retro. Station 17:38 GMT ... 1Li44
9 17 1903 Inferior Conj. 21:13 GMT ... 23Vi47
10 9 1903 Direct Station 4:38 GMT ... 15Vi40
11 28 1903 Max. Elong. W. 10:58 GMT ... 18Li18
7 8 1904 Superior Conj. 8:15 GMT ... 15Cn42
2 14 1905 Max. Elong. E. 14:28 GMT ... 11Ar55
4 6 1905 Retro. Station 3:55 GMT ... 14Ta42
4 27 1905 Inferior Conj. 9:52 GMT ... 6Ta27
5 18 1905 Direct Station 18:06 GMT ... 28Ar16
7 6 1905 Max. Elong. W. 14:50 GMT ... 28Ta12
2 14 1906 Superior Conj. 9:40 GMT ... 24Aq48
9 20 1906 Max. Elong. E. 6:05 GMT ... 12Sc46
11 9 1906 Retro. Station 15:37 GMT ... 14Sg45
11 30 1906 Inferior Conj. 5:20 GMT ... 7Sg06
12 20 1906 Direct Station 16:27 GMT ... 29Sc27
2 9 1907 Max. Elong. W. 18:21 GMT ... 3Cp05
9 15 1907 Superior Conj. 1:37 GMT ... 21Vi04
4 26 1908 Max. Elong. E. 13:01 GMT ... 21Ge24
6 14 1908 Retro. Station 14:52 GMT ... 21Cn51
7 6 1908 Inferior Conj. 3:32 GMT ... 13Cn38
7 27 1908 Direct Station 18:27 GMT ... 5Cn21
9 15 1908 Max. Elong. W. 10:23 GMT ... 6Le10
4 28 1909 Superior Conj. 17:52 GMT ... 7Ta47
12 2 1909 Max. Elong. E. 23:33 GMT ... 27Cp25
1 22 1910 Retro. Station 17:25 GMT ... 0Pi56
2 12 1910 Inferior Conj. 12:24 GMT ... 22Aq56
3 5 1910 Direct Station 1:57 GMT ... 15Aq07
4 23 1910 Max. Elong. W. 15:10 GMT ... 16Pi21
11 26 1910 Superior Conj. 13:55 GMT ... 3Sg27
7 7 1911 Max. Elong. E. 20:21 GMT ... 0Vi03
8 25 1911 Retro. Station 7:57 GMT ... 29Vi29
9 15 1911 Inferior Conj. 11:58 GMT ... 21Vi31
10 6 1911 Direct Station 20:26 GMT ... 13Vi23
11 26 1911 Max. Elong. W. 1:25 GMT ... 15Li57
7 6 1912 Superior Conj. 2:33 GMT ... 13Cn38
2 12 1913 Max. Elong. E. 6:01 GMT ... 9Ar39
4 3 1913 Retro. Station 19:48 GMT ... 12Ta30
4 25 1913 Inferior Conj. 1:50 GMT ... 4Ta15
5 16 1913 Direct Station 9:39 GMT ... 26Ar05
7 4 1913 Max. Elong. W. 4:38 GMT ... 25Ta57
2 11 1914 Superior Conj. 20:39 GMT ... 22Aq18
9 17 1914 Max. Elong. E. 18:01 GMT ... 10Sc21
11 7 1914 Retro. Station 3:13 GMT ... 12Sg17
11 27 1914 Inferior Conj. 17:37 GMT ... 4Sg39
12 18 1914 Direct Station 4:31 GMT ... 26Sc59
2 7 1915 Max. Elong. W. 6:38 GMT ... 0Cp37
9 12 1915 Superior Conj. 18:21 GMT ... 18Vi54
4 24 1916 Max. Elong. E. 3:53 GMT ... 19Ge11
6 12 1916 Retro. Station 7:50 GMT ... 19Cn44
7 3 1916 Inferior Conj. 19:59 GMT ... 11Cn30
7 25 1916 Direct Station 10:50 GMT ... 3Cn13
9 13 1916 Max. Elong. W. 3:16 GMT ... 4Le01
4 26 1917 Superior Conj. 9:30 GMT ... 5Ta34
11 30 1917 Max. Elong. E. 14:16 GMT ... 25Cp04
1 20 1918 Retro. Station 7:53 GMT ... 28Aq31
2 10 1918 Inferior Conj. 1:47 GMT ... 20Aq32
3 2 1918 Direct Station 15:27 GMT ... 12Aq44
4 21 1918 Max. Elong. W. 6:39 GMT ... 14Pi06
11 24 1918 Superior Conj. 1:07 GMT ... 0Sg57
7 5 1919 Max. Elong. E. 11:52 GMT ... 27Le51
8 22 1919 Retro. Station 21:54 GMT ... 27Vi14
9 13 1919 Inferior Conj. 2:52 GMT ... 19Vi16
10 4 1919 Direct Station 11:49 GMT ... 11Vi08
11 23 1919 Max. Elong. W. 15:18 GMT ... 13Li35
7 3 1920 Superior Conj. 20:54 GMT ... 11Cn34
2 9 1921 Max. Elong. E. 20:48 GMT ... 7Ar21
4 1 1921 Retro. Station 11:22 GMT ... 10Ta17
4 22 1921 Inferior Conj. 17:39 GMT ... 2Ta02
5 14 1921 Direct Station 0:30 GMT ... 23Ar52
7 1 1921 Max. Elong. W. 18:25 GMT ... 23Ta41
2 9 1922 Superior Conj. 7:19 GMT ... 19Aq47
9 15 1922 Max. Elong. E. 6:50 GMT ... 7Sc58
11 4 1922 Retro. Station 15:24 GMT ... 9Sg50
11 25 1922 Inferior Conj. 6:00 GMT ... 2Sg12
12 15 1922 Direct Station 17:11 GMT ... 24Sc30
2 4 1923 Max. Elong. W. 19:58 GMT ... 28Sg11
9 10 1923 Superior Conj. 11:04 GMT ... 16Vi42
4 21 1924 Max. Elong. E. 19:32 GMT ... 16Ge59
6 10 1924 Retro. Station 0:52 GMT ... 17Cn35
7 1 1924 Inferior Conj. 12:22 GMT ... 9Cn21
7 23 1924 Direct Station 3:36 GMT ... 1Cn04
9 10 1924 Max. Elong. W. 20:07 GMT ... 1Le52
4 24 1925 Superior Conj. 1:14 GMT ... 3Ta21
11 28 1925 Max. Elong. E. 5:05 GMT ... 22Cp41
1 17 1926 Retro. Station 22:13 GMT ... 26Aq05
2 7 1926 Inferior Conj. 15:11 GMT ... 18Aq06
2 28 1926 Direct Station 4:50 GMT ... 10Aq20
4 18 1926 Max. Elong. W. 21:21 GMT ... 11Pi49
11 21 1926 Superior Conj. 12:29 GMT ... 28Sc27
7 3 1927 Max. Elong. E. 2:50 GMT ... 25Le38
8 20 1927 Retro. Station 11:44 GMT ... 25Vi00
9 10 1927 Inferior Conj. 17:53 GMT ... 17Vi01
10 2 1927 Direct Station 2:52 GMT ... 8Vi51
11 21 1927 Max. Elong. W. 5:12 GMT ... 11Li12
7 1 1928 Superior Conj. 15:34 GMT ... 9Cn31
2 7 1929 Max. Elong. E. 11:35 GMT ... 5Ar01
3 30 1929 Retro. Station 3:05 GMT ... 8Ta03
4 20 1929 Inferior Conj. 9:28 GMT ... 29Ar48
5 11 1929 Direct Station 15:04 GMT ... 21Ar39
6 29 1929 Max. Elong. W. 9:00 GMT ... 21Ta27
2 6 1930 Superior Conj. 17:42 GMT ... 17Aq14
9 12 1930 Max. Elong. E. 20:29 GMT ... 5Sc38
11 2 1930 Retro. Station 3:52 GMT ... 7Sg23
11 22 1930 Inferior Conj. 18:18 GMT ... 29Sc44
12 13 1930 Direct Station 6:26 GMT ... 22Sc02
2 2 1931 Max. Elong. W. 9:47 GMT ... 25Sg47
9 8 1931 Superior Conj. 4:13 GMT ... 14Vi33
4 19 1932 Max. Elong. E. 11:26 GMT ... 14Ge47
6 7 1932 Retro. Station 17:37 GMT ... 15Cn26
6 29 1932 Inferior Conj. 4:41 GMT ... 7Cn12
7 20 1932 Direct Station 20:24 GMT ... 28Ge55
9 8 1932 Max. Elong. W. 12:27 GMT ... 29Cn42
4 21 1933 Superior Conj. 16:23 GMT ... 1Ta06
11 25 1933 Max. Elong. E. 19:13 GMT ... 20Cp18
1 15 1934 Retro. Station 11:47 GMT ... 23Aq39
2 5 1934 Inferior Conj. 4:26 GMT ... 15Aq41
2 25 1934 Direct Station 17:45 GMT ... 7Aq56
4 16 1934 Max. Elong. W. 11:15 GMT ... 9Pi29
11 19 1934 Superior Conj. 0:21 GMT ... 25Sc59
6 30 1935 Max. Elong. E. 17:00 GMT ... 23Le23
8 18 1935 Retro. Station 1:44 GMT ... 22Vi46
9 8 1935 Inferior Conj. 8:50 GMT ... 14Vi46
9 29 1935 Direct Station 17:48 GMT ... 6Vi36
11 18 1935 Max. Elong. W. 19:29 GMT ... 8Li52
6 29 1936 Superior Conj. 9:45 GMT ... 7Cn27
2 5 1937 Max. Elong. E. 2:36 GMT ... 2Ar43
3 27 1937 Retro. Station 19:08 GMT ... 5Ta50
4 18 1937 Inferior Conj. 1:15 GMT ... 27Ar36
5 9 1937 Direct Station 5:58 GMT ... 19Ar26
6 27 1937 Max. Elong. W. 0:21 GMT ... 19Ta16
2 4 1938 Superior Conj. 4:06 GMT ... 14Aq42
9 10 1938 Max. Elong. E. 10:43 GMT ... 3Sc19
10 30 1938 Retro. Station 16:24 GMT ... 4Sg56
11 20 1938 Inferior Conj. 6:32 GMT ... 27Sc17
12 10 1938 Direct Station 19:55 GMT ... 19Sc34
1 30 1939 Max. Elong. W. 23:38 GMT ... 23Sg23
9 5 1939 Superior Conj. 21:16 GMT ... 12Vi24
4 17 1940 Max. Elong. E. 3:15 GMT ... 12Ge36
6 5 1940 Retro. Station 10:07 GMT ... 13Cn18
6 26 1940 Inferior Conj. 21:15 GMT ... 5Cn04
