Big Brother’s Recipe for ‘Revolution in Military Affairs’
by Glenn Krawczyk
[The following article is printed with permission from Nexus magazine, June-July 1995.]
Are we being taken for a psychological ride by the self-appointed elite, via various covert military and propaganda campaigns designed to foster widespread belief in ETs as part of the grand-design for the psycho-civilisation of mankind?
The Revolution
In 1994, the Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) of the US Army War College (Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania) produced a paper entitled, ‘The Revolution in Military Affairs and Conflict Short of War’1. In the paper, the authors propose that, ‘Many American strategic thinkers believe that we are in the beginning stages of a (sic) historical revolution in military affairs (RMA). This will not only change the nature of warfare, but also alter the global geopolitical balance.’2
This revolution is not only strategic. It is also fundamentally technological.
‘Sensor technology, robotics, nonlethal weapons, and intelligence meshes will be used in combating terrorism, counteracting narcotrafficking, and peace operations. These technologies, along with stimulator training and unmanned aerial vehicles, will also be useful in insurgency and counterinsurgency.’ 3
The authors of the SSI paper recommend ongoing research, analysis and debate on a number of topics including, ‘Technology designed specifically for conflict short of war, especially psychological, biological, and defensive technology.’4 They also suggest that, as ‘large numbers of Americans may find themselves in areas of instability and conflict’, such individuals might benefit from being ‘equipped with an electronic position locator device (PLD). The device, derived from the electronic bracelet used to control some criminal offenders or parolees, would continually inform a central data bank of the individuals’ locations. Eventually, such a device could be implanted under the skin…’5
The paper also openly declares that, ‘Behaviour modification is a key component of peace enforcement,’ and that ‘"Soft kill" systems can play a key role.’6 Furthermore, with regard to counterinsurgency, ‘Greatly improved intelligence gathering and fusion is a primary component of the RMA, and proposed information warfare capabilities might be ideally suited for helping develop desired emotions, attitudes or behaviour.’7
The authors recognise that, ‘The use of new technology may also run counter to basic American values’, and that, ‘Deception, while frequently of great military or political value, is thought of as somehow "un-American".’8
Due to this fact, and also that the majority of Americans may find the use of many of the emerging technologies ‘morally difficult’, the authors conclude that the military might consider that American values and attitudes thus form significant constraints on full use of emerging technology, at least in anything short of a perceived war for national survival.’9
The central premise of the paper is that:
‘In its purest sense, revolution brings change that is permanent, fundamental, and rapid. The basic premise of the revolution in military affairs (RMA) is simple: throughout history, warfare usually developed in an evolutionary fashion, but occasionally ideas and inventions combined to propel dramatic and decisive change. This not only affected the application of military force, but often altered the geopolitical balance in favour of those who mastered the new form of warfare. The stakes of military revolution are thus immense…’ 10
With such ‘immense’ stakes, might the military have felt the need to covertly foster revolution in order to bring about the change necessary to make the use of new weapons and technologies less ‘morally difficult’ for the American people? The paper leaves the reader in little doubt that the answer to this question is resolutely affirmative, for the paper declares:
‘Overcoming these constraints to make RMA in conflict short of war would require fundamental changes in the United States - an ethical and political revolution may be necessary to make a military revolution.’ 11
The authors then declare that, rather than being limited by ‘constraints and countermeasures’, ‘there is another alternative: we could deliberately engineer a comprehensive revolution, seeking utter transformation rather than simply an expeditious use of new technology.’12
Have the opening moves of such a revolution already been played? Is the American national security establishment already at war with its own citizens (and those of other ‘civilised’ nations) in order to coerce them to accept the formerly unacceptable by means of ‘the manipulation of images, beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions’13 , that is, psychological warfare? Once again, the reader is left with little doubt that the answer to this question is a resolute YES.
The authors write that to achieve a ‘Revolution in Military Affairs’, the Army must fully recognise that psychological technology is of much greater importance than strike technology:
‘Ways must be found to use emerging technology, including advanced artificial intelligence and information dissemination systems, to help military strategists develop, implement, and continually improve methods of influencing opinion, mobilising public support, and sometimes demobilising it.’ 14
