ELECTRONIC WARFARE

NOVEMBER 2012

 

DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION:

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

 

This publication is available at Army Knowledge Online

(https://armypubs.us.army.mil/doctrine/index.html).

 

RAYMOND T. ODIERNO >> General, United States Army >>>Chief of Staff


JOYCE E. MORROW >> Administrative Assistant to the >>>Secretary of the Army 1214206

 

Field Manual - No. 3-36 Headquarters Department of the Army

Washington, DC, 9 November 2012

 

 

 

Electronic Warfare


PREFACE.............................................................................................................. iv

Chapter 1 ELECTRONIC WARFARE OVERVIEW ............................................................ 1-1

Operational Environments and Electronic Warfare ............................................ 1-1

Electronic Warfare and Its Divisions................................................................... 1-3

Activities and Terminology .................................................................................. 1-6

Summary .......................................................................................................... 1-11

Chapter 2 ELECTRONIC WARFARE IN UNIFIED LAND OPERATIONS ......................... 2-1

The Role of Electronic Warfare .......................................................................... 2-1

Support of the Warfighting Functions ................................................................. 2-1

Summary ............................................................................................................ 2-3

Chapter 3 ELECTRONIC WARFARE ORGANIZATION .................................................... 3-1

Organizational Design for Electronic Warfare Activities ..................................... 3-1

Key Personnel for Planning and Coordinating Electronic Warfare Activities ..... 3-5

Summary ............................................................................................................ 3-7

Chapter 4 ELECTRONIC WARFARE AND THE OPERATIONS PROCESS .................... 4-1

The Operations Process ..................................................................................... 4-1

Electronic Warfare Planning ............................................................................... 4-1

Electronic Warfare Preparation ........................................................................ 4-17

Electronic Warfare Execution ........................................................................... 4-17

Electronic Warfare Assessment ....................................................................... 4-18

Summary .......................................................................................................... 4-19

Chapter 5 ELECTRONIC WARFARE COORDINATION, DECONFLICTION, AND

SYNCHRONIZATION ......................................................................................... 5-1

Coordination and Deconfliction .......................................................................... 5-1

Synchronization .................................................................................................. 5-5

Summary ............................................................................................................ 5-5

Chapter 6 ELECTRONIC WARFARE IN JOINT AND MULTINATIONAL OPERATIONS 6-1

Joint Electronic Warfare Operations ................................................................... 6-1

Multinational Electronic Warfare Operations ...................................................... 6-4

Summary ............................................................................................................. 6-6

Chapter 7 ELECTRONIC WARFARE AGENCIES AND CENTERS .................................. 7-1

Integration With Service Electronic Warfare Capabilities ................................... 7-1

External Support Agencies and Centers ............................................................. 7-1

United States Cyber Command .......................................................................... 7-3

Summary ............................................................................................................. 7-3

Appendix A ELECTRONIC WARFARE INPUT TO OPERATION PLANS AND ORDERS . A-1

Appendix B ELECTRONIC WARFARE RUNNING ESTIMATE ........................................... B-1

Appendix C REPORTS AND MESSAGES RELATED TO ELECTRONIC WARFARE ....... C-1

Appendix D TOOLS AND RESOURCES RELATED TO ELECTRONIC WARFARE .......... D-1

Appendix E CYBER ELECTROMAGNETIC ACTIVITIES SUPPORT TO ELECTRONIC

WARFARE ......................................................................................................... E-1

GLOSSARY .......................................................................................... Glossary-1

REFERENCES .................................................................................. References-1

INDEX ......................................................................................................... Index-1

 

Figures

Figure 1-1. The electromagnetic spectrum ............................................................................ 1-2

Figure 1-2. Examples of systems and targets dependent on the electromagnetic

spectrum ............................................................................................................. 1-3

Figure 1-3. The three divisions of electronic warfare ............................................................. 1-4

Figure 3-1. Electronic warfare coordination organizational framework .................................. 3-2

Figure 4-1. The operations process ....................................................................................... 4-1

Figure 4-2. Course of action development ............................................................................. 4-4

Figure 4-3. Course of action comparison ............................................................................... 4-6

Figure 4-4. Integrating processes and continuing activities ................................................... 4-8

Figure 4-5. Electronic warfare in support of intelligence preparation of the battlefield .......... 4-9

Figure 4-6. Electronic warfare in the targeting process ....................................................... 4-11

Figure 5-1. Spectrum deconfliction procedures ..................................................................... 5-3

Figure 6-1. Joint frequency management coordination ......................................................... 6-3

Figure 6-2. Electronic warfare request coordination .............................................................. 6-4

Figure A-1. Sample operation plan for Annex D .................................................................... A-1

Figure A-2. Sample operation plan for Annex H .................................................................... A-3

Figure B-1. Sample of electronic warfare running estimate ................................................... B-2

Table 3-1. Functions of electronic warfare working groups .................................................... 3-4

Table E-1. Cyber electromagnetic activities ........................................................................... E-2

 

 


Chapter 1

Electronic Warfare Overview

 

This chapter provides an overview of electronic warfare and the conceptual foundation that leaders require to understand the electromagnetic environment and its impact on Army operations. It first discusses operational environments. Then it discusses the three divisions of electronic warfare. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the electronic warfare activities and terms.

 

 

OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTS AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE

 

1-1. Electronic warfare is military action involving the use of electromagnetic and directed energy to

control the electromagnetic spectrum or to attack the enemy (JP 3-13.1). Electronic warfare (EW) consists of three divisions: electronic attack, electronic protection, and electronic warfare support. EW capabilities are emerging as an increasingly important means by which commanders can shape operational environments to their advantage.

 

1-2. An operational environment is a composite of the conditions, circumstances, and influences that

affect the employment of capabilities and bear on the decisions of the commander (JP 3-0). An operational environment encompasses physical areas and factors (of the air, land, maritime, and space domains) and the information environment, which includes cyberspace. Commanders employ and integrate their unit’s capabilities and actions within an operational environment to achieve a desired end state. Through analyzing their operational environments, to include the electromagnetic spectrum and cyberspace, commanders seek to understand how the results of friendly, adversary, and neutral actions may affect that desired end state.

 

1-3. The electromagnetic spectrum is the range of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation from zero to infinity. It is divided into 26 alphabetically designated bands (JP 3-13.1). These bands include the radio

spectrum, infrared, visible light and ultraviolet bands (see figure 1-1, page 1-2). The spectrum is a

continuum of all electromagnetic waves arranged according to frequency and wavelength. The

electromagnetic spectrum extends from below the frequencies used for modern radio (at the

long-wavelength end) through gamma radiation (at the short-wavelength end). It covers wavelengths from thousands of kilometers to a fraction of the size of an atom. The rapid development and distribution of

wireless technologies throughout commercial, societal, and military activities make the electromagnetic spectrum an increasingly important factor within an operational environment. Wireless systems work as powerful enablers to modern telecommunications, computer networks, and weapons systems. Additionally, new technologies expand beyond the traditional radio frequency spectrum and include high-power microwave, directed-energy, and electro-optical devices.

 

 


Figure 1-1. The electromagnetic spectrum

 

 

 

1-4. The increased use of wireless systems—including commercial off-the-shelf items—makes the

available electromagnetic spectrum a high-demand, low-density resource. The resulting electromagnetic environments in which forces operate tend to be highly contested and congested, making unencumbered access to the electromagnetic spectrum problematic. This challenge is most acute for, but not unique to, U.S. forces that depend on new technologies. However, a plethora of current and potential adversaries increasingly relies on the electromagnetic spectrum, enabling both friendly and enemy forces of exploiting the advantages while being vulnerable to the disadvantages these systems provide (see figure 1-2). Reliance on the electromagnetic spectrum enables commanders to control or, at least, gain and maintain an advantage in unified land operations. EW provides commanders a valuable tool to help achieve the

objective.

 

Figure 1-2. Examples of systems and targets dependent on the electromagnetic spectrum

 

 

 

ELECTRONIC WARFARE AND ITS DIVISIONS

 

1-5. EW is one of the two lines of effort within cyber electromagnetic activities (see appendix E for more information about cyber electromagnetic activities). EW consists of three divisions: electronic attack,

electronic protection, and electronic warfare support. (See figure 1-3, page 1-4.)

 

 

Figure 1-3. The three divisions of electronic warfare

 

 

 

 

ELECTRONIC ATTACK

 

1-6. Electronic attack is a division of electronic warfare involving the use of electromagnetic energy,

directed energy, or antiradiation weapons to attack personnel, facilities, or equipment with the intent of degrading, neutralizing, or destroying enemy combat capability and is considered a form of fires

(JP 3-13.1).

 

Electronic attack includes —

 

  • Actions taken to prevent or reduce an enemy’s effective use of the electromagnetic spectrum.
  • Employment of weapons that use either electromagnetic or directed energy as their primary destructive mechanism.
  • Offensive and defensive activities, including countermeasures.

 

1-7. Actions that prevent or reduce an enemy’s effective use of the electromagnetic spectrum include

spot, barrage, and sweep electromagnetic jamming (defined in paragraph 1-26). Electronic attack actions also include various electromagnetic deception techniques such as false target or duplicate target generation. (See paragraphs 1-21 through 1-28 for a more detailed discussion of electronic attack activities.)

 

1-8. Electronic attack includes using weapons that primarily use electromagnetic or directed energy for destruction. These can include lasers, radio frequency weapons, and particle beams. Directed energy is an umbrella term covering technologies that relate to the production of a beam of concentrated electromagnetic energy or atomic or subatomic particles (JP 3-13.1). In EW, most directed-energy applications fit into the category of electronic attack. A directed-energy weapon uses directed energy primarily as a direct means to damage or destroy an enemy’s equipment, facilities, and personnel. In addition to destructive effects, directed-energy weapons systems support area denial and crowd control.

 

1-9. Unified land operations use offensive and defensive tasks for electronic attack. Examples of

offensive electronic attack include —

 

  • Jamming enemy radar or electronic command and control systems.
  • Using antiradiation missiles to suppress enemy air defenses (antiradiation weapons use radiated energy emitted from a target for guidance onto the target).
  • Using electromagnetic deception to confuse enemy intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems.
  • Using directed-energy weapons to disable an enemy’s equipment or capability.

 

1-10. Defensive electronic attack uses the electromagnetic spectrum to protect personnel, facilities,

capabilities, and equipment. Examples include self-protection and other protection measures such as the use of expendables (flares and active decoys), jammers, towed decoys, directed-energy infrared

countermeasures, and counter radio-controlled improvised explosive device EW systems.

 

 

 

 

ELECTRONIC PROTECTION


1-11. Electronic protection is a division of electronic warfare involving actions taken to protect personnel, facilities, and equipment from any effects of friendly or enemy use of the electromagnetic spectrum that degrade, neutralize, or destroy friendly combat capability (JP 3-13.1). For example, electronic protection includes actions taken to ensure friendly use of the electromagnetic spectrum, such as frequency agility in a radio or variable pulse repetition frequency in radar. Commanders avoid confusing electronic protection with self-protection. Both defensive electronic attack and electronic protection protect personnel, facilities, capabilities, and equipment. However, electronic protection protects from the effects of electronic attack (friendly and enemy), while defensive electronic attack primarily protects against lethal attacks by denying enemy use of the electromagnetic spectrum to guide or trigger weapons.