7 18 1940 Direct Station 13:15 GMT ... 26Ge47
9 6 1940 Max. Elong. W. 4:18 GMT ... 27Cn31
4 19 1941 Superior Conj. 7:36 GMT ... 28Ar51
11 23 1941 Max. Elong. E. 8:31 GMT ... 17Cp51
1 13 1942 Retro. Station 0:44 GMT ... 21Aq11
2 2 1942 Inferior Conj. 17:34 GMT ... 13Aq15
2 23 1942 Direct Station 6:04 GMT ... 5Aq31
4 14 1942 Max. Elong. W. 0:42 GMT ... 7Pi08
11 16 1942 Superior Conj. 12:11 GMT ... 23Sc31
6 28 1943 Max. Elong. E. 7:21 GMT ... 21Le08
8 15 1943 Retro. Station 16:39 GMT ... 20Vi33
9 6 1943 Inferior Conj. 0:07 GMT ... 12Vi32
9 27 1943 Direct Station 9:17 GMT ... 4Vi21
11 16 1943 Max. Elong. W. 10:43 GMT ... 6Li33
6 27 1944 Superior Conj. 3:59 GMT ... 5Cn22
2 2 1945 Max. Elong. E. 18:22 GMT ... 0Ar26
3 25 1945 Retro. Station 11:26 GMT ... 3Ta35
4 15 1945 Inferior Conj. 16:46 GMT ... 25Ar21
5 6 1945 Direct Station 21:05 GMT ... 17Ar12
6 24 1945 Max. Elong. W. 16:00 GMT ... 17Ta04
2 1 1946 Superior Conj. 14:22 GMT ... 12Aq08
9 8 1946 Max. Elong. E. 1:38 GMT ... 1Sc02
10 28 1946 Retro. Station 4:54 GMT ... 2Sg30
11 17 1946 Inferior Conj. 19:04 GMT ... 24Sc50
12 8 1946 Direct Station 9:35 GMT ... 17Sc07
1 28 1947 Max. Elong. W. 12:44 GMT ... 20Sg56
9 3 1947 Superior Conj. 14:26 GMT ... 10Vi14
4 14 1948 Max. Elong. E. 18:14 GMT ... 10Ge22
6 3 1948 Retro. Station 2:03 GMT ... 11Cn09
6 24 1948 Inferior Conj. 13:39 GMT ... 2Cn55
7 16 1948 Direct Station 5:28 GMT ... 24Ge38
9 3 1948 Max. Elong. W. 18:54 GMT ... 25Cn17
4 16 1949 Superior Conj. 22:51 GMT ... 26Ar36
11 20 1949 Max. Elong. E. 20:39 GMT ... 15Cp22
1 10 1950 Retro. Station 13:38 GMT ... 18Aq45
1 31 1950 Inferior Conj. 6:43 GMT ... 10Aq50
2 20 1950 Direct Station 18:06 GMT ... 3Aq06
4 11 1950 Max. Elong. W. 14:06 GMT ... 4Pi46
11 14 1950 Superior Conj. 0:01 GMT ... 21Sc03
6 25 1951 Max. Elong. E. 22:12 GMT ... 18Le55
8 13 1951 Retro. Station 7:53 GMT ... 18Vi20
9 3 1951 Inferior Conj. 15:10 GMT ... 10Vi18
9 25 1951 Direct Station 1:01 GMT ... 2Vi06
11 14 1951 Max. Elong. W. 2:44 GMT ... 4Li17
6 24 1952 Superior Conj. 22:19 GMT ... 3Cn18
1 31 1953 Max. Elong. E. 10:59 GMT ... 28Pi12
3 23 1953 Retro. Station 3:54 GMT ... 1Ta21
4 13 1953 Inferior Conj. 8:17 GMT ... 23Ar06
5 4 1953 Direct Station 12:35 GMT ... 14Ar58
6 22 1953 Max. Elong. W. 7:48 GMT ... 14Ta54
1 30 1954 Superior Conj. 0:19 GMT ... 9Aq35
9 5 1954 Max. Elong. E. 15:43 GMT ... 28Li43
10 25 1954 Retro. Station 16:38 GMT ... 0Sg04
11 15 1954 Inferior Conj. 7:28 GMT ... 22Sc24
12 5 1954 Direct Station 22:40 GMT ... 14Sc40
1 26 1955 Max. Elong. W. 0:36 GMT ... 18Sg27
9 1 1955 Superior Conj. 7:59 GMT ... 8Vi07
4 12 1956 Max. Elong. E. 8:05 GMT ... 8Ge05
5 31 1956 Retro. Station 18:05 GMT ... 9Cn01
6 22 1956 Inferior Conj. 6:10 GMT ... 0Cn47
7 13 1956 Direct Station 21:22 GMT ... 22Ge30
9 1 1956 Max. Elong. W. 9:22 GMT ... 23Cn03
4 14 1957 Superior Conj. 13:41 GMT ... 24Ar20
11 18 1957 Max. Elong. E. 8:25 GMT ... 12Cp53
1 8 1958 Retro. Station 2:49 GMT ... 16Aq18
1 28 1958 Inferior Conj. 19:49 GMT ... 8Aq24
2 18 1958 Direct Station 6:19 GMT ... 0Aq41
4 9 1958 Max. Elong. W. 4:30 GMT ... 2Pi27
11 11 1958 Superior Conj. 12:22 GMT ... 18Sc37
6 23 1959 Max. Elong. E. 14:06 GMT ... 16Le45
8 10 1959 Retro. Station 23:17 GMT ... 16Vi07
9 1 1959 Inferior Conj. 6:24 GMT ... 8Vi05
9 22 1959 Direct Station 17:17 GMT ... 29Le52
11 11 1959 Max. Elong. W. 19:15 GMT ... 2Li02
6 22 1960 Superior Conj. 16:27 GMT ... 1Cn13
1 29 1961 Max. Elong. E. 3:54 GMT ... 25Pi58
3 20 1961 Retro. Station 20:14 GMT ... 29Ar06
4 10 1961 Inferior Conj. 23:52 GMT ... 20Ar52
5 2 1961 Direct Station 4:17 GMT ... 12Ar44
6 19 1961 Max. Elong. W. 23:01 GMT ... 12Ta41
1 27 1962 Superior Conj. 10:21 GMT ... 7Aq00
9 3 1962 Max. Elong. E. 4:57 GMT ... 26Li22
10 23 1962 Retro. Station 4:16 GMT ... 27Sc38
11 12 1962 Inferior Conj. 20:08 GMT ... 19Sc58
12 3 1962 Direct Station 11:28 GMT ... 12Sc13
1 23 1963 Max. Elong. W. 11:56 GMT ... 15Sg55
8 30 1963 Superior Conj. 1:32 GMT ... 5Vi59
4 9 1964 Max. Elong. E. 21:44 GMT ... 5Ge47
5 29 1964 Retro. Station 10:31 GMT ... 6Cn52
6 19 1964 Inferior Conj. 22:42 GMT ... 28Ge38
7 11 1964 Direct Station 13:02 GMT ... 20Ge21
8 30 1964 Max. Elong. W. 0:35 GMT ... 20Cn50
4 12 1965 Superior Conj. 4:23 GMT ... 22Ar03
11 15 1965 Max. Elong. E. 21:13 GMT ... 10Cp26
1 5 1966 Retro. Station 16:22 GMT ... 13Aq50
1 26 1966 Inferior Conj. 8:39 GMT ... 5Aq57
2 15 1966 Direct Station 18:43 GMT ... 28Cp14
4 6 1966 Max. Elong. W. 19:43 GMT ... 0Pi09
11 9 1966 Superior Conj. 0:41 GMT ... 16Sc10
6 21 1967 Max. Elong. E. 6:32 GMT ... 14Le35
8 8 1967 Retro. Station 14:31 GMT ... 13Vi54
8 29 1967 Inferior Conj. 21:42 GMT ... 5Vi51
9 20 1967 Direct Station 9:35 GMT ... 27Le38
11 9 1967 Max. Elong. W. 10:55 GMT ... 29Vi46
6 20 1968 Superior Conj. 10:24 GMT ... 29Ge08
1 26 1969 Max. Elong. E. 20:08 GMT ... 23Pi41
3 18 1969 Retro. Station 11:51 GMT ... 26Ar50
4 8 1969 Inferior Conj. 15:12 GMT ... 18Ar36
4 29 1969 Direct Station 19:21 GMT ... 10Ar30
6 17 1969 Max. Elong. W. 12:55 GMT ... 10Ta26
1 24 1970 Superior Conj. 20:28 GMT ... 4Aq27
8 31 1970 Max. Elong. E. 17:50 GMT ... 24Li01
10 20 1970 Retro. Station 15:58 GMT ... 25Sc13
11 10 1970 Inferior Conj. 8:50 GMT ... 17Sc33
12 1 1970 Direct Station 0:05 GMT ... 9Sc47
1 20 1971 Max. Elong. W. 23:44 GMT ... 13Sg26
8 27 1971 Superior Conj. 18:55 GMT ... 3Vi51
4 7 1972 Max. Elong. E. 12:17 GMT ... 3Ge33
5 27 1972 Retro. Station 3:16 GMT ... 4Cn45
6 17 1972 Inferior Conj. 15:10 GMT ... 26Ge30
7 9 1972 Direct Station 4:57 GMT ... 18Ge13
8 27 1972 Max. Elong. W. 16:43 GMT ... 18Cn41
4 9 1973 Superior Conj. 19:15 GMT ... 19Ar48
11 13 1973 Max. Elong. E. 10:54 GMT ... 8Cp02
1 3 1974 Retro. Station 6:08 GMT ... 11Aq22
1 23 1974 Inferior Conj. 21:21 GMT ... 3Aq30
2 13 1974 Direct Station 7:30 GMT ... 25Cp48
4 4 1974 Max. Elong. W. 11:09 GMT ... 27Aq53
11 6 1974 Superior Conj. 13:10 GMT ... 13Sc44
6 18 1975 Max. Elong. E. 22:29 GMT ... 12Le26
8 6 1975 Retro. Station 5:22 GMT ... 11Vi43
8 27 1975 Inferior Conj. 13:12 GMT ... 3Vi39
9 18 1975 Direct Station 1:47 GMT ... 25Le26
11 7 1975 Max. Elong. W. 1:57 GMT ... 27Vi28
6 18 1976 Superior Conj. 4:38 GMT ... 27Ge04
1 24 1977 Max. Elong. E. 11:20 GMT ... 21Pi23
3 16 1977 Retro. Station 3:02 GMT ... 24Ar33
4 6 1977 Inferior Conj. 6:31 GMT ... 16Ar21
4 27 1977 Direct Station 9:50 GMT ... 8Ar15
