The Department of Defense has not conducted any operations of weather modification beyond those that have been given to the committee. I would like to read into the record, if I may, a letter which we had written to Senator Javits on the subject on July 1, 1974, if you would permit me. Senator PELL. Certainly. Mr. ANDERSON [reading]: Dear Senator Javits, this is in reply to your inquiry of June 14, 1974, on behalf of Mr. Bernard A. Power, President, Weather Engineering Corporation of America, concerning the Department of Defense weather modification activities in Southeast Asia. Testimony given by the Department of Defense on March 20, 1974 to the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans and International Environment of the Foreign Relations Committee was prepared from official documentation and provides detailed information on the program from its inception to its termination. The project employed a detailed reporting system covering inter alia, the number of sorties flown and the number of seeding units expended. As we reported in our testimony, daily reports were submitted to the com mand project officer. Weekly reports were submitted through channels to the Joint Chiefs of Staff; semiannual reports were also submitted. Periodic reports were prepared during the project's lifetime by the Joint Staff and submitted through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Secretary of Defense. The Defense Intelligence Agency used empirical and theoretical techniques based on seeding units expended and physical properties of the air mass seeded to estimate the amount of an increased rainfall. The most complete and accurate data base available formed the basis of 1), four project briefings given to the Chairmen of the Senate and House Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations while the project was still active; and 2), for the project briefing given on March 20, 1974. In that regard, I want to assure you that information made available to the Congress by this Department regarding our rainmaking activity in Southeast Asia is complete and accurate. While Mr. Power's letter to you does not make specific references to an important fact, I feel compelled to bring them to your attention. His company is currently involved in civil litigation against the United States in which recovery is sought for alleged patent infringement. (Weather Engineering Corporation versus the United States, U.S. Court of Claims Number 343-72). Mr. Power's company alleges that methods used by U.S. Government agencies in weather modification programs infringes its patents. In such litigation the Department of Defense, as well as the other Executive Departments and Agencies involved, is represented by the Department of Justice. Since this matter is currently in litigation, we believe it would be inappropriate for us to comment further at this time regarding the contents of Mr. Power's letter, the May 31, 1974 letter. Sincerely, Robert Parker, for Malcolm Currie. Thank you. Senator PELL. Thank you very much. PROJECT "COLD CLAY" Another question I raised in the hearing in 1974, when General Furlong, I believe, was the Defense Department witness, was the question of emulsifiers. You may not want to reply right now to this, but submit the answer in writing. It is up to you. I understand that there may be a research project called "Cold Clay," dealing with emulsifiers. I would like you, if you would, to enquire in your large department as to whether there is such a project, or if you can categorically say there is or is not right now, I would be very appreciative of your reply. If there is a project by that name, I would appreciate a description of it. Mr. ANDERSON. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have asked. I know that this question was previously asked, as you mentioned, and I have asked several people and have checked. No one has heard of "Cold Clay" or any emulsifiers; but I will continue to check. As you say, there may be some nook or cranny somewhere where someone knows something about it. But certainly no one can give me any data at this time. Senator PELL. I wonder if you might check with another Government agency. Mr. ANDERSON. I think, if I might suggest, Mr. Chairman, maybe perhaps it would be best if you checked with the other agencies. Senator PELL. Fine. I accept your view then, that in the Defense Department there is no such thing as "Cold Clay." If you find that there is such a project, as you look around in your nooks and crannies, you will let us know about it and what it does. Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, sir. [The following information was subsequently supplied:] Mr. DWAYNE S. ANDERSON, U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Deputy Director, Policy, Plans and National Security Council Affairs, International Security Affairs, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. ANDERSON: Thank you for testifying before my subcommittee on the environmental modification treaty. I am enclosing for your information a copy of a letter which I have sent to Dr. Ikle urging the Administration to make improvements to the treaty in order to improve it as a means of arms control and thus also enhance the prospects for Senate approval. [See p. 16.] You will note from the letter that I am particularly concerned about the retention of the qualifiers "widespread, long-lasting or severe." I would appreciate your drawing my views to the attention of Secretary Rumsfeld. I also look forward to hearing from you regarding your statement that no developmental or operational work is being done in your Department or by any of the military services on emulsifiers and that there is no project under the name COLD CLAY or any other name dealing with emulsifiers. Finally, I would appreciate your submitting for the record a statement as to whether any military exercises or training operations are being carried out which involve weather modification of any kind. I am particularly interested in receiving information regarding fog dispersal and any justification for its use in warfare. With every good wish. CLAIBORNE PELL. Hon. CLAIBORNE PELL, Washington, D.O. OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, DEAR SENATOR PELL: This is in response to your letter