 

1-12. During operations, electronic protection includes, but is not limited to, the application of training and procedures for countering enemy electronic attack. Army commanders and forces understand the threat and vulnerability of friendly electronic equipment to enemy electronic attack and take appropriate actions to safeguard friendly combat capability from exploitation and attack. Electronic protection measures minimize the enemy’s ability to conduct activities of electronic warfare support (defined in paragraph 1-15) and electronic attack operations successfully against friendly forces. To protect friendly combat capabilities, units —

 

 Regularly brief force personnel on the EW threat.

 Ensure that they safeguard electronic system capabilities during exercises, workups, and

    predeployment training.

 Coordinate and deconflict electromagnetic spectrum usage.

 Provide training during routine home station planning and training activities on appropriate

    electronic protection active and passive measures.

 Take appropriate actions to minimize the vulnerability of friendly receivers to enemy jamming

    (such as reduced power, brevity of transmissions, and directional antennas).


spectrum manager works for the G-6 or S-6 and plays a key role in the coordination and deconfliction of spectrum resources allocated to the force. Spectrum managers or their direct representatives participate in the planning for EW operations.

 

1-14. The development and acquisition of communications and electronic systems includes electronic

protection requirements to clarify performance parameters. Army forces design their equipment to limit inherent vulnerabilities. If electronic attack vulnerabilities are detected, then units must review these programs. (See DODI 4650.01 for information on the spectrum certification process and electromagnetic compatibility.)


 

 

 

ELECTRONIC WARFARE SUPPORT

 

1-15. Electronic warfare support is a division of electronic warfare involving actions tasked by, or under direct control of, an operational commander to search for, intercept, identify, and locate or localize sources of intentional and unintentional radiated electromagnetic energy for the purpose of immediate threat recognition, targeting, planning, and conduct of future operations (JP 3-13.1). Electronic warfare support enables U.S. forces to identify the electromagnetic vulnerability of an adversary’s electronic equipment and systems. Friendly forces take advantage of these vulnerabilities through EW operations.


1-16. Electronic warfare support systems are a source of information for immediate decisions involving electronic attack, electronic protection, avoidance, targeting, and other tactical employment of forces. Directed energy may also support EW, such as a laser-warning receiver designed solely to detect and

analyze a laser signal. Electronic warfare support systems collect data and produce information or

intelligence to—

 

 Corroborate other sources of information or intelligence.

 Conduct or direct electronic attack operations.

 Initiate self-protection measures.

 Task weapons systems.

 Support electronic protection efforts.

 Create or update EW databases.

 Support cyber electromagnetic activities.

 

1-17. Electronic warfare support and signals intelligence missions use the same resources. The two differ in the person who tasks and controls the assets, the purpose for the task, the detected information’s intended use, the degree of analytical effort expended, the detail of information provided, and the timelines required. Like tactical signals intelligence, electronic warfare support missions respond to the immediate requirements of a tactical commander. Signals intelligence above the tactical level is under the operational control of the National Security Agency/Central Security Service and directly supports the overarching national security mission. Resources that collect tactical-level electronic warfare support data can simultaneously collect national-level signals intelligence.

 

 

 

ACTIVITIES AND TERMINOLOGY

 

1-18. Although new equipment and tactics, techniques, and procedures continue to be developed, the

physics of electromagnetic energy remain constant. Hence, effective EW activities remain the same despite changes in hardware and tactics.

 

 

 

PRINCIPAL ACTIVITIES

 

1-19. This section (paragraphs 1-19 through 1-41) introduces principal EW activities. Principal EW

activities support unified land operations by exploiting the opportunities and vulnerabilities inherent in the use of the electromagnetic spectrum. The numerous principal EW activities are categorized by the three EW divisions: electronic attack, electronic warfare support, and electronic protection. (See JP 3-13.1 for a more information about these principal activities.)

 

 

 

Electronic Attack Activities


1-20. Activities related to electronic attack are either offensive or defensive and include—


  • Countermeasures.
  • Electromagnetic deception.
  • Electromagnetic intrusion.
  • Electromagnetic jamming.
  • Electromagnetic pulse.
  • Electronic probing.


 


Countermeasures


1-21. Countermeasures are that form of military science that, by the employment of devices and/or techniques, has as its objective the impairment of the operational effectiveness of enemy activity (JP 3-13.1). They can be deployed preemptively or reactively. Devices and techniques used for EW countermeasures include electro-optical-infrared countermeasures and radio frequency countermeasures.


1-22. An electro-optical-infrared countermeasure is a device or technique employing

electro-optical-infrared materials or technology that is intended to impair the effectiveness of enemy activity, particularly with respect to precision guided weapons and sensor systems (JP 3-13.1). Electro-optical-infrared is the part of the electromagnetic spectrum between the high end of the far infrared and the low end of ultraviolet. Electro-optical-infrared countermeasures may use laser and broadband

jammers, smokes or aerosols, signature suppressants, decoys, pyrotechnics or pyrophorics, high-energy lasers, or directed infrared energy countermeasures.


1-23. Radio frequency countermeasures consist of any device or technique employing radio frequency materials or technology that is intended to impair the effectiveness of enemy activity, particularly with respect to precision guided weapons and sensor systems (JP 3-13.1).



 


Electromagnetic Deception


1-24. Electromagnetic deception refers to the deliberate radiation, reradiation, alteration, suppression, absorption, denial, enhancement, or reflection of electromagnetic energy in a manner intended to convey misleading information to an enemy or to enemy electromagnetic-dependent weapons, thereby degrading or neutralizing the enemy’s combat capability. Types of electromagnetic deception include manipulative, simulative, and imitative. Manipulative electromagnetic deception involves actions to eliminate revealing, or convey misleading, electromagnetic telltale indicators that may be used by hostile forces. Simulative electromagnetic deception involves actions to simulate friendly, notional, or actual capabilities to mislead hostile forces. Imitative electromagnetic deception introduces electromagnetic energy into enemy systems that imitates enemy emissions. Electromagnetic Intrusion


1-25. Electromagnetic intrusion is the intentional insertion of electromagnetic energy into transmission paths in any manner, with the objective of deceiving operators or of causing confusion (JP 3-13.1). Electromagnetic Jamming


1-26. Electromagnetic jamming is the deliberate radiation, reradiation, or reflection of electromagnetic energy for the purpose of preventing or reducing an enemy’s effective use of the electromagnetic spectrum, and with the intent of degrading or neutralizing the enemy’s combat capability (JP 3-13.1). Electromagnetic Pulse


1-27. Electromagnetic pulse is the electromagnetic radiation from a strong electronic pulse, most commonly caused by a nuclear explosion that may couple with electrical or electronic systems to produce damaging current and voltage surges (JP 3-13.1).

 

 


Electronic Probing


1-28. Electronic probing is intentional radiation designed to be introduced into the devices or systems of potential enemies for the purpose of learning the functions and operational capabilities of the devices or systems (JP 3-13.1). This activity is coordinated through joint or interagency channels and supported by Army forces.


 


Electronic Warfare Support Activities


1-29. Activities related to electronic warfare support include —

 

  • Electronic reconnaissance.
  • Electronic intelligence.
  • Electronics security.


 


Electronic Reconnaissance


1-30. Electronic reconnaissance is the detection, location, identification, and evaluation of foreign electromagnetic radiations (JP 3-13.1).


 


Electronic Intelligence


1-31. Electronic intelligence is technical and geolocation intelligence derived from foreign noncommunications electromagnetic radiations emanating from other than nuclear detonations or radioactive sources (JP 3-13.1).



 

Electronics Security


1-32. Electronics security is the protection resulting from all measures designed to deny unauthorized persons information of value that might be derived from their interception and study of noncommunications electromagnetic radiations, e.g., radar (JP 3-13.1).


 


Electronic Protection Activities


1-33. Activities related to electronic protection include —


  • Electromagnetic hardening.
  • Electronic masking.
  • Emission control.
  • Electromagnetic spectrum management.
  • Wartime reserve modes.
  • Electromagnetic compatibility.



 

Electromagnetic Hardening


1-34. Electromagnetic hardening is action taken to protect personnel, facilities, and/or equipment by blanking, filtering, attenuating, grounding, bonding, and/or shielding against undesirable effects of electromagnetic energy (JP 3-13.1).


 


Electronic Masking


1-35. Electronic masking is the controlled radiation of electromagnetic energy on friendly frequencies in a manner to protect the emissions of friendly communications and electronic systems against enemy electronic warfare support measures/signals intelligence without significantly degrading the operation of friendly systems (JP 3-13.1).



 

Emission Control


1-36. Emission control is the selective and controlled use of electromagnetic, acoustic, or other emitters to optimize command and control capabilities while minimizing for operations security: a. detection by enemy sensors; b. mutual interference among friendly systems; and/or c. enemy interference with the ability to execute a military deception plan (JP 3-13.1).

 



Electromagnetic Spectrum Management


1-37. Electromagnetic spectrum management [also referred to as spectrum management] is planning, coordinating, and managing joint use of the electromagnetic spectrum through operational, engineering, and administrative procedures. The objective of spectrum management is to enable electronic systems to perform their functions in the intended environment without causing or suffering unacceptable interference (JP 6-0). (See paragraphs 5-8 through 5-10 for more information about coordination and deconfliction of the electromagnetic spectrum.)



 

Wartime Reserve Modes


1-38. Wartime reserve modes are characteristics and operating procedures of sensor, communications, navigation aids, threat recognition, weapons, and countermeasures systems that will contribute to military effectiveness if unknown to or misunderstood by opposing commanders before they are used, but could be exploited or neutralized if known in advance (JP 3-13.1). Wartime reserve modes are deliberately held in reserve for wartime or emergency use and seldom, if ever, applied or intercepted prior to such use.




Electromagnetic Compatibility


1-39. Electromagnetic compatibility is the ability of systems, equipment, and devices that use the electromagnetic spectrum to operate in their intended environments without causing or suffering unacceptable or unintentional degradation because of electromagnetic radiation or response (JP 3-13.1). It involves the application of sound electromagnetic spectrum management; system, equipment, and device design configuration that ensures interference-free operation; and clear concepts and doctrines that maximize operational effectiveness.



 

ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERFERENCE


1-40. Electromagnetic interference is any electromagnetic disturbance, induced intentionally or unintentionally, that interrupts, obstructs, or otherwise degrades or limits the effective performance of electronics and electrical equipment (JP 3-13.1). Unintentional electromagnetic interference is often the result of spurious emissions, intermodulation products and responses, and inadequate electromagnetic spectrum management.




ELECTRONIC WARFARE REPROGRAMMING


1-41. Electronic warfare reprogramming is the deliberate alteration or modification of electronic warfare or target sensing systems, or the tactics and procedures that employ them, in response to validated changes in equipment, tactics, or the electromagnetic environment (JP 3-13.1). These changes may result from deliberate actions by friendly, adversary or third parties, or they may come from electromagnetic interference or other inadvertent phenomena. The purpose of electronic warfare reprogramming is to maintain or enhance the effectiveness of EW and target sensing system equipment. Electronic warfare reprogramming includes changes to self-defense systems, offensive weapons systems, and intelligence collection systems.