6 15 1977 Max. Elong. W. 2:41 GMT ... 8Ta09
1 22 1978 Superior Conj. 6:17 GMT ... 1Aq52
8 29 1978 Max. Elong. E. 6:53 GMT ... 21Li40
10 18 1978 Retro. Station 3:59 GMT ... 22Sc48
11 7 1978 Inferior Conj. 21:35 GMT ... 15Sc08
11 28 1978 Direct Station 13:11 GMT ... 7Sc20
1 18 1979 Max. Elong. W. 12:44 GMT ... 10Sg58
8 25 1979 Superior Conj. 12:40 GMT ... 1Vi43
4 5 1980 Max. Elong. E. 3:29 GMT ... 1Ge18
5 24 1980 Retro. Station 20:12 GMT ... 2Cn35
6 15 1980 Inferior Conj. 7:28 GMT ... 24Ge20
7 6 1980 Direct Station 21:17 GMT ... 16Ge03
8 25 1980 Max. Elong. W. 9:22 GMT ... 16Cn32
4 7 1981 Superior Conj. 9:24 GMT ... 17Ar28
11 11 1981 Max. Elong. E. 1:02 GMT ... 5Cp38
12 31 1981 Retro. Station 19:47 GMT ... 8Aq54
1 21 1982 Inferior Conj. 10:08 GMT ... 1Aq03
2 10 1982 Direct Station 20:39 GMT ... 23Cp22
4 2 1982 Max. Elong. W. 1:58 GMT ... 25Aq34
11 4 1982 Superior Conj. 2:03 GMT ... 11Sc19
6 16 1983 Max. Elong. E. 13:40 GMT ... 10Le12
8 3 1983 Retro. Station 19:45 GMT ... 9Vi30
8 25 1983 Inferior Conj. 4:36 GMT ... 1Vi25
9 15 1983 Direct Station 17:24 GMT ... 23Le12
11 4 1983 Max. Elong. W. 16:22 GMT ... 25Vi08
6 15 1984 Superior Conj. 22:34 GMT ... 24Ge58
1 22 1985 Max. Elong. E. 2:10 GMT ... 19Pi02
3 13 1985 Retro. Station 18:18 GMT ... 22Ar18
4 3 1985 Inferior Conj. 22:01 GMT ... 14Ar05
4 25 1985 Direct Station 0:10 GMT ... 6Ar00
6 12 1985 Max. Elong. W. 16:55 GMT ... 5Ta54
1 19 1986 Superior Conj. 16:06 GMT ... 29Cp18
8 26 1986 Max. Elong. E. 20:37 GMT ... 19Li21
10 15 1986 Retro. Station 16:34 GMT ... 20Sc24
11 5 1986 Inferior Conj. 10:18 GMT ... 12Sc42
11 26 1986 Direct Station 2:48 GMT ... 4Sc54
1 16 1987 Max. Elong. W. 2:15 GMT ... 8Sg33
8 23 1987 Superior Conj. 6:26 GMT ... 29Le37
4 2 1988 Max. Elong. E. 19:29 GMT ... 29Ta07
5 22 1988 Retro. Station 13:27 GMT ... 0Cn27
6 13 1988 Inferior Conj. 0:01 GMT ... 22Ge12
7 4 1988 Direct Station 14:10 GMT ... 13Ge56
8 23 1988 Max. Elong. W. 1:50 GMT ... 14Cn24
4 4 1989 Superior Conj. 23:31 GMT ... 15Ar10
11 8 1989 Max. Elong. E. 14:56 GMT ... 3Cp14
12 29 1989 Retro. Station 8:51 GMT ... 6Aq25
1 18 1990 Inferior Conj. 22:43 GMT ... 28Cp35
2 8 1990 Direct Station 9:18 GMT ... 20Cp55
3 30 1990 Max. Elong. W. 15:49 GMT ... 23Aq13
11 1 1990 Superior Conj. 15:16 GMT ... 8Sc56
6 14 1991 Max. Elong. E. 4:21 GMT ... 7Le59
8 1 1991 Retro. Station 10:36 GMT ... 7Vi19
8 22 1991 Inferior Conj. 20:21 GMT ... 29Le15
9 13 1991 Direct Station 8:57 GMT ... 21Le00
11 2 1991 Max. Elong. W. 6:54 GMT ... 22Vi50
6 13 1992 Superior Conj. 16:32 GMT ... 22Ge54
1 19 1993 Max. Elong. E. 16:42 GMT ... 16Pi42
3 11 1993 Retro. Station 9:29 GMT ... 20Ar01
4 1 1993 Inferior Conj. 13:12 GMT ... 11Ar49
4 22 1993 Direct Station 14:14 GMT ... 3Ar44
6 10 1993 Max. Elong. W. 7:28 GMT ... 3Ta40
1 17 1994 Superior Conj. 2:04 GMT ... 26Cp44
8 24 1994 Max. Elong. E. 11:16 GMT ... 17Li05
10 13 1994 Retro. Station 5:42 GMT ... 18Sc01
11 2 1994 Inferior Conj. 23:12 GMT ... 10Sc18
11 23 1994 Direct Station 16:58 GMT ... 2Sc29
1 13 1995 Max. Elong. W. 16:12 GMT ... 6Sg09
8 21 1995 Superior Conj. 0:05 GMT ... 27Le29
3 31 1996 Max. Elong. E. 11:28 GMT ... 26Ta55
5 20 1996 Retro. Station 6:09 GMT ... 28Ge18
6 10 1996 Inferior Conj. 16:19 GMT ... 20Ge03
7 2 1996 Direct Station 6:52 GMT ... 11Ge47
8 20 1996 Max. Elong. W. 17:35 GMT ... 12Cn13
4 2 1997 Superior Conj. 13:46 GMT ... 12Ar51
11 6 1997 Max. Elong. E. 3:49 GMT ... 0Cp48
12 26 1997 Retro. Station 21:21 GMT ... 3Aq56
1 16 1998 Inferior Conj. 11:19 GMT ... 26Cp07
2 5 1998 Direct Station 21:27 GMT ... 18Cp28
3 28 1998 Max. Elong. W. 4:55 GMT ... 20Aq50
10 30 1998 Superior Conj. 4:23 GMT ... 6Sc32
6 11 1999 Max. Elong. E. 18:10 GMT ... 5Le44
7 30 1999 Retro. Station 1:42 GMT ... 5Vi08
8 20 1999 Inferior Conj. 11:58 GMT ... 27Le02
9 11 1999 Direct Station 0:24 GMT ... 18Le47
10 30 1999 Max. Elong. W. 22:00 GMT ... 20Vi32
6 11 2000 Superior Conj. 10:32 GMT ... 20Ge48
1 17 2001 Max. Elong. E. 7:27 GMT ... 14Pi21
3 9 2001 Retro. Station 1:07 GMT ... 17Ar44
3 30 2001 Inferior Conj. 4:17 GMT ... 9Ar32
4 20 2001 Direct Station 4:35 GMT ... 1Ar27
6 7 2001 Max. Elong. W. 22:50 GMT ... 1Ta27
1 14 2002 Superior Conj. 11:32 GMT ... 24Cp07
8 22 2002 Max. Elong. E. 2:34 GMT ... 14Li49
10 10 2002 Retro. Station 18:35 GMT ... 15Sc37
10 31 2002 Inferior Conj. 12:06 GMT ... 7Sc53
11 21 2002 Direct Station 7:13 GMT ... 0Sc03
1 11 2003 Max. Elong. W. 5:51 GMT ... 3Sg43
8 18 2003 Superior Conj. 18:06 GMT ... 25Le23
3 29 2004 Max. Elong. E. 3:01 GMT ... 24Ta41
5 17 2004 Retro. Station 22:29 GMT ... 26Ge08
6 8 2004 Inferior Conj. 8:44 GMT ... 17Ge53
6 29 2004 Direct Station 23:16 GMT ... 9Ge38
8 18 2004 Max. Elong. W. 8:33 GMT ... 10Cn00
3 31 2005 Superior Conj. 3:31 GMT ... 10Ar31
11 3 2005 Max. Elong. E. 15:46 GMT ... 28Sg19
12 24 2005 Retro. Station 9:37 GMT ... 1Aq28
1 13 2006 Inferior Conj. 23:59 GMT ... 23Cp40
2 3 2006 Direct Station 9:19 GMT ... 16Cp01
3 25 2006 Max. Elong. W. 17:42 GMT ... 18Aq26
10 27 2006 Superior Conj. 17:50 GMT ... 4Sc10
6 9 2007 Max. Elong. E. 8:37 GMT ... 3Le30
7 27 2007 Retro. Station 17:28 GMT ... 2Vi57
8 18 2007 Inferior Conj. 3:41 GMT ... 24Le51
9 8 2007 Direct Station 16:14 GMT ... 16Le35
10 28 2007 Max. Elong. W. 14:18 GMT ... 18Vi19
6 9 2008 Superior Conj. 4:20 GMT ... 18Ge43
1 14 2009 Max. Elong. E. 23:27 GMT ... 12Pi04
3 6 2009 Retro. Station 17:17 GMT ... 15Ar27
3 27 2009 Inferior Conj. 19:24 GMT ... 7Ar15
4 17 2009 Direct Station 19:25 GMT ... 29Pi12
6 5 2009 Max. Elong. W. 14:46 GMT ... 29Ar16
1 11 2010 Superior Conj. 21:06 GMT ... 21Cp32
8 19 2010 Max. Elong. E. 17:51 GMT ... 12Li35
10 8 2010 Retro. Station 7:05 GMT ... 13Sc14
10 29 2010 Inferior Conj. 1:11 GMT ... 5Sc30
11 18 2010 Direct Station 21:18 GMT ... 27Li39
1 8 2011 Max. Elong. W. 18:28 GMT ... 1Sg16
8 16 2011 Superior Conj. 12:09 GMT ... 23Le18
3 26 2012 Max. Elong. E. 17:34 GMT ... 22Ta25
5 15 2012 Retro. Station 14:34 GMT ... 24Ge00
6 6 2012 Inferior Conj. 1:10 GMT ... 15Ge45
6 27 2012 Direct Station 15:07 GMT ... 7Ge29
8 15 2012 Max. Elong. W. 22:42 GMT ... 7Cn46
3 28 2013 Superior Conj. 17:06 GMT ... 8Ar11
11 1 2013 Max. Elong. E. 2:58 GMT ... 25Sg49
12 21 2013 Retro. Station 21:54 GMT ... 28Cp59
1 11 2014 Inferior Conj. 12:25 GMT ... 21Cp12
1 31 2014 Direct Station 20:49 GMT ... 13Cp33
3 23 2014 Max. Elong. W. 7:05 GMT ... 16Aq02
10 25 2014 Superior Conj. 7:31 GMT ... 1Sc48
6 7 2015 Max. Elong. E. 0:04 GMT ... 1Le18
7 25 2015 Retro. Station 9:30 GMT ... 0Vi46
8 15 2015 Inferior Conj. 19:22 GMT ... 22Le39
9 6 2015 Direct Station 8:30 GMT ... 14Le23
10 26 2015 Max. Elong. W. 7:20 GMT ... 16Vi07
6 6 2016 Superior Conj. 21:51 GMT ... 16Ge36
1 12 2017 Max. Elong. E. 16:12 GMT ... 9Pi48
3 4 2017 Retro. Station 9:09 GMT ... 13Ar09
3 25 2017 Inferior Conj. 10:17 GMT ... 4Ar57
4 15 2017 Direct Station 10:18 GMT ... 26Pi55
6 3 2017 Max. Elong. W. 6:16 GMT ... 27Ar03
1 9 2018 Superior Conj. 7:01 GMT ... 18Cp57
8 17 2018 Max. Elong. E. 8:09 GMT ... 10Li18
10 5 2018 Retro. Station 19:04 GMT ... 10Sc50
10 26 2018 Inferior Conj. 14:16 GMT ... 3Sc06
11 16 2018 Direct Station 10:51 GMT ... 25Li14
1 6 2019 Max. Elong. W. 6:10 GMT ... 28Sc45
8 14 2019 Superior Conj. 6:08 GMT ... 21Le11
3 24 2020 Max. Elong. E. 7:37 GMT ... 20Ta08
5 13 2020 Retro. Station 6:46 GMT ... 21Ge50
6 3 2020 Inferior Conj. 17:44 GMT ... 13Ge36
6 25 2020 Direct Station 6:49 GMT ... 5Ge20
8 13 2020 Max. Elong. W. 13:14 GMT ... 5Cn32
3 26 2021 Superior Conj. 6:58 GMT ... 5Ar50
10 29 2021 Max. Elong. E. 14:56 GMT ... 23Sg20
12 19 2021 Retro. Station 10:36 GMT ... 26Cp29
1 9 2022 Inferior Conj. 0:48 GMT ... 18Cp43
1 29 2022 Direct Station 8:47 GMT ... 11Cp05
3 20 2022 Max. Elong. W. 21:39 GMT ... 13Aq42
10 22 2022 Superior Conj. 21:17 GMT ... 29Li27
6 4 2023 Max. Elong. E. 16:20 GMT ... 29Cn09
7 23 2023 Retro. Station 1:32 GMT ... 28Le36
8 13 2023 Inferior Conj. 11:15 GMT ... 20Le28
9 4 2023 Direct Station 1:20 GMT ... 12Le12
10 24 2023 Max. Elong. W. 0:07 GMT ... 13Vi54
6 4 2024 Superior Conj. 15:34 GMT ... 14Ge30
1 10 2025 Max. Elong. E. 8:39 GMT ... 7Pi31
3 2 2025 Retro. Station 0:36 GMT ... 10Ar50
3 23 2025 Inferior Conj. 1:07 GMT ... 2Ar39
4 13 2025 Direct Station 1:02 GMT ... 24Pi37
5 31 2025 Max. Elong. W. 20:53 GMT ... 24Ar48
1 6 2026 Superior Conj. 16:35 GMT ... 16Cp22
8 14 2026 Max. Elong. E. 21:55 GMT ... 8Li00
10 3 2026 Retro. Station 7:16 GMT ... 8Sc29
10 24 2026 Inferior Conj. 3:44 GMT ... 0Sc45
11 14 2026 Direct Station 0:28 GMT ... 22Li52
1 3 2027 Max. Elong. W. 18:16 GMT ... 26Sc17
8 12 2027 Superior Conj. 0:21 GMT ... 19Le07
3 21 2028 Max. Elong. E. 21:48 GMT ... 17Ta51
5 10 2028 Retro. Station 23:03 GMT ... 19Ge41
6 1 2028 Inferior Conj. 10:00 GMT ... 11Ge26
6 22 2028 Direct Station 22:13 GMT ... 3Ge11
8 11 2028 Max. Elong. W. 4:36 GMT ... 3Cn21
3 23 2029 Superior Conj. 20:12 GMT ... 3Ar29
10 27 2029 Max. Elong. E. 4:06 GMT ... 20Sg56
12 16 2029 Retro. Station 23:48 GMT ... 24Cp02
1 6 2030 Inferior Conj. 13:18 GMT ... 16Cp16
1 26 2030 Direct Station 21:33 GMT ... 8Cp38
3 18 2030 Max. Elong. W. 12:50 GMT ... 11Aq24
10 20 2030 Superior Conj. 11:13 GMT ... 27Li06
6 2 2031 Max. Elong. E. 8:23 GMT ... 26Cn59
7 20 2031 Retro. Station 17:08 GMT ... 26Le26
8 11 2031 Inferior Conj. 3:01 GMT ... 18Le17
9 1 2031 Direct Station 17:57 GMT ... 10Le01
10 21 2031 Max. Elong. W. 15:52 GMT ... 11Vi40
6 2 2032 Superior Conj. 9:08 GMT ... 12Ge24
1 8 2033 Max. Elong. E. 0:16 GMT ... 5Pi12
2 27 2033 Retro. Station 15:41 GMT ... 8Ar32
3 20 2033 Inferior Conj. 16:05 GMT ... 0Ar22
4 10 2033 Direct Station 15:27 GMT ... 22Pi21
5 29 2033 Max. Elong. W. 10:48 GMT ... 22Ar32
1 4 2034 Superior Conj. 2:10 GMT ... 13Cp46
8 12 2034 Max. Elong. E. 11:25 GMT ... 5Li41
9 30 2034 Retro. Station 19:37 GMT ... 6Sc08
10 21 2034 Inferior Conj. 17:04 GMT ... 28Li22
11 11 2034 Direct Station 14:03 GMT ... 20Li28
1 1 2035 Max. Elong. W. 6:57 GMT ... 23Sc49
8 9 2035 Superior Conj. 18:41 GMT ... 17Le02
3 19 2036 Max. Elong. E. 12:50 GMT ... 15Ta35
5 8 2036 Retro. Station 15:59 GMT ... 17Ge32
5 30 2036 Inferior Conj. 2:25 GMT ... 9Ge17
6 20 2036 Direct Station 14:12 GMT ... 1Ge01
8 8 2036 Max. Elong. W. 20:37 GMT ... 1Cn11
3 21 2037 Superior Conj. 9:16 GMT ... 1Ar06
10 24 2037 Max. Elong. E. 17:36 GMT ... 18Sg31
12 14 2037 Retro. Station 12:47 GMT ... 21Cp31
1 4 2038 Inferior Conj. 1:28 GMT ... 13Cp46
1 24 2038 Direct Station 10:20 GMT ... 6Cp08
3 16 2038 Max. Elong. W. 3:19 GMT ... 9Aq03
10 18 2038 Superior Conj. 1:41 GMT ... 24Li47
5 30 2039 Max. Elong. E. 23:55 GMT ... 24Cn47
7 18 2039 Retro. Station 8:36 GMT ... 24Le15
8 8 2039 Inferior Conj. 19:02 GMT ... 16Le06
8 30 2039 Direct Station 10:14 GMT ... 7Le50
10 19 2039 Max. Elong. W. 7:01 GMT ... 9Vi24
5 31 2040 Superior Conj. 2:26 GMT ... 10Ge16
1 5 2041 Max. Elong. E. 14:54 GMT ... 2Pi50
2 25 2041 Retro. Station 6:07 GMT ... 6Ar12
3 18 2041 Inferior Conj. 6:47 GMT ... 28Pi02
4 8 2041 Direct Station 5:08 GMT ... 20Pi03
5 27 2041 Max. Elong. W. 0:26 GMT ... 20Ar14
1 1 2042 Superior Conj. 12:16 GMT ... 11Cp12
8 10 2042 Max. Elong. E. 1:16 GMT ... 3Li24
9 28 2042 Retro. Station 8:42 GMT ... 3Sc47
10 19 2042 Inferior Conj. 6:29 GMT ... 26Li00
11 9 2042 Direct Station 4:05 GMT ... 18Li05
12 29 2042 Max. Elong. W. 20:33 GMT ... 21Sc24
8 7 2043 Superior Conj. 12:41 GMT ... 14Le56
3 17 2044 Max. Elong. E. 4:31 GMT ... 13Ta22
5 6 2044 Retro. Station 9:02 GMT ... 15Ge22
5 27 2044 Inferior Conj. 18:43 GMT ... 7Ge07
6 18 2044 Direct Station 6:37 GMT ... 28Ta52
8 6 2044 Max. Elong. W. 12:44 GMT ... 29Ge02
3 18 2045 Superior Conj. 22:24 GMT ... 28Pi44
10 22 2045 Max. Elong. E. 7:08 GMT ... 16Sg08
12 12 2045 Retro. Station 1:29 GMT ... 19Cp02
1 1 2046 Inferior Conj. 13:36 GMT ... 11Cp17
1 21 2046 Direct Station 22:58 GMT ... 3Cp40
3 13 2046 Max. Elong. W. 17:02 GMT ... 6Aq40
10 15 2046 Superior Conj. 16:02 GMT ... 22Li28
5 28 2047 Max. Elong. E. 14:37 GMT ... 22Cn34
7 15 2047 Retro. Station 23:47 GMT ... 22Le06
8 6 2047 Inferior Conj. 11:05 GMT ... 13Le57
8 28 2047 Direct Station 2:08 GMT ... 5Le40
10 16 2047 Max. Elong. W. 21:48 GMT ... 7Vi08
5 28 2048 Superior Conj. 19:52 GMT ... 8Ge09
1 3 2049 Max. Elong. E. 4:46 GMT ... 0Pi27
2 22 2049 Retro. Station 20:43 GMT ... 3Ar53
3 15 2049 Inferior Conj. 21:30 GMT ... 25Pi44
4 5 2049 Direct Station 18:37 GMT ... 17Pi45
5 24 2049 Max. Elong. W. 14:41 GMT ... 17Ar58
12 29 2049 Superior Conj. 21:53 GMT ... 8Cp37
8 7 2050 Max. Elong. E. 15:56 GMT ... 1Li09
9 25 2050 Retro. Station 22:20 GMT ... 1Sc27
10 16 2050 Inferior Conj. 20:02 GMT ... 23Li39
12 27 2050 Max. Elong. W. 11:04 GMT ... 19Sc01
11 6 2050 Direct Station 18:45 GMT ... 15Li42
Viktor Schauberger226 viewswww.frank.germano.com/viktorschauberger.htm