ADDITIONAL TERMINOLOGY USED IN THE CONTEXT OF ELECTRONIC WARFARE


1-42. This section, (paragraphs 1-42 through 1-50) discusses terms as they apply to the three divisions of EW—electronic attack, electronic protection, and electronic warfare support. In the context of EW application, units use several specific terms: control, detection, denial, deception, disruption, degradation, protection, and destruction.


1-43. EW capabilities are applied from the air, land, sea, space, and cyberspace by manned, unmanned, attended, or unattended systems. Units employ these capabilities to achieve the desired lethal or nonlethal effect on a given target. Units maintain freedom of action in the electromagnetic spectrum while controlling the use of it by the enemy. Regardless of the application, units employing EW capabilities must use appropriate levels of control and protection of the electromagnetic spectrum. In this way, they avoid adversely affecting friendly forces. Improper EW actions must be avoided because they may cause fratricide or inadvertently eliminate high-value intelligence targets.

 



Control


1-44. EW aims to enable commanders to gain and maintain freedom of action across the physical domains and the information environment (which includes cyberspace) through electromagnetic spectrum control. Commanders achieve control of the electromagnetic spectrum by effectively managing and coordinating friendly electromagnetic spectrum-dependent systems—such as communications, EW, and computer networks—while countering and exploiting adversary systems. Commanders ensure deconfliction and maximum integration among EW, communications, information collection, cyberspace operations, and other capabilities.


 


Detection


1-45. In the context of EW, detection is the active and passive monitoring of an operational environment for radio frequency, electro-optical, laser, infrared, and ultraviolet electromagnetic threats. Detection is the first step in EW for exploitation, targeting, and defensive planning. Friendly forces maintain the capability to detect and characterize interference as hostile jamming or unintentional electromagnetic interference.


 


Denial


1-46. In the context of EW, denial is controlling the information an enemy receives via the electromagnetic spectrum and preventing the acquisition of accurate information about friendly forces. Denial uses traditional jamming techniques, expendable countermeasures, destructive measures, or network applications. These range from limited effects up to complete denial of usage. Deception


1-47. In the context of EW, deception is confusing or misleading an enemy by using some combination of human-produced, mechanical, or electronic means. Through use of the electromagnetic spectrum, EW deception manipulates the enemy’s decision loop, hindering the enemy’s ability to establish accurate situational awareness.



 

Disruption


1-48. Disruption aims to confuse or delay enemy action. Forces achieve disruption with electromagnetic jamming, electromagnetic deception, and electromagnetic intrusion. Disruption techniques interfere with the adversary’s use of the electromagnetic spectrum to limit adversary combat capabilities. Disruption resembles denial but is not as comprehensive in execution or impact on the enemy. A trained enemy operator can thwart disruption through electronic protection measures, such as procedures to counter communications jamming. Disruption enhances attacks on hostile forces and acts as a force multiplier by increasing adversary uncertainty while reducing uncertainty for friendly forces. Advanced electronic attack activities (discussed in paragraphs 1-20 through 1-28) offer the opportunity to nondestructively disrupt ordegrade adversary infrastructure.



Degradation


1-49. Degradation refers to making an enemy incapable of performing the designated mission. It resembles disruption but is not as comprehensive in execution or impact on the enemy. Degradation may confuse or delay the actions of an untrained enemy, but a trained operator can work around the effects. Like disruption, forces achieve degradation with electromagnetic jamming, electromagnetic deception, and electromagnetic intrusion. Degradation may be the best choice to stimulate the enemy to determine their response or for electronic attack conditioning.

 



Protection


1-50. In the context of EW, protection is the use of physical properties; operational tactics, techniques, and procedures; and planning and employment processes to ensure friendly use of the electromagnetic spectrum. Protection includes ensuring that offensive EW activities do not electronically destroy or degrade friendly intelligence sensors or communications systems. Forces achieve protection by component hardening, emission control, and frequency management and deconfliction. Frequency management and deconfliction include the capability to detect, characterize, geolocate, and mitigate electromagnetic interference that affects operations. Protection includes other means to counterattack and defeat enemy attempts to control the electromagnetic spectrum. Additionally, organizations—such as a joint force commander’s EW staff or a joint EW coordination cell—enhance electronic protection by deconflicting EW efforts.




Destruction


1-51. Destruction, in the context of EW, is the elimination of targeted enemy systems. Sensors and command and control nodes are lucrative targets because their destruction strongly influences the enemy’s perceptions and abilities to coordinate actions. Various weapons and techniques—ranging from conventional munitions and directed-energy weapons to network attacks—can destroy enemy systems that use the electromagnetic spectrum. Electronic warfare support provides target location and related information. While destroying enemy equipment can effectively deny the enemy use of the electromagnetic spectrum, the duration of denial depends on the enemy’s ability to reconstitute. (See JP 3-13.1.)




MEANS VERSUS EFFECTS


1-52. Forces apply EW means against targets to create a full range of lethal and nonlethal effects. a specific EW capability depends on the desired effect on the target and other considerations, such as time available or risk of collateral damage. EW capabilities provide commanders with additional options for achieving their objectives. During major combat operations, there may be circumstances where commanders want to limit the physical damage on a given target. Under such circumstances, the EW staff clearly articulates to the commander the lethal and nonlethal effects EW capabilities can achieve. For example, a target might be enemy radar mounted on a fixed tower. Two possible EW options to defeat the radar would be to jam the radar or destroy it with antiradiation missiles. If commanders wanted to limit damage to the tower, they could use an electronic attack jamming platform. In circumstances where commanders could not sufficiently limit undesired effects such as collateral damage, they would be constrained from applying physical force. In any case, the EW staff articulates succinctly how EW capabilities can help achieve desired effects by providing lethal and nonlethal options for commanders.


 

SUMMARY


1-53. As the modern battlefield becomes more technologically sophisticated, forces continue to execute military operations in an increasingly complex electromagnetic environment. Therefore, commanders and staffs need to thoroughly understand and articulate how the electromagnetic environment affects their operations and how they can use friendly EW operations to gain an advantage. Commanders and staffs use the terminology presented in this chapter to describe the application of EW. This ensures a common understanding and consistency within plans, orders, standard operating procedures, and directives.

 


Chapter 2

Electronic Warfare in Unified Land Operations


This chapter describes how commanders apply electronic warfare to support unified

land operations. It discusses the role of electronic warfare. It then discusses how

electronic warfare enables each of the warfighting functions.



THE ROLE OF ELECTRONIC WARFARE


2-1. The ability to control the electromagnetic spectrum is central to unified land operations. As information technology becomes universally available, more adversaries rely on communications and computer networks to make and implement decisions. Radios remain the backbone of tactical military mission command architectures. Most communications relayed over radio networks are becoming digital as more computers link networks through transmitted frequencies, making computer networks and communications more dependent on the electromagnetic spectrum.


2-2. Army electronic warfare (EW) operations seek to enable the land force commander to support unified land operations through decisive action. Decisive action consists of the simultaneous combination of offense, defense, and stability or defense support of civil authorities appropriate to the mission and environment. The central idea of unified land operations is to seize, retain, and exploit the initiative to gain and maintain a position of relative advantage in sustained land operations in order to create the conditions for favorable conflict resolution. (See ADP 3-0 for more information about unified land operations.)


2-3. The foundation of unified land operations is built on initiative, decisive action, and mission command—linked and nested through purposeful and simultaneous execution of both combined arms maneuver and wide area security—to achieve the commander’s intent and desired end state. Appropriately applied, EW enables successful unified land operations. Commanders and staffs determine which resident and joint force EW capabilities to use in support of each element of decisive action. As they apply the appropriate level of EW effort to support these elements, commanders can seize, retain, and exploit the initiative within the electromagnetic environment.





SUPPORT OF THE WARFIGHTING FUNCTIONS


2-4. Once a commander can seize, retain, and exploit the initiative within the electromagnetic environment, then control becomes possible. Commanders plan, prepare, execute, and assess EW operations to control the electromagnetic spectrum.


2-5. To exercise electromagnetic spectrum control (see paragraph 1-44), commanders effectively apply and integrate EW operations across the warfighting functions: mission command, movement and maneuver, intelligence, fires, sustainment, and protection.




MISSION COMMAND


2-6. The mission command warfighting function develops and integrates those activities enabling a commander to balance the art of command and science of control. EW supports the mission command warfighting function by —


  • Protecting the mission command system from the effects of friendly and adversary EW   operations.     
  • Controlling friendly EW systems through—
  • Frequency deconfliction.
  • Asset tracking.
  • Controlling EW effects during execution.
  • Reprogramming of EW systems.
  • Registration of all electromagnetic spectrum emitting devices with the spectrum manager (prior to   deployment and when new systems or devices are added to the deployed force).
  • Developing EW mission command tools to enhance required coordination between Army and joint EW operations.
  • Integrating, coordinating, deconflicting, and synchronizing EW operations through the EW working group (see chapter 3).
  • Improving input to the common operational picture, related to the electromagnetic spectrum and EW, which enhances the commander’s situational understanding.
  • Monitoring and assessing EW operations.





MOVEMENT AND MANEUVER


2-7. The movement and maneuver warfighting function is the related tasks and systems that move and employ forces to achieve a position of relative advantage over the enemy and other threats. Direct fire and close combat is inherent in maneuver. EW enables the movement and maneuver of Army forces by —


  • Suppressing and destroying enemy integrated air defenses.
  • Denying enemy information systems and information collection sensors.
  • Designating target and range finding.
  • Protecting friendly forces from effects of friendly and enemy EW.
  • Providing lethal and nonlethal effects against enemy combat capability (personnel, facilities, and   equipment).
  • Providing threat warning and direction finding.
  • Using the electromagnetic spectrum to counter improvised explosive devices.
  • Providing electromagnetic spectrum obscuration, low observability, and multispectral stealth.




INTELLIGENCE


2-8. The intelligence warfighting function is the related tasks and systems that facilitate understanding the enemy, terrain, and civil considerations. It includes the synchronization of collection requirements with the execution of tactical tasks such as reconnaissance, surveillance, and related intelligence operations. EW

enables the intelligence warfighting function by —


  • Increasing access for intelligence collection assets (systems and personnel) by reducing  antiaccess, antipersonnel, and antisystems threats.
  • Increasing friendly forces’ abilities to search for, intercept, identify, and locate sources of radiated electromagnetic energy in support of targeting and future operations.
  • Increasing friendly forces’ abilities in providing threat recognition and threat warning to the force.
  • Providing indications and warning of threat emitters and radar.
  • Denying and destroying threat information collection systems.