Viktor Schauberger: The true Father Of Implosion Technology

Viktor Schauberger could be called the true father of implosion technology. The implosion principle is, of course, diametrically opposite to what today's explosion oriented technology utilizes. Implosion has to do with a self sustaining vortex flow of any liquid or gaseous medium, which has a concentrating, ordering effect and which decreases the temperature of the medium, in opposition to the dictates of "modern" thermodynamics.

Viktor Schauberger constructed water sluices, which, with controlled water temperature and vortex flow, were able to transport logs of a higher specific weight than would normally allow their transport on water. He proposed a more effective means of utilizing hydroelectric power by his jet turbine (see my article Water Power). In the second world war he was forced to develop his concepts of vortex dynamics at the service of Hitler's military goons, and, is said to have produced working prototypes of levitating disks using these principles.

At the end of the war, the remains of his work fell partly into Russian, and American, military hands. After the war, Schauberger worked on a concept of water-based power generation, through vortex action, in a closed cycle engine. In 1958 he was brought to the USA, by promises of a possibility he would get his technology further developed and applied. Afterwards, he was thoroughly debriefed, his writings and prototypes were kept, and, he apparently had to sign a legal document and 'promise' not to promote his technology further - all so that he would simply be able to return home to Austria. Five days after his return to Austria - on 25 September 1958 - he died. A book that details some of the life story of Schauberger was written by Olof Alexandersson. The title is "Living Water", available below, through "Amazon.com."

Viktor Schauberger And His earlier Work -

Olof Alexandersson, a Swedish engineer and anthroposophist, wrote the first popular introduction to the radical ideas of Viktor Schauberger, entitled Living Water . It is now in its eighth printing and has inspired many to go on to Callum Coats' in-depth study of Schauberger's ideas, Living Energies, which was published in 1996. Callum had met Viktor's son, Walter Schauberger, in 1977 and was to spend three years studying with him at his "Pythogoras-Keppler System Institute" in Lauffen, in the Saltzkammergut near Salzburg. During that time, Callum was given access to all Viktor's writings.

Viktor Schauberger did not start to seriously write about his ideas and his discoveries until the age of 44, when he acquired a distinguished sponsor in Professor Philipp Forchheimer. As Coats describes later in this volume, Forchheimer, a world famous hydrologist, had been asked by the Austrian Government to report on Schauberger's controversial log flumes, which transported large amounts of timber from inaccessible locations without damage. He was so impressed with Schauberger's discoveries that he asked him to write a paper which was published in 1930 in Die Wasserwirtschaft , the Austrian Journal of Hydrology. This paper attracted the attention of the President of the Austrian Academy of Science, Professor Wilhelm Exner, and resulted in a commission to write a more detailed study of his theories for that same magazine under the title Temperature and the Movement of Water.

Schauberger's ideas completely flew in the face of conventional ideas of hydrology and water management and, as a result, gained him many enemies in scientific circles. The reason Viktor developed the strong feelings about orthodox scientific research that you will read in this and subsequent volumes was partly to defend himself from their attacks, and partly out of his despair at witnessing the ongoing destruction of the natural environment by their blind and uncaring technologies. It was this despair that motivated him to write his only book, Our Senseless Toil - the Cause of the World Crisis . It was published at a time of severe depression ,when many were worried about the future.

After Forchheimer died, Schauberger found another ally in Professor Werner Zimmermann who encouraged Viktor in 1935-1936 to write about the damage being wrought to the great rivers, the Rhine and the Danube, in a small 'new thought' magazine Tau . After Schauberger's death, two magazines published further collections of Schauberger's writings: Implosion was started by a student and collaborator of Viktor's, and published a number of his articles in the 1960s. Mensch und Technik in the 1970s published articles by and about Viktor Schauberger for the more free-thinking scientific community.

Callum Coats has skillfully woven together these articles, together with correspondence with other scientists, friends and officials of one kind or another, into a fascinating tapestry which gives a true and very readable account of Schauberger's impassioned campaign to alert the world to the dangers of the prevailing scientific dogma. Unfortunately, not much has changed, and Schauberger's vision of how humanity could work cooperatively with Nature is perhaps more relevant than ever.

Callum Coats arranged this massive amount of material into a large volume, called the Eco-Technology Series. In considering this for publication, they realized that it would be much more accessible in several volumes, arranged by theme. This first one, The Water Wizard, is devoted to Schauberger's ideas about water and rivers. The second, Nature as Teacher, concerns the wider implications of his ideas on water and energy. The third, The Fertile Earth, describes the way trees transform energy, and processes of fertilization of the soil . The final volume, The Energy Revolution , gathers together the discussion and description of Schauberger's appliances for purifying and energizing water and for producing vast amounts of virtually free energy. Together with Living Energies, the Eco-technology series give a complete account of the vision and genius of one of the founders of the present ecological movement, and are an inspiration for all those who wish to see our precious Earth saved from extinction by short-sightedness and greed, and the emergence of a new partnership with bountiful Nature. You can view and purchase all of these books through "Amazon.com", and will find the links to each book at the bottom of this page.

This entire section on Viktor Schauberger would not be possible without the tremendous amount of work put forward by Callum Coats, and to that we owe a debt of gratitude. Most of the following sections have been transposed from various websites and compiled for your viewing. Several sections were sent to me as email attachments and I have no way of knowing who the original author is. If there are any copyright infringements, please inform me and I will either post a "used with permission" addendum or remove the script in question, entirely.

Air Walrus Skyfriend225 views
Anunnakies and Nibiru225 viewsPlanet X on Fox News by Lloyd Pye: www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qkJUh3s7kc&mode=related&search= (8min)
Antarctica - 2003225 views
Bull of Nimrod225 views
225 viewsAssociate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company.
George Washington

Cylinder on Moon.JPG
Cigar shaped Ufo on the Moon225 viewsClose Encounters and Proof that Aliens exist.
NASA officially admits about UFOs: "They are the remains of Martian life!"

Don't you believe it?
Watch yourself: www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6M9JR1COPw&mode=related=search= (50min13sec)
Denver Airport Underground City225 views
Ezekiel225 viewswww.youtube.com/watch?v=CvNAL8RgoMI&feature=related

Ezekiel 37:27-28
"And My Dwelling Place shall be over them. And I shall be their Elohim, and they shall be My people. And the gentiles shall know that I, YAHUAH, am setting Yisra'el apart, when My set-apart place is in their midst--forever."
Haunebus225 views
Provo, Utah 1966, Red UFO225 views
RFZ5225 viewsSee the sign ; - +
May 13th 1978, Tehran - Iran225 views
UFO UN Petitie225 viewswww.virtuallystrange.net/petition/dutch_flemish.html
Vril225 views
224 viewsDISCLAIMER:

The posting of videos, stories, commentaries, reports, documents, and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site
does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or
support of any of such posted material or parts therein.

The myriad of facts, conjecture, perspectives, viewpoints, opinions, analyses, and information in the videos,
articles, stories, and commentaries posted on this site range from cutting edge hard news and comment to
extreme and unusual perspectives. We choose not to sweep uncomfortable material under the rug - where it
can grow and fester. We choose not to censor skewed logic and uncomfortable rhetoric. These things
reflect the world as it now is - for better and worse. We present multiple facts, perspectives,
viewpoints, opinions, analyses, and information.

Journalism is (or used to be) the profession of gathering and presenting a broad panorama of news about
the events of our times and presenting it to readers for their own consideration. We believe in the
intelligence, judgment and wisdom of our visitors to discern for themselves among the data which appears
on this site that which is valid and worthy... or otherwise.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized
by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107
of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes.

For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Copyright and trademarks on this site belong to their respective owners, even if not clearly identified.

East Field Alton Barnes - 4 august 2003224 views
Gog and Magog224 viewsEzekiel 38:1-6 ?The word of the Lord came to me; Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal; prophesy against him and say: ?This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against you, O Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal. I will turn you around, put hooks in your jaws and bring you out with your whole army - your horsemen fully armed, and a great horde with large and small shields, all of them brandishing their swords. Persia, Cush and Put will be with them, all with shields and helmets, also Gomer with all its troops, and Beth Togarmah from the far north with all its troops - the many nations with you.??

Groote Keeten, Noord Holland, 26-07-2002224 views
JP Morgan224 views?Let the future tell the truth, and evaluate each one according to his work and accomplishments. The present is theirs; the future, for which I have really worked, is mine.?
Nikola Tesla quotes (Serbian Inventor and Engineer, 1856-1943)
He did dream and his dreams came true, he did have visions but they were of a real future, not an imaginary one.
LRSA - Long Range Strike Aircraft224 viewswww.afrlhorizons.com/briefs
Milk Hill - Wiltshire, UK 2006224 viewsNi.bi.ru., the 12th Planet, planet of the crossing - winged planet - de gevleugelde bol/planeet..
Vril Society224 viewsThe Connection with ancient cultures.
The bavarian Thule society weren't the only ones to believe in Atlantis, Thule or the Great White Brotherhood. In mexico there is a ancient incan libary, which details millenia of visitation by a culture they called "The Great White Brotherhood". According to this libary they were also blonde haired and blue eyed, other accounts say that sometimes they glowed. The libary also states that for a very long time in our history, the brotherhood, have been teaching south american tribes about the galaxy and spirituality. Hopi legends also state the same thing, along with mayan and aztec legends. Far north, in canada and greenland, inuit legends talk of the whitebrotherhood that used to inhabit their lands. Eygpt and Greece are both steeped in atlantean lore, you also be surpised just how much thule symbolism is in ancient cultures. Whereas the ancient cultures depict the Thule/Atlanteans as peaceful, the Thule society twisted these depictions, and causing one of the most horrifics acts of human history. However the story does not stop here. Way back in 1945, the Vril got one last message, they were returning. The date they set for this was 2004-2005.
X-47B Northrop Grumman224 views
Starchild Skull - photo Lloyd Pye223 viewsSee: www.paranormal.about.com/od/humanenigmas/ig/Gallery-of-Human-Mysteries/Starchild-Skull.htm

Alien Skull discovered: www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Dp6ocbpD54&feature=related

Lloyd Pye, author of Everything You Know Is Wrong, has taken it upon himself to discover the identity of an unusual skull he has dubbed "The Starchild Skull." The skull, which was found in a mine shaft near Chihuahua, Mexico around 1930, is unusually wide at the back and exhibits larger than normal eye sockets. Although he says the origin of the skull is uncertain, Pye speculates on whether or not it could be of alien origin - or at least belonging to a human-alien hybrid. While some contend that the skull was merely that of a deformed human child, Pye wanted definitive proof and so, in late 1999, subjected the skull to DNA testing. The results of the test indicated that the skull was from a human being, but Pye points out that the lab could not extract sufficient strands of DNA to make a definitive conclusion, and therefore the question still remains open.
O1 Aurora223 views
Nibiru discovered in 1983, December 30 by IRAS223 viewsOne of the many proofs: "Unexplained deviantions in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune point to a large outer solar system body 4 to 8 Earth masses on a highly tilted orbit, beyond 7 billion miles from the Sun".
Flying Saucers, Androids and Robotics223 viewsUSAF mandated silent by Bush, Groom Lake Workers suffered from toxic radiation did protest: www.gafintl-adamski.com/html/News7.htm#bush
France - 1980 files, Gendarmerie Nationale223 views
EA223 viewsLike his counterparts Anu and Enki/Ea, several of Enlil's characteristics formed the theological background of later Canaanite and Israelite traditions. The Hebrew patriarch Abraham was said to have come from "Ur of the Chaldeans," directly downriver from Nippur, where Enlil's center of worship lay. Abraham's family certainly knew the stories of Enlil, Anu, and Enki. While Abraham rejected the polytheism of Babylonian religion, certain stories involving Enlil seem to have found their way into Israelite tradition. The clearest of these is the story of Enlil sending the Great Flood to destroy mankind. However, in the Hebrew version, there is only one God; and thus Yahweh is both the originator of the flood (Enlil's role) and the deity who warns Noah of its coming (Enki's role).

Because of his connection with water, Enki/Ea actually is also the patron god of the (hand-)washing and purifying rituals and the patron god of the exorcists.
The name of Ea; Water-house has the same meaning as Narayana, an other name of Brahma. Actually, as Lord of the Apsu, the realm of Light and wisdom, Enki is comparable with Michael, the Archangel of the Day. After choosing side for the true God, Abraham left Sumer and his teachings influenced Zoroaster; Parsism, Islam, Hindu Brahmin, and of course the Jews as well as Christianity. The titles -maker of all the gods that exist-, -wise, cunning, artful creator of every shape- and -the holy lamb residing in the middle of the deep waving sea, where no one dares stare- only add to this connection and even link him to Jesus.
The meaning of the name Job, (Ayub, aya abu) is thought to be; the pursued, or, where is my father, but is more likely to mean Ayah is my father. Job (Yob) is mentioned together with Noah and Daniel in the book Ezekiel (Eze 14;12-23). Noah, was the uta Noa pishtim of the Gilgamesh epos, radiant Noah the pious one, and Daniel was said to be living at the Babylonian court of Nebuchadnezzar.II. They lived in the Northern area of Sumeria; Assyria, Persia, where the Aryan people came from. The name Aya also resounds in names like; Arisai, Ma?dai, and Jeremai and the title/name of God; ..
Adonai; Lord Aya.

Ahyah asher ahyah.
(ehyeh asher ehyeh)
Ex 3:14

and, he said?;

You will say Ahyah sent me?

So, if anything He?s name should be Ahyah.
Ahyah asher ahyah

would then read;

It is Ahyah who I am. [EA?]

I Am that I Am (Hebrew: אהיה אשר אהיה, pronounced Ehyeh asher ehyeh [ʔehˈje ʔaˈʃer ʔehˈje] is a common English translation (King James Bible and others) of the response God used in the Bible when Moses asked for His name (Exodus 3:14). It is one of the most famous verses in the Torah.[citation needed] Hayah means "existed" or "was" in Hebrew; "ehyeh" is the first person singular imperfect form. Ehyeh asher ehyeh is generally interpreted to mean I am that I am, though it more literally translates as "I-shall-be that I-shall-be."
The word Ehyeh is used a total of 43 places in the Old Testament, where it is usually translated as "I will be" -- as is the case for its first occurrence, in Exodus 3:12 -- or "I shall be," as is the case for its final occurrence in Zechariah 8:8. It stems from the Hebrew conception of monotheism that God exists by himself, the uncreated Creator who does not depend on anything or anyone; therefore I am who I am. Some scholars state the Tetragrammaton itself derives from the same verbal root, but others counter that it may simply sound similar as intended by God, such as Psalm 119 and the Hebrew words "shoqed" (watching) and "shaqed" (almond branch) found in Jeremiah 1:11-12.
Roman Catholic Church interpretation
The Roman Catholic Church's interpretation has been summarized in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The interpretation is found in numbers 203-213.
Some of the salient points are the following:
God revealed himself to his people Israel by making his name known to them. A name expresses a person's essence and identity and the meaning of this person's life. God has a name; he is not an anonymous force. To disclose one's name is to make oneself known to others; in a way it is to hand oneself over by becoming accessible, capable of being known more intimately and addressed personally.
In revealing his mysterious name, YHWH ("I AM HE WHO IS", "I AM WHO AM" or "I AM WHAT I AM"), God says who he is and by what name he is to be called. This divine name is mysterious just as God is mystery. It is at once a name revealed and something like the refusal of a name, and hence it better expresses God as what he is - infinitely above everything that we can understand or say: he is the "hidden God", his name is ineffable, and he is the God who makes himself close to men.
God, who reveals his name as "I AM", reveals himself as the God who is always there, present to his people in order to save them.
After Israel's sin, when the people had turned away from God to worship the golden calf, God hears Moses' prayer of intercession and agrees to walk in the midst of an unfaithful people, thus demonstrating his love. When Moses asks to see his glory, God responds "I will make all my goodness pass before you, and will proclaim before you my name 'the LORD' [YHWH]." Then the LORD passes before Moses and proclaims, "YHWH, YHWH, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness"; Moses then confesses that the LORD is a forgiving God.
The divine name, "I Am" or "He Is", expresses God's faithfulness: despite the faithlessness of men's sin and the punishment it deserves, he keeps "steadfast love for thousands"... By giving his life to free us from sin, Jesus reveals that he himself bears the divine name: "When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will realize that "I AM"."
In God "there is no variation or shadow due to change."
The revelation of the ineffable name "I AM WHO AM" contains then the truth that God alone IS. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, and following it the Church's tradition, understood the divine name in this sense: God is the fullness of Being and of every perfection, without origin and without end. All creatures receive all that they are and have from him; but he alone is his very being, and he is of himself everything that he is.
[edit] Kabbalist interpretation
Kabbalists have long deemed that the Torah contains esoteric information. The response given by God is considered significant by many Kabbalists, because it is seen as proof in the divine nature of God's name, a central idea in Kabbalah (and to a lesser degree Judaism in general).
[edit] Other views
Some religious groups believe that this phrase or at least the "I am" part of the phrase is an actual name of God, or to lesser degree the sole name of God. It can be found in many lists where other common names of God are shown.
In the Hindu Advaita Vedanta, the South Indian sage Ramana Maharshi mentions that of all the definitions of God, "none is indeed so well put as the biblical statement ?I am that I am?". He maintained that although Hindu scripture contains similar statements, the Mahavakyas, these are not as direct as Jehovah. [1] Further the "I am" is explained by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj as an abstraction in the mind of the Stateless State, of the Absolute, or the Supreme Reality, called Parabrahman. It is pure awareness, prior to thoughts, free from perceptions, associations, memories.
To New Age author Eckhart Tolle, God is and God is omnipresent, in everyone and everything. A name, like all words, is just an abstract label, a "sign post" that points to a meaning: God is presence. God is real. "And what is God's self-definition in the Bible? Did God say, "I have always been, and I always will be?" Of course not. That would have given reality to past and future. God said: "I AM THAT I AM." No time here, just presence."[2]

JSF - Antigravity Air Vehicles223 views
Stupa 223 views
Weather Control Tower by Nicola Tesla223 viewsPhoto of the Tesla weather control tower in Colorado Springs. This device could make 150' long lightning bolts, the thunder from them could be heard 11 miles away! In the right conditions could conger up a pretty impressive supercell thunderstorm over it!"

Amtrak Triangle222 viewshttp://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page927.html

Sumerian Clay Tablet222 views
Lockheed Martin222 views
UFO-Cylinder Chased by Soviet MIG-21 Accelerates and Disappears222 viewsUfo-Cylinder impossible for MiG's to intercept, unknown to any military or scientific skill or technology we have now on Earth or secret military uav ufo space at high speed?

New World Order Capstone, the All Seeing Eye, Elite World Domination - Reducing humanity to 500 million222 viewshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod_(king)Though not clearly stated in the Bible, Nimrod has since ancient times traditionally been interpreted to be the one who led the people to build the Tower of Babel. Since his kingdom included the towns in Shinar, it is believed likely that it was under his direction that the building began. This is the view adopted in the Targums and later texts such as the writings of Josephus. Some extrabiblical sources, however, assert to the contrary, that he left the district before the building of the tower.
New World Order timeline
These are events that are considered pivotal in, and related to, the establishment of the New World Order.[13]

In 1832, Skull and Bones was founded at Yale.
In 1903 the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were published in Russia. Scholars generally agree that the Okhrana, the secret police of the Russian Empire, fabricated the text in the late 1890s or early 1900s.[14]
In 1913 the Federal Reserve Act was passed, creating the Federal Reserve System.
In 1935, the reverse side of the Great Seal of the United States with the Eye of Providence above the pyramid appeared for the first time on the back of the one dollar U.S. dollar bill.
In 1944, the Bretton Woods Agreement was signed, outlining a regime for the post World War II world economy.
In 1945, the United Nations was founded.
In 1954, the Bilderberg Group was founded.
In 1957 the European Economic Community (European Common Market) was formed, which in 1992 changed its name to the European Union. Currently, the EU has 27 member states, 15 of which use a common currency, the Euro.
In 1963, the Codex Alimentarius Commission was established by the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization, later to be backed by the World Trade Organization.
In 1973, David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski organized the Trilateral Commission. The Club of Rome issued a report entitled the "Regionalized and Adaptive Model of the Global World System," which proposes that the world be divided into ten regions.
In 1995, the United Nations' International Trade Organization's (ITO) General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) group was renamed the World Trade Organization (WTO).[15]
In 2001, the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon are attacked, killing thousands of people. The attacks were allegedly carried out by al-Qaeda terrorists primarily from Saudi Arabia, but many conspiracy theorists[who?] believe that they were carried out or supported by the U.S. government, or the Illuminati.[citation needed] The attacks have been linked to ideas about the New World Order, sometimes presented as a conspiratorial media-orchestrated plot to frighten Americans into giving up their civil liberties to a "Homeland Security" authority that will eventually turn control of the United States over to a multi-national "coalition government."[citation needed]
In 2001 the USA Patriot Act was signed by George W. Bush, which expands the authority of U.S. law enforcement agencies for the stated purpose of fighting terrorism in the United States and abroad.
In 2002, the FDA approved the manufacture of the VeriChip microchip implant. This aroused people's fears that some future totalitarian governments could enforce the implanting of these chips and thus be a form of the Mark of the Beast mentioned in the Book of Revelation. Revelation 13:16-13:17[16][17]
In 2004, the Independent Task Force on North America, a project organized by the Council on Foreign Relations, proposes the establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, generally referred to as the North American Union. It has been proposed by Robert Pastor, a vice-chairman of the task force, that the North American Union would have a common currency, the amero.[18]
In 2007 U.S. president George W. Bush signed into effect the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive which grants him (the president) broad powers during a time of "national emergency". This directive grants unprecedented power to the Commander In Chief of the US Military (the president) without any type of overriding checks and balances from Congress.[19]

[edit] Ideologies
There are a number of different ideologies related to this belief:[20]

[edit] H. G. Wells and the benevolent New World Order
H.G. Wells advised in his 1940 work The New World Order that "... when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people ... will hate the new world order ... and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we [must] bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people."[21] He called for the effort to organize prominent intellectuals behind the idea of establishing a World Government, in which his writings would be expected to have an instrumental role, in the "Open Conspiracy" (a benevolent one) in his book published under that name in 1928.[22]

[edit] Lionel Curtis and the "Commonwealth of God"
Lionel Curtis wrote a book in 1938 called The Commonwealth of God in which he advocated that the United States and the British Empire should jointly impose a world government which would be presented as being the work of God: "I feel that when once the Protestant churches had learned to regard the creation of a world commonwealth as an all-important aspect of their work in realizing the Kingdom of God, an international commonwealth in the English-speaking world would come into being in a few generations".[23][24] Some conspiracy theorists find sinister meaning in this.