 


FIRES


2-9. The fires warfighting function is the related tasks and systems that provide collective and coordinated use of Army indirect fires, air and missile defense, and joint fires through the targeting process. The integration and synchronization of cyber electromagnetic activities is a task of this warfighting function. EW supports the fires warfighting function by —


  • Detecting and locating surface targets.
  • Providing electro-optical-infrared and radio frequency countermeasures.
  • Providing electromagnetic deception.
  • Providing electromagnetic intrusion.
  • Providing electromagnetic jamming.
  • Disrupting enemy sensors and command and control nodes.
  • Disrupting and degrading enemy infrastructure.
  • Destroying targeted enemy systems.




SUSTAINMENT


2-10. The sustainment warfighting function is the related tasks and systems that provide support and services to ensure freedom of action, extend operational reach, and prolong endurance. EW supports the sustainment warfighting function by —


  • Protecting sustainment forces from friendly and adversary use of EW in static or mobile environments.
  • Enhancing electromagnetic environment situational awareness through the interception, detection, identification, and location of adversary electromagnetic emissions used to provide indications and warnings. (This information can assist in convoy planning, asset tracking, and targeting of potential threats to sustainment operations.)
  • Countering improvised explosive devices to support ground lines of communications (using counter radio-controlled improvised explosive device systems and other means to counter threats triggered through the electromagnetic spectrum, such as lasers).
  • Providing spectrum deconfliction and emissions control procedures in support of sustainment control.
  • Providing electromagnetic spectrum obscuration, low-observability, and multispectral stealth (for protection during sustainment operations).





PROTECTION

 

2-11. The protection warfighting function is the related tasks and systems that preserve the force so the commander can apply maximum combat power to accomplish the mission. EW enables the protection warfighting function by —


  • Enhancing electromagnetic spectrum situational awareness through the interception, detection, identification, and location of adversary electromagnetic emissions used to provide indications and warnings of threat emitters and radars.
  • Denying, disrupting, or destroying electromagnetic-spectrum-triggered improvised explosive devices and enemy air defense systems.
  • Deceiving enemy forces.
  • Providing electromagnetic spectrum obscuration, low-observability, and multispectral stealth.
  • Providing EW countermeasures for platform survivability (air and ground).
  • Enabling area denial (lethal and nonlethal) against personnel, vehicles, and aircraft.
  • Protecting friendly personnel, equipment, and facilities from friendly and enemy electronic attack, including friendly information systems and information. (This includes the coordination and use of airborne and ground-based electronic attack with higher and adjacent units.)





SUMMARY


2-12. EW supports unified land operations by detecting, denying, deceiving, disrupting, or degrading and destroying enemy combat capabilities and by controlling and protecting friendly use of the electromagnetic spectrum. EW applied across the warfighting functions enables commanders to address a broad set of electromagnetic-spectrum-related targets to gain and maintain an advantage within the electromagnetic spectrum.

 


 


HIER WEITER LESEN:

ELECTRONIC WARFARE -  PDF Datei

NOVEMBER 2012

 

http://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-36.pdf

 

 

 

VON WEGEN ALLES NUR VERSCHWÖRUNGSTHEORIEN..

 

 




 

Chapter 7

Electronic Warfare Agencies and Centers

 


This chapter discusses the agencies and centers of electronic warfare. It first

describes integration with other Service electronic warfare capabilities. It then

discusses external support agencies and centers. The chapter concludes with a

discussion of the United States Cyber Command.


 


INTEGRATION WITH SERVICE ELECTRONIC WARFARE CAPABILITIES


7-1. Each Service specializes and maintains in certain electronic warfare (EW) capabilities to support operational requirements. Hence, the conduct of EW operations requires joint interdependence. This complex interdependence extends beyond the traditional Service capabilities. It includes national agencies—such as the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency/Central Security Service, and Defense Intelligence Agency—that constantly seek to identify, catalog, and update the electronic order of battle of enemies and adversaries. To support the joint force commander, the subject matter expertise and unique capabilities provided by each Service, agency, and branch or proponent are integrated with all available EW capabilities.


7-2. During operations, the Army depends on organic and nonorganic EW capabilities from higher echelons, joint forces, and national agencies. Army EW planners leverage all available EW capabilities to support Army operations.




EXTERNAL SUPPORT AGENCIES AND CENTERS


7-3. Army EW planners routinely use and receive support from external organizations to assist in planning and integrating EW operations. Support from these organizations may include personnel augmentation, functional area expertise, technical support, and planning support.


 

 

DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY


7-4. The Defense Information Systems Agency is a combat support agency. It plans, develops, fields, operates, and supports command, control, communications, and information systems. These systems serve the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the combatant commanders, and other Department of Defense (DOD) components.




JOINT COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY MONITOR ACTIVITY


7-5. The joint communications security monitor activity was created in 1993 by a memorandum of agreement between the Services’ operations deputies, directors of the joint staff, and the National Security Agency/Central Security Service. The joint communications security monitor activity monitors (collects, analyzes, and reports) communications security of DOD telecommunications and automated information systems as well as related noncommunications signals. It aims to identify potentially exploitable vulnerabilities and to recommend countermeasures and corrective actions. The joint communications security monitor activity supports real world operations, joint exercises, and DOD systems monitoring.




JOINT INFORMATION OPERATIONS WARFARE CENTER


7-6. The Joint Information Operations Warfare Center (JIOWC) is subordinate to United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM). The JIOWC consists of several directorates including the EW directorate. The JIOWC integrates joint information operations, including EW, into military plans, exercises, and operations. It is a valuable resource for commanders during the planning and execution of joint information operations. It deploys information operations planning teams when the commander of USSTRATCOM approves a request for support. The JIOWC delivers tailored, highly skilled support and sophisticated models and simulations to joint commanders and provides information operations expertise in joint exercises and contingency operations.


7-7. The EW directorate provides specialized expertise in EW. It is an innovation center for existing and emerging EW capabilities and tactics, techniques, and procedures via a network of units, laboratories, test ranges, and academia. The EW directorate manages, as the joint staff’s executive agent and technical advisor, U.S. participation in the “NATO Emitter Database” described in paragraph 6-19. The JIOWC also has electronic warfare reprogramming oversight responsibilities for the joint staff. This oversight includes organizing, managing, and exercising joint aspects of electronic warfare reprogramming and facilitating the exchange of joint electronic warfare reprogramming data. The actual reprogramming of equipment, however, is a Service responsibility.




JOINT SPECTRUM CENTER


7-8. The Joint Spectrum Center is a field office within the Defense Spectrum Organization under the Defense Information Systems Agency. Personnel in this center are experts in electromagnetic spectrum planning, electromagnetic compatibility and vulnerability, electromagnetic environmental effects, information systems, modeling and simulation, operations support, and system acquisition. The Joint Spectrum Center provides all services for the electromagnetic spectrum to combatant commands, Services, and other government agencies. It deploys teams in support of the combatant commanders and serves as the DOD focal point for supporting spectrum supremacy aspects of information operations. It assists Soldiers in developing and managing the joint restricted frequency list and helps resolve operational interference and jamming incidents (see paragraphs C-9 through C-10).


 

 

 

JOINT WARFARE ANALYSIS CENTER


7-9. The Joint Warfare Analysis Center is a Navy-sponsored joint command under the J-3. This center assists the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and combatant commanders in preparing and analyzing joint operation plans. It provides analysis of engineering and scientific data and integrates operational analysis with intelligence.


 

 

MARINE CORPS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND NETWORK OPERATIONS CENTER


7-10. The Marine Corps Information Technology and Network Operations Center is the Marine Corps’ enterprise network operations center. The Marine Corps Information Technology and Network Operations Center is the nerve center for the central operational direction and configuration management of the Marine Corps enterprise network. It is co-located with the Marine Corps forces computer network defense, the component to the joint task force for computer network operations, and the Marine Corps computer incident response team. These relationships provide a strong framework for integrated network management and defense.

 


Cyber Electromagnetic Activities Support to Electronic Warfare


This appendix introduces cyber electromagnetic activities in the context of the

mission command warfighting function staff tasks. It lists integration tasks performed

by an electronic warfare working group and required expertise for an electronic

warfare staff element and working group.


 

 

MISSION COMMAND WARFIGHTING FUNCTION STAFF TASKS


E-1. Staffs support the commander in the exercise of mission command by performing the four staff tasks:

 

  • Conduct the operations process.
  • Conduct knowledge management and information management.
  • Conduct inform and influence activities.
  • Conduct cyber electromagnetic activities.


Through these tasks, the staff supports the commander in understanding situations, making effective decisions, and implementing those decisions throughout the conduct of operations. The application of cyber electromagnetic activities (CEMA) as an information-related capability directly supports mission command to ensure freedom of movement within the information environment.

 

 


CYBER ELECTROMAGNETIC ACTIVITIES


E-2. CEMA consist of two lines of effort: cyberspace operations and electronic warfare (EW), supported by electromagnetic spectrum operations. (See table E-1, page E-2.) The electromagnetic spectrum is essential for communications, lethality, sensors, and self-protection. The cyberspace line of effort aims to achieve objectives in and through cyberspace. The EW line of effort aims to control the electromagnetic spectrum or to attack the enemy. These lines of effort may rely on the same information-related capabilities to accomplish these effects, so planners must synchronize and integrate them closely to ensure unity of effort in words, images, and actions. Components of the cyberspace line of effort include cyber situational awareness, network operations, and cyber warfare. These components integrate with the divisions of the EW line of effort—electronic attack, electronic protection, and electronic warfare support. Components of both lines of effort integrate with electromagnetic spectrum operations.

 

 

E-3. The EW working group integrates and synchronizes information related to CEMA to achieve desired conditions in cyberspace and the electromagnetic spectrum. The EW working group seeks to unify the offensive and defensive aspects of CEMA (including cyber warfare, network operations, electronic attack, electronic protection, and electronic warfare support). The working group focuses on the commander’s stated conditions to gain and maintain advantages for cyberspace and the electromagnetic spectrum. To this end, the working group supports situational awareness related to cyberspace and the electromagnetic spectrum and continually assesses progress toward desired conditions. The working group coordinates vertically and horizontally across echelons to achieve the best results from assigned and supporting information-related capabilities. The working group integrates all appropriate capabilities (cyber electromagnetic and physical) to achieve these desired conditions. The working group also leverages both cyberspace and the electromagnetic spectrum to maximize support of the unit’s overall mission. This support could include setting conditions in cyberspace and the electromagnetic spectrum to facilitate aunit’s main effort or perhaps providing the means for successful inform and influence activities. The EW element is a primary supporting member of the inform and influence activities working group for this purpose.


Task: Conduct cyber electromagnetic activities as part of combined arms operations.

Purpose: To seize, retain, and exploit an advantage over adversaries and enemies in both cyberspace and across the electromagnetic spectrum, denying and degrading adversary and enemy use of the same and protecting friendly mission command systems. Cyberspace Operations Line of Effort Electronic Warfare Line of Effort Task: Employ cyber capabilities. Purpose: To achieve objectives in and through cyberspace. Task: Use electromagnetic and directed energy. Purpose: To control the electromagnetic spectrum or to attack the enemy. Cyber situational awareness: The knowledge of relevant information regarding activities in and through cyberspace and the electromagnetic spectrum. Electronic attack: Use of electromagnetic energy, directed energy, or antiradiation weapons to attack personnel, facilities, or equipment. Network operations: Activities conducted to operate and defend the Global Information Grid. Electronic protection: Actions taken to protect personnel, facilities, and equipment from any effects of friendly or enemy use of the electromagnetic spectrum.