[edit] Alice Bailey's "New World Order" and its opposition to Orthodox Judaism
Alice A. Bailey, a one time Theosophist who formed her own group, the Arcane School, in 1923, predicted in 1940 the victory of the Allies over the Axis and the establishment afterward by the Allies of a "New World Order" ? regarded by her (as by H.G. Wells) ? as a benevolent conspiracy by political progressives that would bring humanity to a higher level of civilization.[25] However, in 1997, Rabbi Yonassan Gershom, in an article titled "Antisemitic Stereotypes in Alice Bailey's Writings", pointed out that Bailey's "Plan for the New World Order" called for "the gradual dissolution - again if in any way possible - of the Orthodox Jewish faith", which, he said, indicated that "her goal is nothing less than the destruction of Judaism itself."[26]

[edit] Patrick Buchanan and the Council on Foreign Relations theory
Paleoconservative Patrick J. Buchanan asserts the Council on Foreign Relations (itself alleged to be a front for international bankers, as well as, it is claimed, the inspiration for the founding of the Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, and World Trade Organization) is behind the conspiracy.[citation needed] He claims that the international banking interests are planning to eventually subvert the independence of the United States of America by subordinating national sovereignty to the United Nations.[27][28] This thesis agrees with the right-wing libertarian opinion[29] who sees a future socialist World State as the only way to achieve an Orwellian collectivist oligarchy freed from the need to subordinate the world's production to the consumers of a free market economy. The conspiracy would replace it with a monopolist planned economy capable of rationing the resources, converting populations into public property.[30] Their usual image is an egalitarian slavery under a global scientific dictatorship.

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents ... to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
- David Rockefeller, "Memoirs" autobiography (2002, Random House publishers), page 405
The Council of Foreign Relations Theory is the latest version of the conspiracy theorist view that the Anglo-American Establishment conspired from 1900 on to gain world domination. The research findings of historian Carroll Quigley, an expert on the Establishment, were taken by right-wing writers to substantiate this view, even though he denied that the Establishment was a conspiracy seeking world domination.[31]

[edit] Apocalyptic Christian theories centering on the Book of Revelation
Some evangelical Christian theologians include a prominent religious element based on prophecies in the Bible, including, but not limited to, the Book of Revelation, the Book of Daniel, and the Gospel of John about the coming of the Anti-Christ. They assert that agents of Satan are involved in deceiving humanity into accepting an international demonic order that has Satan and the Unholy Trinity, at the core of worship. These beliefs often include explicit millenarianism. Other ideologies do not have a religious component, and view the concept of "serving Satan" metaphorically[citation needed].

The futurist, dispensationalist view regarding the expected events leading to the implementation of the New World Order and the emergence of the Anti-Christ as well as the subsequent Battle of Armageddon and Second Coming is exhaustively summarized in the 1998 book Final Warning: The History of the New World Order by David Allen Rivera.[32] A popular documentary on christian eschatology is called The Late, Great Planet Earth, and is narrated by Orson Welles.

[edit] Multi-national corporations theory
Some say that there is or may be an explicit (conspiracy) or implicit (bloc) organization of intellectuals, technologists, technocrats, intelligentsia, technophiles, or other such intellectual elites and leaders who view digital technology as a god in and of itself and push a pro-Technocracy, pro-Scientism agenda. Generally, this theory maintains a nexus to capitalism, materialism, transnational corporations, and based on behaviours of groups like Big four record labels, Supermajor, Trusted Computing Group, and advancement of technology like Spychips. The theory goes if technology is profitable and humans are subjectively guided by technological communications; accordingly, it is possible to sustain a peaceful and global consumer society. Anti-psychiatry sometimes plays a role in such theories, as it is claimed that the fields of psychology and psychiatry are for the purposes of medicating the individualist instincts of people and creating a conformant "therapeutic society."

[edit] Novus Ordo Seclorum
The phrase novus ordo seclorum means "New Order of the Ages", but is sometimes incorrectly translated as "New Secular Order".[33] Some of those who believe that the Freemasons are involved in the conspiracy to create a New World Order claim[34] that the motto is inspired by Freemasonry, and is one of the clues to the True Masters of the World. By circumscribing the 6 pointed hexagram, or Star of David, over the pyramid, 5 of the 6 apices (the 6th being the 'All-seeing eye'), point near letters spelling S-M-O-N-A, which can be rearranged to spell Mason. (In Hebrew the word "Oman" (plural "omanim") means artisan or skilled labourer, hence the possible reference in the word mason)

Advocates of the conspiracy theory also cite the 13 steps that ascend the pyramid, and the 72 visible blocks on the front. The Great US seal is also ascribed as employing heavily masonic imagery, with many believing the eagle to represent the masonic phoenix. The eagle holds an olive branch with 13 olives and 13 leaves in one claw, and 13 arrows in the other. There are also 13 stars above the eagle on the Great Seal of the United States, which also forms the 6 point hexagram or Star of David.

Occultists venerate the number 13 as it represents the Sun and the twelve signs of the zodiac, making thirteen. Others suggest the steps refer to the thirteen colonies.[35] If the blocks are correctly counted and their number intended, 72 has other mystical meanings: it was sacred to the Egyptians, as Plutarch says; and Persians, Jews and Christians use it as the number of nations on the Earth.

[edit] Other theories
Although the United Nations features prominently in some theories, conspiracy theory in the twenty-first century allows for the addition of many ideas that in the past might have been thought mutually exclusive. Extra-terrestrials (either the "Reptilians" or the "Greys" or both), the Trilateral Commission, the Illuminati, and other groups may be included in the conspiracy, in more or less dominant roles, as in the conspiracy theory put forward by David Icke. Some theorists say a secret annual conference of the Bilderberg Group plans world events to establish the New World Order.[36]Additionally, religious eschatology, often featuring the anti-Christ, is central to some theories, and irrelevant to others.

New World Order conspiracy theory may be presented by any who fear the loss of their ideological freedom and liberties, conservatives and liberals alike. A number of those on both the right and left believe that the left/right paradigm itself is a subversive creation of a New World Order-controlled media, intended as disinformation to divert people from their common enemy. This has been called "Fusion Paranoia" by Michael Kelly.

[edit] Theories about instances of historical manipulations
The conspirators thought to be responsible for the new world order, according to conspiracy theorists, are also suspected of staging many historical events such as World Wars and terrorist attacks. New world order conspiracy theorists say that world leaders throughout history have successfully manipulated their people into wars using false flag operations. To support these assertions they cite what they consider to be previous examples of such manipulations:

The Nazis capitalized on the Reichstag fire by blaming the Communists for it, thus eliminating support for the Communist party in Germany, and leading to Nazi domination of the legislature.
The Business Plot, a conspiracy of American wealthy industrial titans to hire a private army of 500,000 troops to overthrow the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt and create a fascist dictatorship in the United States.
The use of the Patriot Act in the United States (9/11)
The state of emergency in Indira Gandhi's rule of India after convicted of election fraud
The United States knew in advance of the attacks on Pearl Harbor, and President Roosevelt used the attacks as a "legitimate" reason for entering World War II.
Operation Northwoods, a proposed series of false flag operations to be used as a pretext for an invasion of Cuba, was signed off by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but rejected by President Kennedy shortly before his assassination.
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident led President Johnson to escalate U.S. hostilities in Vietnam
The Federal Reserve Act, designed to regulate bankers, was written on a private island off the coast of Georgia in 1910 by bankers representing the JP Morgan, Rockefeller, and Rothschild interests. This act gave the top international bankers the power to control and manipulate the United States money supply and therefore the economy.
The United States government knew in advance of the attacks on the World Trade Center and The Pentagon (9/11), the Bush administration created the attacks as a "legitimate" reason to enter Afghanistan, and later Iraq. It is also thought that the US may use similar reasoning to invade Iran, Lebanon and other countries in the Middle East as a foothold for the new world order.
Other new world order conspiracy theorists see the conspiracy at work in globalization, or in the various intellectual movements evolved from Marxism, ranging from social democracy to the Frankfurt School. These are thought to be intended to homogenize cultures and values by political normalization, as in the European Union and African Union's gradual "communitarian construction" scheme of a common economic and legal framework.

[edit] Postulated implementations
Just as there are several overlapping and even conflicting theories among conspiracy theorists about the nature of the New World Order, so are there several beliefs about how its architects and planners will implement it. For each theory, there is another which states that it has already happened:

[edit] Gradual takeover through economic colonialism
One conspiracy theory is that the New World Order is being implemented gradually, citing the foundation of the Federal Reserve bank; American Imperialism and economic Colonialism, the formation of the United Nations; the formation of the World Health Organization, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization; the formation of the European Union and the Euro currency; the formations of the North American Union and the Amero currency, the Middle East Free Trade Area, the African Union, and the various Middle East peace processes as major milestones.[citation needed]

In particular, Alex Jones claims in his movie Endgame that the European Union, the North American Union and other similar economic unions are implementations of the New World Order, orchestrated by the Bilderberg Group.[37]

[edit] Military coup
The understanding of some conspiracy theorists is that the New World Order will be created by a military coup, using UN and possibly American troops, against all the nations of the world to bring about a singular world government. Before year 2000 some conspiracists believed this process would be set in motion by the predicted Y2K computer crisis causing widespread social disorder.[38]

[edit] Chemtrails and MK-Ultra
Other components proposed by some conspiracy theorists[who?] include the dispersal of chemicals into the atmosphere via aircraft in the Chemtrail conspiracy theory and CIA mind control experiments performed under the code name MK-ULTRA.[citation needed]

[edit] UPC marking and RFID tagging
Some conspiracy theorists from the Christian community believe that the New World Order is the rulership of Earth by the Anti-Christ, and identify the coming of Satan's reign with the mark of the beast mentioned specifically in the Book of Revelation (see Revelation 13:16). Because the Mark of the Beast is linked to the act of "buying and selling", this mark has been at various times considered identical with the collection of sales tax, the use of Social Security card numbers, and the bar-coding of retail goods with UPC (Universal Product Code) markings. Current theorists have implicated RFID tagging as well. Katherine Albrecht and Liz McIntyre, authors of Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID, wrote a new book on the subject from a Christian perspective.[39] John Conner, leader of an organization called "The Resistance of Christ" (and the leader of the human resistance movement known as Tech-Com) also believes there is a strong connection. Related subjects include eschatology (last things) and dispensationalism.[40][41][42]