Cyber warfare: Warfare that extends cyber power beyond the defensive boundaries of the Global information Grid to deny, degrade, disrupt, destroy, and exploit enemies. Electronic warfare support: Actions to search for, intercept, identify, and locate or localize sources of intentional and unintentional radiated electromagnetic energy for the purpose of immediate threat recognition, targeting, planning, and conduct of future operations. Electromagnetic spectrum operations: Planning, coordinating, and managing joint use of the electromagnetic spectrum through operational, engineering, and administrative procedures.


 

E-4. CEMA tasks are coordinated across the integrating cells: current operations integration, future operations, and plans integrating cells. The working group coordinates, both vertically and horizontally, the critical components of CEMA across all the warfighting functions and staff elements (the G-2 or S-2, G-3 or S-3, G-6 or S-6, and G-6 or S-7). This includes integration with external staffs, organizations, and

unified action partners.


 

 


INTEGRATION TASKS PERFORMED BY ELECTRONIC WARFARE

WORKING GROUP


E-5. The EW working group may perform the following CEMA integration tasks:

 

  • Plan, integrate, coordinate, and assess the holistic employment of the full range of CEMA capabilities in unit operations.
  • Plan and request offensive and defensive CEMA capabilities and actions to support the scheme of maneuver, including degraded operations.
  • Synchronize and integrate offensive and defensive CEMA capabilities and actions into the scheme of maneuver.
  • Facilitate and conduct CEMA vertical and horizontal integration and synchronization of operations across the warfighting functions.
  • Synchronize operations with CEMA capabilities in other domains such as aerial, high altitude and space.
  • Plan, assess, and direct friendly electronics security measures.
  • Prioritize CEMA effects and targets.
  • Deconflict CEMA with operations, including intelligence.
  • Determine, adjudicate, and forward spectrum user requirements.
  • Conduct frequency deconfliction and interference resolution for electronic attack.
  • Integrate CEMA into the operations process.
  • Identify and coordinate intelligence support requirements for unit CEMA operations.
  • Assess offensive and defensive CEMA requirements.
  • Maintain current assessment of CEMA resources available to the unit.
  • Recommend and assess friendly protection measures related to CEMA.


 


ELECTRONIC WARFARE STAFF ELEMENT AND WORKING

GROUP EXPERTISE


E-6. A few of the core capabilities that must reside within the EW element or EW working group to coordinate CEMA effectively consist of the following:

 

  • Knowledge of network operations.
  • Ability to access intelligence.
  • Electronic warfare.
  • Electromagnetic spectrum management (also referred to as spectrum management).
  • Employment of offensive CEMA and dynamic defense capabilities (such as cryptologic capabilities).
  • Ability to access support activities (for example, higher-level CEMA capabilities, forensics, and vulnerability assessment).
  • Synchronization and integration.

 

 

 

 

Elektronische Kampfführung

 

Als elektronische Kampfführung (EloKaenglisch electronic warfare (EW)) werden in den NATO-Streitkräften militärische Maßnahmen bezeichnet, die das elektromagnetische Spektrum ausnutzen, um z. B. elektromagnetische Ausstrahlungen zu suchen, diese aufzufassen und zu identifizieren, oder elektromagnetische Ausstrahlungen zu verwenden, um einem Gegner dessen Nutzung des elektromagnetischen Spektrums zu verwehren (Störung) oder ihn zu täuschen und damit zugleich die Nutzung durch eigene Kräfte zu gewährleisten.

In den ehemaligen Streitkräften des Warschauer Pakts wurde hierfür die Bezeichnung Funkelektronischer Kampf (FEK) geprägt (Originalbezeichnung – russisch Радиоэлектронная Борьба (РЭБ) ‚Radioelektronnaja Borba (REB)‘).

 

Die Radargeräte zur Luftraumaufklärung sind ein Mittel der elektronischen Unterstützungsmaßnahmen, um zum Beispiel ein Schiff der Marine vor Überraschungsangriffen aus der Luft zu schützen. Der Gegner verwendet nun Geräte der Fernmelde- und elektronischen Aufklärung, um den Frequenzbereich des verwendeten Radargerätes aus großer Entfernung zu messen. Auf diese Frequenz wird ein leistungsfähiger Störgenerator (englisch radar jammer) eingestellt, der als ein Gerät der elektronischen Gegenmaßnahme einzustufen ist: Dieser soll durch Übersteuerung des Radarempfängers (Rausch- oder Impulsstörungen) die Reichweite des Radargerätes wesentlich verringern oder durch Einspielung von falschen Informationen (Falschzielen) die eigenen Zielzeichen maskieren. Das gestörte Radargerät verwendet nun spezielle Baugruppen, um die Wirkung der Störstrahlung zu verringern oder die Störung wirkungslos zu machen. Diese Störschutzapparaturen sind Geräte der elektronischen Schutzmaßnahmen.

 

 

·         Elektronische Kriegsführung — Taktisches Zeichen Elektronische Kampfführung Als Elektronische Kampfführung (Kurzform EloKa, engl. Electronic Warfare (EW), in der Schweizer Armee Elektronische Kriegführung, EKF) werden militärische Maßnahmen bezeichnet, die das… …   Deutsch Wikipedia

 


 

·         Elektronische Gegenmaßnahmen Der Begriff Elektronische Gegenmaßnahmen (EloGM) (engl. Electronic Countermeasures, ECM) ist ein Begriff aus der modernen Kriegsführung. Er beschreibt das Stören der Sensoren des Gegners, wodurch dieser in seiner Handlungsfähigkeit stark… …   Deutsch Wikipedia  

  • Energiewaffen 
  • Düppel
  • Täuschkörper

 

 

 

Zwischen dem ehemaligen Konzentrationslager Ladel und und Bramstedtlund, abgelegen in Nordfriesland steht auf dem Gelände der Bundeswehr ein Antennenwald mit einem Bunker, in dem die Elektronische Kampfführung der Bundeswehr ausgeführt wird.



 

Elektronische Kampfführung

Abkürzung EloKa, militärischer Aufgabenbereich, der die Gesamtheit der Maßnahmen und der Verfahren umfasst, die dazu dienen, 1) elektromagnetische Ausstrahlungen (Funk, Radar, Infrarot, Licht, Laser) eines Gegners zu erfassen und technisch sowie taktisch auszuwerten Teilgebiet Fernmelde- und elektronische Aufklärung); 2) deren wirksame Anwendung durch den Gegner mittels elektronischen Störens (z.B. Rauschstören) zu erschweren oder zu verhindern und den Gegner mit elektronischen Mitteln zu täuschen (elektronische Gegenmaßnahmen); 3) die eigenen elektromagnetischen Ausstrahlungen vor gegnerischen Aufklärung zu schützen und deren Wirksamkeit trotz elektronischer Gegenmaßnahmen des Feindes zu gewährleisten (elektronische Schutzmaßnahmen), z.B. Springfrequenzverfahren).

Für die Aufgaben der elektronischen Kampfführung ausgerüstete Einheiten und Verbände gibt es in allen größeren Armeen. In der Bundeswehr gehören diese Truppenteile jeweils zu den Fernmeldetruppen, bei Heer, Luftwaffe und Marine. Die EloKa-Einheiten und Verbände unterstützen alle Truppenteile (elektronische Unterstützungsmaßnahmen).

Nach ersten Anfängen im Ersten Weltkrieg, gewann die elektronische Kampfführung im zweiten Weltkrieg große Bedeutung, besonders auf dem Gebiet der Funkaufklärung. Alliierte Flugzeuge warfen als „passive Gegenmaßnahme“ gegen die deutsche Luftabwehr Düppel ab.

Die elektronische Kampfführung spielt heute angesichts des zunehmenden Stellenwertes der Elektronik in den Streitkräften eine immer größere Rolle, vor allem in den Bereichen Fernmeldeverbindungsdienst, Funknavigation, Ortungs- und Frühwarngeräte, elektronische Waffenlenksysteme.

Quelle: www.universal_lexikon.deacademic.com

 



Ein künstliches Klima durch SRM Geo-Engineering

 

Sogenannte "Chemtrails" sind SRM Geoengineering-Forschungs-Experimente

 

Illegale Feldversuche der SRM Technik, weltweit.

 

 

Illegale militärische und zivile GE-Forschungen finden in einer rechtlichen Grauzone statt.

 

Feldversuche oder illegale SRM Interventionen wurden nie in nur einem einzigen Land der Welt,  je durch ein Parlament gebracht, deshalb sind sie nicht legalisiert und finden in einer rechtlichen Grauzone der Forschung statt. Regierungen wissen genau, dass sie diese Risiko-Forschung, die absichtliche Veränderung mit dem Wetter nie durch die Parlamente bekommen würden..

Climate-Engineering

HAARP - Die Büchse der Pandora in militärischen Händen

 

 

Illegale zivile und militärische SRM Experimente finden 7 Tage die Woche (nonstop) rund um die Uhr statt. 

 

Auch Nachts - trotz Nacht-

Flugverbot.

 

Geo-Engineering Forschung

 

 

Der Wissenschaftler David Keith, der die Geo-Ingenieure Ken Caldeira und Alan Robock in ihrer Arbeit unterstütztsagte auf einem Geo-Engineering - Seminar am 20. Februar 2010, dass sie beschlossen hätten, ihre stratosphärischen Aerosol-Modelle von Schwefel auf Aluminium umzustellen

 

Niemand auf der ganzen Welt , zumindest keiner der staatlichen Medien berichtete von diesem wichtigen Ereignis.

 

 

 

 

Wissenschaftler planen 10 bis 100 Megatonnen hoch toxischer Materialien wie Aluminium, synthetischen Nanopartikeln jedes Jahr in unserer Atmosphäre auszubringen.

 

Die Mengenangaben von SRM Materialien werden neuerdings fast immer in Teragramm berechnet. 

 

  1 Teragramm  = 1 Megatonne

  1 Megatonne  = 1 Million Tonnen

 

 

SAI = Stratosphärische

Aerosol Injektionen mit toxischen Materialen wie:

 

  • Aluminiumoxide
  • Black Carbon 
  • Zinkoxid 
  • Siliciumkarbit
  • Diamant
  • Bariumtitanat
  • Bariumsalze
  • Strontium
  • Sulfate
  • Schwefelsäure 
  • Schwefelwasserstoff
  • Carbonylsulfid
  • Ruß-Aerosole
  • Schwefeldioxid
  • Dimethylsulfit
  • Titan
  • Lithium
  • Kalkstaub
  • Titandioxid
  • Natriumchlorid
  • Meersalz 
  • Calciumcarbonat
  • Siliciumdioxid
  • Silicium
  • Bismuttriiodid (BiI3
  • Polymere
  • Polymorph von TiO2

 


 

 

 

April 2016 

Aerosol Experiments Using Lithium and Psychoactive Drugs Over Oregon.

 

 

SKYGUARDS: Petition an das Europäische Parlament

 

 

Wir haben keine Zeit zu verlieren!

 

 

 

Klage gegen Geo-Engineering und Klimapolitik 

 

Der Rechtsweg ist vielleicht die einzige Hoffnung, Geo-Engineering-Programme zum Anhalten zu bewegen. Paris und andere Klimaabkommen schaffen Ziele von rechtlich international verbindlichen Vereinbarungen. Wenn sie erfolgreich sind, werden höchstwahrscheinlich SRM-Programme ohne ein ordentliches Gerichtsverfahren legalisiert. Wenn das geschieht, wird das unsere Fähigkeit Geoengineering zu verhindern und jede Form von rechtlichen Maßnahmen zu ergreifen stark behindern.

 

Ziel dieser Phase ist es, Mittel zu beschaffen um eine US- Klage vorzubereiten. Der Hauptanwalt Wille Tierarzt wählt qualifizierte Juristen aus dem ganzen Land aus, um sicher zu stellen, dass wir Top-Talente sichern, die wir für unser langfristiges Ziel einsetzen.

 

 

Die Fakten sind, dass seit einem Jahrzehnt am Himmel illegale Wetter -Änderungs-Programme stattfinden, unter Einsatz des Militärs im Rahmen der NATO, ohne Wissen oder Einwilligung der Bevölkerung..

EU-Konferenz und Petition über Wettermodifizierung und Geoengineering in Verbindung mit HAARP Technologien

 

Die Zeit ist gekommen. Anonymous wird nicht länger zusehen. Am 23. April werden wir weltweit gegen Chemtrails und Geoengineering friedlich demonstrieren.

 

Anonymous gegen Geoengineering 

 

 

Wir waren die allerletzten Zeit Zeugen eines normalen natürlichen blauen Himmels.

 

NIE WIEDER WIRD DER HIMMEL SO BLAU SEIN.

 

 

Heute ist der Himmel nicht mehr blau, sondern eher rot oder grau. 

 

 

Metapedia –

Die alternative Enzyklopädie

 

http://de.metapedia.org/wiki/HAARP

 

http://de.metapedia.org/wiki/Chemtrails

 

 

ALLBUCH -

Die neue Enzyklopädie

 

http://de.allbuch.online/wiki/Chemtrails Chemtrails

http://de.allbuch.online/wiki/GeoEngineering GeoEngineering

http://de.allbuch.online/wiki/HAARP HAARP

 

 

 

 

 

SRM - Geoengineering

Aluminium anstatt Schwefeloxid

 

Im Zuge der American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Conference 2010, San Diego am 20. Februar 2010, wurde vom kanadischen Geoingenieur David W. Keith (University of Calgary) vorgeschlagen, Aluminium anstatt Schwefeldioxid zu verwenden. Begründet wurde dieser Vorschlag mit 1) einem 4-fach größeren Strahlungsantrieb 2) einem ca. 16-fach geringeren Gerinnungsfaktor. Derselbe Albedoeffekt könnte so mit viel geringeren Mengen Aluminium, anstatt Schwefel, bewerkstelligt werden. [13]

 

Mehr Beweise als dieses Video braucht man wohl nicht. >>> Aerosol-Injektionen

 


Das "Geo-Engineering" Klima-Forschungsprogramm der USA wurde direkt dem Weißen Haus unterstellt,

bzw. dort dem White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) zugewiesen. 

 

 

Diese Empfehlung lassen bereits das Konfliktpotential dieser GE-Forschung erahnen.

 

 

 

 

 

In den USA fällt Geo-Engineering unter Sicherheitspolitik und Verteidigungspolitik: 

 

 

Geo-Engineering als Sicherheitspolitische Maßnahme..

 

Ein Bericht der NASA merkt an, eine Katastrophensituation könnte die Entscheidung über SRM maßgeblich erleichtern, dann würden politische und ökonomische Einwände irrelevant sein. Die Abschirmung von Sonnenlicht durch SRM Maßnahmen wäre dann die letzte Möglichkeit, um einen katastrophalen Klimawandel abzuwenden.

 

maßgeblich erleichtern..????

 

Nach einer Katastrophensituation sind diese ohnehin illegalen geheimen militärischen SRM Programme wohl noch leichter durch die Parlamente zu bringen unter dem Vorwand der zivilen GE-Forschung. 

 

 

 


Der US-Geheimdienst CIA finanziert mit 630.000 $ für die Jahre   2013/14 

Geoengineering-Studien. Diese Studie wird u.a. auch von zwei anderen staatlichen Stellen NASA und NOAA finanziert. 

 

WARUM SIND DIESE LINKS DER CIA / NASA / NOAA STUDIE ALLE AUS DEM INTERNET WEG ZENSIERT WORDEN, WENN ES DOCH NICHTS ZU VERBERGEN GIBT...?

 

Um möglichst keine Spuren zu hinterlassen.. sind wirklich restlos alle Links im Netz entfernt worden. 

 

 

 

 

 

Es existieren viele Vorschläge zur technologischen Umsetzung des stratosphärischen Aerosol- Schildes.

 

Ein Patent aus dem Jahr 1991 behandelt das Einbringen von Aerosolen in die Stratosphäre

(Chang 1991).

 

Ein neueres Patent behandelt ein Verfahren, in dem Treibstoffzusätze in Verkehrsflugzeugen zum Ausbringen reflektierender Substanzen genutzt werden sollen (Hucko 2009).

 

 

 

Die von Microsoft finanzierte Firma Intellectual Ventures fördert die Entwick­lung eines „Stratoshield“ genannten Verfahrens, bei dem die Aerosolerzeugung in der Strato­sphäre über einen von einem Ballon getragenen Schlauch vom Erdboden aus bewirkt werden soll.

 

CE-Technologien wirken entweder symptomatisch oder ursächlich

 

Symptomatisch wirkend: 

Modifikation durch SRM-Geoengineering- Aerosole in der Stratosphäre

 

Ursächlich wirkend: 

Reduktion der CO2 Konzentration (CDR) 

 

Effekte verschiedener Wolkentypen

 

Dicke, tief hängende Wolken reflektieren das Sonnenlicht besonders gut und beeinflussen kaum die Energie, die von der Erde als langwellige Infrarotstrahlung abgegeben wird. Hohe Wolken sind dagegen kälter und meist dünner. Sie lassen daher mehr Sonnenlicht durch, dafür speichern sie anteilig mehr von der langwelligen, abgestrahlten Erdenergie. Um die Erde abzukühlen, sind daher tiefe Wolken das Ziel der Geoingenieure.

 

 

Zirruswolken wirken also generell erwärmend (Lee et al. 2009). Werden diese Wolken künstlich aufgelöst oder verändert, so wird sich in der Regel ein kühlender Effekt ergeben.

 

Nach einem Vorschlag von Mitchell et al.  (2009) könnte dies durch ein Einsäen von effizienten Eiskeimen bei der Wolkenbildung geschehen.

 

 

Eiskeime werden nur in sehr geringer Menge benötigt und könnten beispielsweise durch Verkehrs-Flugzeuge an geeigneten Orten ausgebracht werden. Die benötigten Materialmengen liegen dabei im Bereich von einigen kg pro Flug.

 

 

Die RQ-4 Global Hawk fliegt etwa in 20 Kilometer Höhe ohne Pilot.

1 - 1,5  Tonnen Nutzlast.

 

Instead of visualizing a jet full of people, a jet full of poison.

 

 

Das Militär hat bereits mehr Flugzeuge als für dieses Geo-Engineering-Szenario erforderlich wären, hergestellt. Da der Klimawandel eine wichtige Frage der nationalen Sicherheit ist [Schwartz und Randall, 2003], könnte das Militär für die Durchführung dieser Mission mit bestehenden Flugzeugen zu minimalen Zusatzkosten sein.

 

http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GRLreview2.pdf

 

 

 

Die künstliche Klima-Kontrolle durch GE

 

Dies sind die Ausbringung von Aerosolpartikeln in der Stratosphäre, sowie die Erhöhung der Wolkenhelligkeit in der Troposphäre mithilfe von künstlichen Kondensationskeimen.

 

 

 

Brisanz von Climate Engineering  (DFG)

 

Climate-Engineering wird bei Klimakonferenzen (z.B. auf dem Weltklimagipfel in Doha) zunehmend diskutiert. Da die Maßnahmen für die angestrebten Klimaziele bisher nicht greifen, wird Climate Engineering als alternative Hilfe in Betracht gezogen.

 

 

x

 

Umweltaktivistin und Trägerin des alternativen Nobelpreises Dr. Rosalie Bertell, berichtet in Ihrem Buch »Kriegswaffe Planet Erde« über die Folgewirkungen und Auswirkungen diverser (Kriegs-) Waffen..

 

Bild anklicken
Bild anklicken

 

Dieses Buch ist ein Muss für jeden Bürger auf diesem Planeten.

 

..Indessen gehen die Militärs ja selbst gar nicht davon aus, dass es überhaupt einen Klimawandel gibt, wie wir aus Bertell´s Buch wissen (Hamilton in Bertell 2011).

 

Sondern das, was wir als Klimawandel bezeichnen, sind die Wirkungen der immer mehr zunehmenden

Wetter-Manipulationen

und Eingriffe ins Erdgeschehen mittels Geoengineering, insbesondere durch die HAARP-ähnlichen Anlagen, die es inzwischen in aller Welt gibt..

 

Bild anklicken
Bild anklicken

 

 

Why in the World are they spraying 

 

Durch die bahnbrechenden Filme von Michael J. Murphy "What in the World Are They Spraying?" und "Why in the world are the Spraying?" wurden Millionen Menschen die Zerstörung durch SRM-Geoengineering-Projekte vor Augen geführt. Seitdem bilden sich weltweit Bewegungen gegen dieses Verbrechen.

 

 

Die Facebook Gruppe Global-Skywatch hat weltweit inzwischen schon über 90.000 Mitglieder und es werden immer mehr Menschen, die die Wahrheit erkennen und die "gebetsmühlenartig" verbreiteten Lügengeschichten der Regierung und Behörden in Bezug zur GE-Forschung zu Recht völlig hinterfragen. 

 

Bild anklicken: Untertitel in deutscher Sprache
Bild anklicken: Untertitel in deutscher Sprache

 

 


ALBEDO ENHANCEMENT BY STRATOSPHERIC SULFUR INJECTIONS


http://faculty.washington.edu/stevehar/Geoengineering_packet.pdf

 

SRM Programme - Ausbringung durch Flugzeuge 

 

 

 

Die Frage die bleibt, ist die Antwort auf  Stratosphärische Aerosol- Injektions- Programme und die tägliche Umweltzer-störung auf unserem Planeten“

 

 

 

Die Arbeit von Brovkin et al. (2009) zeigt für ein Emissionsszenario ohne Emissionskontrolle, dass der Einsatz von RM für mehrere 1000 Jahre fortgesetzt werden muss, je nachdem wie vollständig der Treibhausgas-induzierte Strahlungsantrieb kompensiert werden soll.