[edit] "The Externalization of the Hierarchy"
In Alice Bailey's conspiracy theories (see above), a group called the Great White Brotherhood works on the "inner planes" to oversee humanity's transition to the New World Order. At present, the members of this Spiritual Hierarchy are only know?n to a few people, with whom they communicate telepathically, but as the need for their personal involvement in the plan increases, there will be an "Externalization of the Hierarchy" and all people will know of their presence on Earth.[citation needed]

[edit] See also
Alex Jones
Bilderberg Group
Bohemian Grove
Daniel Estulin
Extraordinary rendition
Jeff Rense
Main Core
Military-industrial complex
Nesta Webster
Philip Schneider
Shadow government
Skull and Bones
Fourth Reich
The Man
Underground government

[edit] Literature promoting belief in a New World Order conspiracy
Cuddy (1999). Secret Records Revealed: The Men, The Money and The Methods Behind the New World Order. Hearthstone Publishing, Ltd.. ISBN 1-57558-031-4.
Abraham, Larry [1971] (1988). Call it Conspiracy. Double a Publications. ISBN 0-9615550-1-7.
Still, William T. (1990). New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies. Huntington House Publishers. ISBN 0-910311-64-1.
Cooper, Milton William (1991). Behold a Pale Horse. Light Technology Publications. ISBN 0-929385-22-5.
Robertson, Pat (1992). The New World Order. W Publishing Group. ISBN 0-8499-3394-3.
Wardner, James [1993] (1994). The Planned Destruction of America. Longwood Communications. ISBN 0-9632190-5-7.
Keith, Jim (1995). Black Helicopters over America: Strikeforce for the New World Order. Illuminet Press. ISBN 1-881532-05-4.
Jones, Alan B. [1997] (2001). Secrecy or Freedom?. ABJ Press. ISBN 0-9640848-2-1.
Gray, John [1998] (2000). False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism. New Press. ISBN 1-56584-592-7.
Bearden, Tom [2000] (2004). Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts & Principles. Cheniere Press. ISBN 0-9725146-0-0.
Marrs, Jim (2001). Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History That Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids. HarperCollins. ISBN 0-06-093184-1.
Lina, J?ri, "Under the Sign of the Scorpion: The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empira", Stockholm, 2002 (Second, Enlarged Edition).
Lina, J?ri. Architects of Deception: the Concealed History of Freemasonry. Stockholm, 2004, originally written in Swedish, title "V?rldbyggarnas bedr?geri: frimurarnas dolda historia".
Madisson, Tiit. New World Order: The Concealed Acting of Judaists and Freemasons at Subdueing the World's Nations and Countries, written in Estonian, original title: "Maailma Uus Kord: judaistide ja vabam??rlaste varjatud tegevus rahvaste ning riikide allutamisel". Lihula, 2004.
Wilson, Robert Anton. Everything is Under Control: Conspiracies, Cults, and Cover-Ups. New York: 1998, Harper-Perennial.
Bollier, David (2005). Brand Name Bullies: The Quest to Own and Control Culture. Wiley. ISBN 0471679275.
Tedford, Cody. Powerful Secrets. Hannover, 2008. ISBN 1-4241-9263-3

[edit] References
^ Barkun, Michael. 2003. A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. Berkeley: Univ. of California.
^ Goldberg, Robert Alan. 2001. Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America. New Haven: Yale University Press.
^ Pipes, Daniel. (1997). Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where it Comes From. New York: The Free Press.
^ Camp, Gregory S. 1997. Selling Fear: Conspiracy Theories and End-Times Paranoia. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.
^ Fenster, M. 1999. Conspiracy theories: Secrecy and power in American culture. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press.
^ Robertson, Pat. (1991). The New World Order just began happening yesterday, and its already under strict control of everyone. The New World Order. Dallas: Word Publishing.
^ History of CFR - Council on Foreign Relations
^ informationliberation - Anticipations of The New Republic: The Vision of H.G. Wells
^ Beter, Peter. Audio Letter #9-Page121. Retrieved on November 2007
^ Berlet, Chip (1999). "How Apocalyptic and Millennialist Themes Influence Right Wing Scapegoating and Conspiracism". Dances with Devils. Political Research Associates. Retrieved on 2006-06-18. - "When President Bush announced his new foreign policy would help build a New World Order, his phrasing surged through the Christian and secular hard right like an electric shock, since the phrase had been used to represent the dreaded collectivist One World Government for decades."
^ Denver Westword (August 30, 2007). DIA Conspiracies Take Off. Retrieved September 28, 2008.
^ Barkun, 2003; Goldberg, 2001
^ A Chronological History: The New World Order - D.L. Cuddy, Ph.D - Koinonia House
^ John Spargo, "The Jew and American Ideals". Harper & Brothers Publishers New York 1921 p. 20-40.
^ WTO | Understanding the WTO - The GATT years: from Havana to Marrakesh at www.wto.org
^ Index Subdermal microchip ID at www.cybertime.net
^ VeriChip Microchip Implants Cause Fast-Growing, Malignant Tumors in Lab Animals. Will this end the Mark of the Beast?
^ Beware of the unholy North American Union
^ [1] White House Official Document
^ Johnson, George (1983). Architects of Fear: Conspiracy Theories and Paranoia in American Politics. Los Angeles: Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc.. ISBN 0-87477-275-3.
^ The New World Order by H. G. Wells
^ H. G . Wells, The Open Conspiracy for World Government
^ Curtis, Lionel Civitas Dei: The Commonwealth of God London:1938--MacMillan & Sons
^ Lionel Curtis: why the US must re-join the British Empire at users.cyberone.com.au
^ Bailey, Alice A. The Externalisation of the Hierarchy New York: 1957--Lucis Publishing (a compilation of earlier prophecies) Pages 185-192 "The New World Order".
^ Alice Bailey'S Antisemitism
^ Buchanan, Patrick J. Where the Right Went Wrong New York: 2004--Thomas Dunne Books, an imprint of St. Martins Press
^ WorldNetDaily A Free Press for a Free People at www.wnd.com
^ The United Nations: One World United Under One Global Dictatorship at www.unisevil.com
^ Property Rights at www.getusout.org
^ Carroll Quigley: Theorist of Civilizations
^ Lewis and Short, A Latin Dictionary: Founded on Andrews' Edition of Freund's Latin Dictionary: Revised, Enlarged, and in Great Part Rewritten by Charlton T. Lewis, Ph.D. and Charles Short, LL.D. The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1879, s. vv.
^ Melanson, Terry (2005). "The New Age Magazine and Occult Explanations of the Great Seal". Commentary. ConspiracyArchive.com. Retrieved on 2006-05-04.
^ Swensson, John (2003). "The Dollar Bill & Its Meaning". The Vietnam Conflict: An Academic Information Portal For Education and Research. DeAnza College. Retrieved on 2006-05-04.
^ Estulin, Daniel The True Story of the Bilderberg Group Walterville, OR:2007 TrineDay [2] [3]
^ Endgame : Blueprint for Global Enslavment
^ BBC News Special Report (1998-10-05). "Death to the New World Order". Retrieved on 2006-06-24.
^ Albrecht & McIntyre (2006). The Spychips Threat: Why Christians Should Resist RFID and Electronic Surveillance, Tennessee: Nelson Current ISBN 1595550216
^ Gilbert, Alorie (2006). "is RFID the mark of the beast?". News.com. Retrieved on 2006-12-18.
^ Brown, Jim (2005). "Group Fears RFID Chips Could Herald 'Mark of the Beast'". Agape Press. Retrieved on 2006-12-18.
^ Baard, Mark (2006). "RFID: Sign of the (End) Times?". Wired.com. Retrieved on 2006-12-18.
Nimrod figures in some very early versions of the history of Freemasonry, where he was said to have been one of the fraternity's founders. According to the Encyclopedia of Freemasonry: The legend of the Craft in the Old Constitutions refers to Nimrod as one of the founders of Masonry. Thus in the York MS., No. 1, we read: "At ye making of ye toure of Babell there was a Masonrie first much esteemed of, and the King of Babilon yt called Nimrod was a Mason himself and loved well Masons." However, he does not figure in the current rituals.

It is further often assumed that his rulership included war and terror, and that he was a hunter not only of animals, but also a person who used aggression against other humans. The Hebrew translated "before" in the phrase "Mighty hunter before the LORD" is commonly analysed as meaning literally "in the Face of" in this interpretation, to suggest a certain rebelliousness in the establishment of a human government. Since some of the towns mentioned were in the territory of Assyria, which is connected to Shem's son Asshur, Nimrod is sometimes speculated to have invaded territory that did not belong to him. However, various translations of the Hebrew text leave it ambiguous as to whether the towns in Assyria were founded by Nimrod or by Asshur.

Historians and mythographers have tried to find links between Nimrod and figures from other traditions. One such identification is with Ningirsu, and Ninurta who inherited his role, the Sumerian and later Akkadian god of war, hunting, and agriculture; or Nergal, God of Death and the Plague, who was sometimes called Lugal-Amarada or Lugal-Marad or Ni-Marad. Lugal Marad means "king of Marad," a city, whose name means "Rebellion" in Akkadian, as yet unidentified. The name Ni-Marad, in Akkadian means "Lord of Marad". The chief deity of this place, therefore, seems to have been Nergal, of whom, therefore, Lugal-Marad or Ni-Marad is another name.

Marduk (Merodach), who shared attributes with these earlier gods, has also been suggested as a possible archetype for Nimrod, especially at the beginning of the 20th century. Nimrod's imperial ventures described in Genesis may be based on the conquests of the Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta I (Dalley et al., 1998, p. 67).
Provo, Utah 1966, Red UFO222 views
Roswell 1947 Daily Record222 views
ufo moon july 1969.JPG
filmed by NASA222 viewsa luminious disc UFO Silver Orb on the surface of the Moon filmed by NASA-Gemini 4, on 19th of July 1969...
UFO Guernsey 2007222 viewsUFO Guernsey 2007; Part of the "Disclosure Show" or our Millitary Technology - no more hiding? www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=25606
aereon 26221 views
Bismark221 views
5-4-2007 - 20.30u, Baarn-Hilversum en de rest van Nederland - Chems voor Weersverandering enz..221 viewsThe ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.
Martin Luther King Jr., Strength to Love, 1963
Zeist zomer 2006221 viewsFirearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
George Washington
ISS on March 21, 2009 08:18 pm Baarn, the Netherlands - photo & video by Marc van Druten with Sony Ericsson Cybershot Mobile Tel.221 viewsThe International Space Station [ISS] is the blue dot on the bottom of the photo. Click twice on this picture for enlarge photo.

Video ISS: http://www.ufoquest4truth.com/movie/MOV00091.3GP(1 min)
UFO, NASA221 views
Ningishzidda/Thoth, The Long Count - End Of Days - The Return221 views
Silvery Balls News Article 1944221 views
USA, East - 2002221 views
X-45C221 views
1385 files on 9 page(s) 5