 

 

 

Falls sich die Befürchtung bewahrheitet, dass eine Unterbrechung von RM-Maßnahmen zu abruptem Klimawandel führt, kann sich durch den CE-Einsatz ein Lock-in-Effekt ergeben. Die hohen gesamtwirtschaftlichen Kosten dieses abrupten Klimawandels würden sozusagen eine Weiterführung der RM-Maßnahmen erzwingen.

 

 

 

 

Ausbringungsmöglichkeiten

 

Neben den Studien von CSEPP (1992) und Robock et al. (2009), ist insbesondere die aktuelle Studie von McClellan et al. (2010) hervorzuheben. Für die Ausbringung mit Flugsystemen wird angenommen, dass das Material mit einer Rate von 0,03 kg/m freigesetzt wird. Es werden Ausbringungshöhen von 13 bis 30 km untersucht.

 

 

 

 

Bestehende kleine Düsenjäger, wie der F-15C Eagle, sind in der Lage in der unteren Stratosphäre in den Tropen zu fliegen, während in der Arktis größere Flugzeuge wie die KC-135 Stratotanker oder KC-10 Extender in der Lage sind, die gewünschten Höhen zu erreichen.

x

 

SRM Protest-Märsche gleichzeitig in circa 150 Städten - weltweit.

 

Geoengineering-Forschung als Plan B für eine weltweit verfehlte Klimapolik. 

 

Bild anklicken:
Bild anklicken:

 

Staaten führen illegale Wetter-Änderungs-Techniken als globales Experiment gegen den Klimawandel durch, geregelt über die UN, ausgeführt durch die NATO, mit militärischen Flugzeugen werden jährlich 10-20 Millionen Tonnen hoch giftiger Substanzen in den Himmel gesprüht..

 

Giftige Substanzen, wie Aluminium, Barium, Strontium, die unsere Böden verseuchen und die auch auf Dauer den ph-Wert des Bodens deutlich verändern würden. Es sind giftige Substanzen, wie Schwefel, welches die Ozonschicht systematisch zerstören würde. 

 

x

 

 

 

Weltweite  Protestmärsche gegen globale Geoengineering Experimente finden am 25. April 2015 in all diesen Städten gleichzeitig statt:

 

 

 

AUSTRALIEN - (Adelaide)

AUSTRALIEN - (Albury-Wodonga)

AUSTRALIEN - (Bendigo)

AUSTRALIEN - (Brisbane)

AUSTRALIEN - (Byron Bay)

AUSTRALIEN - (Cairns)

AUSTRALIEN - (Canberra)

AUSTRALIEN - (Darwin)

AUSTRALIEN - (Gold Coast)

AUSTRALIEN - (Hobart)

AUSTRALIEN - (Melbourne)

AUSTRALIEN - (Newcastle)

AUSTRALIEN - (New South Wales, Byron Bay)

AUSTRALIEN - (Perth)

AUSTRALIEN - (Port Macquarie)

AUSTRALIEN - (South Coast NSW)

AUSTRALIEN - (South East Qeensland)

AUSTRALIEN - (Sunshine Coast)

AUSTRALIEN - (Sydney)

AUSTRALIEN - (Tasmania)

BELGIEN - (Brüssel)

BELGIEN - (Brüssel Group)

BRASILIEN - (Curitiba)

BRASILIEN - (Porto Allegre)

BULGARIEN - (Sofia)

Kanada - Alberta - (Calgary)

Kanada - Alberta - (Edmonton)

Kanada - Alberta - (Fort Saskatchewan)

Kanada - British Columbia - (Vancouver Group)

Kanada - British Columbia - (Victoria)

Kanada - Manitobak - (Winnipeg)

Kanada – Neufundland

Kanada - Ontario - (Barrie)

Kanada - Ontario - (Cambridge)

Kanada - Ontario - (Hamilton)

Kanada - Ontario - (London)

Kanada - Ontario - (Toronto)

Kanada - Ontario  - (Ottawa)

Kanada - Ontario - (Windsor)

Kanada - Québec - (Montreal)

KOLUMBIEN - (Medellin)

ZYPERN

KROATIEN - (Zagreb)

DÄNEMARK - (Aalborg)

DÄNEMARK - (Kopenhagen)

DÄNEMARK - (Odense)

ESTLAND - (Tallinn)

Ägypten (Alexandria)

FINNLAND - (Helsinki)

FRANKREICH - (Paris)

DEUTSCHLAND - (Berlin)

DEUTSCHLAND - (Köln)

DEUTSCHLAND - (Düsseldorf)

DEUTSCHLAND - HESSEN - (Wetzlar)

GRIECHENLAND - (Athens)

GRIECHENLAND - (Attica)

Ungarn (Budapest)

IRLAND - (Cork City)

IRLAND - (Galway)

ITALIEN - (Milano)

Italien - Sardinien - (Cagliari)

MAROKKO - (Rabat)

NIEDERLANDE - (Den Haag)

NIEDERLANDE - (Groningen)

NEUSEELAND - (Auckland)

NEUSEELAND - (Christchurch)

NEUSEELAND - (Hamilton)

NEUSEELAND - (Nelson)

NEUSEELAND - (New Plymouth)

NEUSEELAND - (Takaka)

NEUSEELAND - (Taupo)

NEUSEELAND - (Wellington)

NEUSEELAND - (Whangerei)

NEUSEELAND - WEST COAST - (Greymouth)

NORWEGEN-(Bergen)

NORWEGEN - (Oslo)

PORTUGAL - (Lissabon)

SERBIEN - (Glavni Gradovi)

SERBIEN - (Nis)

SLOWENIEN

SPANIEN - (Barcelona)

SPANIEN - (La Coruna)

SPANIEN - (Ibiza)

SPANIEN - (Murcia)

SPANIEN - (San Juan - Alicante)

SCHWEDEN - (Gothenburg)

SCHWEDEN - (Stockholm)

SCHWEIZ - (Bern)

SCHWEIZ - (Genf)

SCHWEIZ - (Zürich)

UK - ENGLAND - (London)

UK - ISLE OF MAN - (Douglas)

UK - Lancashir - (Burnley)

UK - Scotland - (Glasgow)

UK - Cornwall - (Truro)

USA - Alaska - (Anchorage)

USA - Arizona - (Flagstaff)

USA - Arizona - (Tucson)

USA - Arkansas - (Hot Springs)

USA - Kalifornien - (Hemet)

USA - CALIFORINA - (Los Angeles)

USA - Kalifornien - (Redding)

USA - Kalifornien - (Sacramento)

USA - Kalifornien - (San Diego)

USA - Kalifornien - (Santa Cruz)

USA - Kalifornien - (San Francisco)

USA - Kalifornien - Orange County - (Newport Beach)

USA - Colorado - (Denver)

USA - Connecticut - (New Haven)

USA - Florida - (Boca Raton)

USA - Florida - (Cocoa Beach)

USA - Florida - (Miami)

USA - Florida - (Tampa)

USA - Georgia - (Gainesville)

USA - Illinois - (Chicago)

USA - Hawaii - (Maui)

USA - Iowa - (Davenport)

USA - Kentucky - (Louisville)

USA - LOUISIANA - (New Orleans)

USA - Maine - (Auburn)

USA - Maryland - (Easton)

USA - Massachusetts - (Worcester)

USA - Minnesota - (St. Paul)

USA - Missouri - (St. Louis)

USA - Montana - (Missoula)

USA - NEVADA - (Black Rock City)

USA - NEVADA - (Las Vegas)

USA - NEVADA - (Reno)

USA - New Jersey - (Red Bank)

USA - New Mexico (Northern)

USA - NEW YORK - (Ithaca)

USA - NEW YORK - (Long Island)

USA - NEW YORK - (New York City)

USA - NORTH CAROLINA - (Asheville)

USA - NORTH CAROLINA - (Charlotte)

USA - NORTH CAROLINA - (Greensboro)

USA - Oregon - (Ashland)

USA - Oregon - (Portland)

USA - Pennsylvania - (Harrisburg)

USA - Pennsylvania - (Pittsburgh)

USA - Pennsylvania - (West Chester)

USA - Pennsylvania - (Wilkes - Barre)

USA - SOUTH CAROLINA - (Charleston)

USA - Tennessee - (Memphis)

USA - Texas - (Austin)

USA - Texas - (Dallas / Metroplex)

USA - Texas - (Houston)

USA - Texas - (San Antonio)

USA - Vermont - (Burlington)

USA - Virginia - (Richmond)

USA - Virginia - (Virginia Beach)

USA - WASHINGTON - (Seattle)

USA - Wisconsin - (Milwaukee)

 

Bild anklickem: Holger Strom Webseite
Bild anklickem: Holger Strom Webseite

 

Der Film zeigt eindrucksvolle Beispiele, beginnend beim Einsatz der Atombomben mit ihren schrecklichen Auswirkungen bis hin zu den gesundheitszerstörenden, ja tödlichen Hinterlassenschaften der Atomenergienutzung durch die Energiewirtschaft. Eine besondere Stärke des Films liegt in den Aussagen zahlreicher, unabhängiger Fachleute. Sie erläutern mit ihrem in Jahrzehnten eigener Forschung und Erfahrung gesammelten Wissen Sachverhalte und Zusammenhänge, welche die Befürworter und Nutznießer der Atomtechnologie in Politik, Wirtschaft und Militärwesen gerne im Verborgenen halten wollen.

                                             

Prof. Dr. med. Dr. h. c. Edmund Lengfelder

 

 

Nicht viel anders gehen Politiker/ Abgeordnete des Deutschen Bundestages mit der hoch toxischen riskanten SRM Geoengineering-Forschung um, um diese riskante Forschung durch die Parlamente zu bekommen.

 

Es wird mit gefährlichen Halbwissen und Halbwahrheiten gearbeitet. Sie werden Risiken vertuschen, verdrehen und diese Experimente als das einzig Richtige gegen den drohenden Klimawandel verkaufen. Chemtrails sind Stratosphärische Aerosol Injektionen, die  illegal auf globaler Ebene stattfinden, ohne jeglichen Parlament-Beschluss der beteiligten Regierungen.

 

Geoengineering-Projekte einmal begonnen, sollen für Jahrtausende fortgeführt werden - ohne Unterbrechung (auch bei finanziellen Engpässen oder sonstigen Unruhen) um nicht einen Umkehreffekt  auszulösen.

 

Das erzählt Ihnen die Regierung natürlich nicht, um diese illegale hochgefährliche RM Forschung nur ansatzweise durch die Parlamente zu bringen.

 

Spätestens seit dem Atommüll-Skandal mit dem Forschungs-Projekt ASSE wissen wir Bürger/Innen, wie Politik und Wissenschaft mit Forschungs-Risiken umgehen.. Diese Gefahren und Risiken werden dann den Bürgern einfach verschwiegen. 

 

 


 

 

www.climate-engineering.eu

 

Am 30. September 2012 ist eine neue Internetplattform zu Climate Engineering online gegangen www.climate-engineering.eu  

 

Die Plattform enthält alle neuen Infos -Publikationen, Veranstaltungen etc. zu Climate-Engineering.

 

 

 

 

Gezielte Eingriffe in das Klima?

Eine Bestandsaufnahme der Debatte zu Climate Engineering

Kieler Earth Institute

 

 

Climate Engineering:

Ethische Aspekte

Karlsruher Institut für Technologie

 

 

Climate Engineering:

Chancen und Risiken einer Beeinflussung der Erderwärmung. Naturwissenschaftliche und technische Aspekte

Leibniz-Institut für Troposphärenforschung, Leipzig

 

Climate Engineering:

Wirtschaftliche Aspekte 

Kiel Earth Institute

 

 

Climate Engineering:

Risikowahrnehmung, gesellschaftliche Risikodiskurse und Optionen der Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung

Dialogik Stuttgart

 

 

Climate Engineering:

Instrumente und Institutionen des internationalen Rechts

Universität Trier

 

 

Climate Engineering:

Internationale Beziehungen und politische Regulierung

Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung

 

 

 

Illegale Atmosphären-Experimente finden in Deutschland  seit  2012 „täglich“ am Himmel statt.

 

Chemtrails  -  Verschwörung am Himmel ? Wettermanipulation unter den Augen der Öffentlichkeit

 

Auszug aus dem Buch: 

 

Ich behaupte, dass in etwa 2 bis 3 mal pro Woche, ungefähr ein halbes Dutzend  von frühmorgens bis spätabends in einer Art und Weise Wien überfliegen, die logisch nicht erklärbar ist. Diese Maschinen führen über dem Stadtgebiet manchmal auffällige Steig- und Sinkflüge durch , sie fliegen Bögen und sie drehen abrupt ab. Und sie hinterlassen überall ihre dauerhaft beständigen Kondensstreifen, welche auch ich Chemtrails nenne. Sie verschleiern an manchen Tagen ganz Wien und rundherum am Horizont ist strahlend blauer ...
Hier in diesem Buch  aus dem Jahr 2005 werden die anfänglichen stratosphärischen SRM-Experimente am Himmel beschrieben... inzwischen fliegen die Chemie-Bomber ja 24 h Nonstop, rund um die Uhr.

 

 

 

 

Weather Modification Patente

 

http://weatherpeace.blogspot.de

 

Umfangreiche Liste der Patente

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/links-to-geoengineering-patents/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Von Pat Mooney - Er ist Gründer und Geschäftsführer der kanadischen Umweltschutzorganisation ETC Group in Ottawa.

 

Im Jahr 1975 tat sich der US-Geheimdienst CIA mit Newsweek zusammen und warnte vor globaler Abkühlung. Im selben Jahr wiesen britische Wissenschaftler die Existenz eines Lochs in der Ozonschicht über der Antarktis nach und die UN-Vollversammlung befasste sich mit identischen Anträgen der Sowjetunion und der USA für ein Verbot von Klimamanipulationen, die militärischen Zwecken dienen. Dreißig Jahre später redeten alle - auch der US-Präsident über globale Erwärmung. 

 

Wissenschaftler warnten, der Temperaturanstieg über dem arktischen Eis  und im sibirischen Permafrost könnte in die Klimakatastrophe führen, und der US-Senat erklärte sich bereit , eine Vorlage zu prüfen, mit der Eingriffe in das Klima erlaubt werden sollten. 

 

Geo-Engineering ist heute Realität. Seit dem Debakel von Kopenhagen bemüht sich die große Politik zusammen mit ein paar Milliardären verstärkt darum, großtechnische Szenarien zu prüfen und die entsprechenden Experimente durchzuführen.

 

Seit Anfang 2009 überbieten sich die Medien mit Geschichten über Geoengineering als "Plan B". Wissenschaftliche Institute und Nobelpreisträger legen Berichte und Anträge vor, um die Politik zur Finanzierung von Feldversuchen zu bewegen. Im britischem Parlament wie im US-Kongress haben die Anhörungen schon begonnen. Anfang 2010 berichteten Journalisten, Bill Gates investiere privat in Geoengineering-Forschung und werde bei Geoengineering-Patenten zur Senkung der Meerestemperatur und zur Steuerung von Hurrikanen sogar als Miterfinder genannt. Unterdesssen hat Sir Richard Branson - Gründer und Besitzer der Fluglinie Virgin Air - verkündet, er habe eine Kommandozentrale für den Klimakrieg eingerichtet und sei für alle klimatechnischen Optionen offen. Zuvor hatte er 25 Millionen Dollar für eine Technik ausgesetzt, mit der sich die Stratosphäre reinigen lässt. 

 

Einige der reichsten Männer der Welt (z.B. Richard Branson und Bill Gates ) und die mächtigsten Konzerne (z.B. Shell , Boeing ) werden immer beteiligt.

 

Geoengineering Karte - ETC Group

 

ETC Group veröffentlicht eine Weltkarte über Geoengineering-Experimente, die groß angelegte Manipulation des Klimas unserer Erde.  Zwar gibt es keine vollständige Aufzeichnung von Wetter und Klima-Projekten in Dutzenden von Ländern, diese Karte ist aber der erste Versuch, um den expandierenden Umfang der Forschungs-Experimente zu dokumentieren. 

 

Fast 300 Geo-Engineering-Projekte / Experimente sind auf der Karte vertreten, die zu den verschiedenen Arten von Klima-Änderungs-Technologien gehören.

Einfach anklicken und vergrößern..
Einfach anklicken und vergrößern..

 

Aus der Sicht der reichen Länder (und ihrer Unternehmen) erscheint Geoengineering einfach perfekt. Es ist machbar. Es ist (relativ) billig. Und es erlaubt der Industrie, den Umbau unserer Wirtschaft und Produktionsweise für überflüssig zu erklären.

 

Das wichtigste aber ist: Geoengineering braucht keinerlei internationale Übereinkunft. Länder, Unternehmen, ja sogar superreiche Geo-Piraten können es auf eigene Faust durchziehen. Eine bescheidene >Koalition der Willigen< genügt vollauf, und eine Handvoll Akteure kann den Planeten nach Belieben umbauen.

 

Damit wir es nicht vergessen:

 

Seit 1945  führten die USA, die UdSSR, England, Frankreich und später auch China mehr als 2000 Atomtests durch – über und unter der Erde und ohne Rücksicht auf die zu erwartenden Auswirkungen auf Gesundheit und Umwelt weltweit. Niemand wurde um Erlaubnis gefragt. Wenn das Weltklima zu kippen droht, werden sie da wirklich vor einseitigen Entscheidungen zurückschrecken? 

 

 

 

Warum ist Geo-Engineering nicht akzeptabel..?

 

SRM Geoengineering kann nicht im Labor getestet werden: Es ist keine experimentelle Labor-Phase möglich, um einen spürbaren Einfluss auf das Klima zu haben. Geo-Engineering muss massiv eingesetzt werden.

 

Experimente oder Feldversuche entsprechen tatsächlich den Einsatz in der realen Welt, da kleine Tests nicht die Daten auf Klimaeffekte liefern.

 

Auswirkungen für die Menschen und die biologische Vielfalt würden wahrscheinlich sofort massiv und möglicherweise irreversibel sein.

 

 

 

 

Hände weg von Mutter Erde (HOME) ist eine weltweite Kampagne, um unserem kostbaren Planeten Erde, gegen die Bedrohung durch Geo-Engineering-Experimente zu verteidigen. Gehen Sie mit uns, um eine klare Botschaft an die Geo-Ingenieure und die Regierungen weltweit zu senden, dass unsere Erde kein ein Labor ist.

 

x

Liste der (SRM) Geoengineering-Forschung

Hier anklicken:
Hier anklicken:

http://www.ww.w.givewell.org/files/shallow/geoengineering/Geoengineering research funding 10-9-13.xls

 

Weltweite Liste der Geoengineering-Forschung SRM Forschungs Länder: 

 

Großbritannien, Vereinigte Staaten Amerika, Deutschland, Frankreich, Norwegen, Finnland, Österreich und Japan.

 

 

In "NEXT BANG!" beschreibt Pat Money neue Risikotechnologien, die heute von Wissenschaftlern, Politikern und mächtigen Finanziers aktiv für den kommerziellen Einsatz vorbereitet werden:

 

Geo-Engineering, Nanotechnologie, oder die künstliche >Verbesserung< des menschlichen Körpers.

 

"Die  Brisanz des Buches liegt darin, dass es zeigt, wie die Technologien, die unsere Zukunft bestimmen könnten, heute zum großflächigen Einsatz vorbereitet werden – und das weitgehend unbemerkt von der Öffentlichkeit. Atomkraft, toxische Chemikalien oder genmanipulierte Organismen konnten deshalb nicht durch demokratische Entscheidungen verhindert werden, weil hinter ihnen bereits eine zu große ökonomische und politische Macht stand, als ihre Risiken vielen Menschen erst bewusst wurden.

 

Deshalb dürfen wir die Diskussion über Geoengineering, Nanotechnologie, synthetische Biologie  und die anderen neuen Risikotechnologien nicht länger den selbsternannten Experten überlassen. Die Entscheidungen über ihren künftigen Einsatz fallen jetzt - es ist eine Frage der Demokratie, dass wir alle dabei mitreden."

 

Ole von UexküllDirektor der Right Livelihood Award Foundation, die den Alternativen Nobelpreis vergibt

 

 

Vanishing of the Bees - No Bees, No Food !

 

Verschwinden der Bienen  - Keine Bienen, kein Essen !

 

http://www.beeheroic.com/geoengineering-and-environment

http://www.beeheroic.com/resources

 

 

 

 

 

Solar Radiation Management = SRM

Es ist zu beachten, dass SRM Maßnahmen zwar auf kurzer Zeitskala wirksam werden können, die Dauer ihres Einsatzes aber an der Lebensdauer des CO-2 gebunden ist, welches mehrere Tausend Jahre beträgt.

 

CDR- Maßnahmen hingegen müssten über einen sehr langen Zeitraum (viele Jahrzehnte) aufgebaut werden, ihr Einsatz könnte allerdings beendet werden, sobald die CO2 Konzentration wieder auf ein akzeptables Niveau gesenkt ist. Entsprechende Anstrengungen vorausgesetzt, könnte dies bereits nach einigen Hundert Jahren erreicht sein.

 

CDR Maßnahmen: sind relativ teuer und arbeiten viel zu langsam. Bis sie wirken würden, vergehen viele Jahrzehnte

 

Solar Radiation Management SRM Maßnahmen: billig.. und schnell..

 

 

Quelle: Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung

 

 

 

 

 

Solar Radiation Management = SRM

 

Ironie der Geoengineering Forschung:

 

Ein früherer SRM Abbruch hätte einen abrupten sehr heftigen Klimawandel zur Folge, den wir in dieser Schnelligkeit und heftigen Form nie ohne diese SRM Maßnahmen gehabt hätten. 

 

Das, was Regierungen mit den globalen GEO-ENGINEERING-INTERVENTIONEN verhindern wollten, genau das wären dann die globalen Folgeschäden bei der frühzeitigen Beendigung der SRM Forschungs-Interventionen.

 

Wenn sie diese hoch giftigen SAI - Programme  aus wichtigen Gründen vorher abbrechen müssten, droht uns ein abrupter Klimawandel, der ohne diese GE-Programme nie dagewesen wäre. 

 

Das bezeichne ich doch mal  als wahre  reale Satire..