concerning Mr. Anderson's testimony before your Subcommittee on Oceans and International Environment on January 21, 1976. Mr. Anderson is currently in Lugano, Switzerland, attending a Conference of Government Experts, sponsored by the International Committee of the Red Cross, and I have taken the liberty of replying for him. Mr. Anderson's statement made during the hearing regarding present developmental or operational activities in the area of emulsifiers is correct. We have researched the matter with all concerned and can report that no DOD agency or any military service is currently involved in developing or testing emulsifiers for combat use and that no operational capability for such use presently exists. Our research did reveal that an examination into the possibility of using soil destabilizing compounds to inhibit infiltration over roads took place in the late 1960's; however, the limited field tests conducted had discouraging results, and the project was abandoned. "Operation COLD CLAY" has been identified. This was the code name for some aerial weather reconnaissance missions flown to support photo reconnaissance in Southeast Asia in the 1960's. These missions were not related to the use of any weather modification activities. To the best of our knowledge that code name is not being used for any DOD mission or activity. The following statement is provided for the record in direct response to your request: "The Department of Defense is not conducting any military exercises or training specifically designed to use or test weather modification techniques. The U.S. Air Force conducts cold fog modification at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington, and Hahn Air Base. Germany, as a routine procedure to increase flight safety during periods of heavy fog. The U.S. Army is developing a mobile fog dispersal system using propane sprayers similar to the techniques employed by the Air Force. The U.S. Navy has occasionally employed experimental fog dispersal techniques in Southern California when fog or low clouds threatened postponement of scheduled amphibious training exercises. These activities were instituted to avoid costly rescheduling, however, and were not associated with the training objectives. The last such event occurred during Exercise BELL CANON during April 1974. "There are no specific plans for the use of fog dispersal techniques in wartime and it would be inadvisable to speculate on future uses. The Department of Defense feels, however, that known and contemplated fog dispersal techniques do provide an opportunity to increase force readiness, improve safety, and protect personnel and resources. Examples of the type activities where these techniques would prove valuable include fog dispersal at airfields to provide for flight safety during take-offs and landings, the clearance of fog to expedite the rescue of downed crewmen or stranded personnel, and in connection with logistical resupply operations." I hope the above information meets your needs. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, JAMES M. THOMPSON, Brigadier General, U.S. Army, Director, Policy Plans and NSC Affairs. Senator PELL. I thank you very much indeed, and thank you for being with us. I am delighted at your willingness to support this treaty, and am very glad indeed that you have this view. Our final witness is Dr. Edith Brown Weiss. Dr. Weiss? STATEMENT OF EDITH BROWN WEISS, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND POLITICS, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY Dr. WEISS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We face a great danger from the possibility of using techniques to modify our environment as weapons of war. If we want to avoid these dangers, it is essential that we agree now to prohibit the use of such techniques for war. The draft convention prepared by the Soviet Union and the United States on the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques is a step in this direction. How useful the convention will be depends upon future negotiations over the language of the convention. There are important am biguities in this draft about the extent to which weather modification activities are covered by its prohibitions and about whether the use of environmental modifications techniques incidental to facilitating the effectiveness of other weapons is covered. "LONG-LASTING, WIDESPREAD OR SEVERE EFFECTS" Article 1 indicates that the convention covers only environmental modification techniques "having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects." The convention does not define "long-lasting, widespread or severe." Ironically, the language sounds like it covers only those techniques which are least developed such as techniques for climate modification. One may reasonably interpret it as covering hurricane, typhoon, or cyclone modification. How much it covers weather modification techniques for smaller scale phenomena is not clear. Certainly the response of Dr. Ikle from the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency to the effect that these words mean "significant or substantial" is a very useful indication that the language may cover, for example, some cloud-seeding activities to increase or decrease rain, or augment snow pack. However, we do not yet have an unequivocal statement that our weather modification activities during the Vietnam conflict would be prohibited under the proposed draft convention. How useful the convention will be depends upon future negotiations over the language of the convention. There are important ambiguities in this draft about the extent to which weather modification activities are covered by its prohibitions and about whether the use of environmental modifications techniques incidental to facilitating the effectiveness of other weapons is covered. However, we do not yet have an unequivocal statement that our weather modification activities during the Vietnam conflict would be prohibited under the proposed draft convention. Senator PELL. I did not mean to embarrass Admiral Davies, but I asked him that question and he said in his view it would. Now it is a question of what is prohibited and what is not prohibited and who would make the interpretations. But he made a fairly clear statement to that effect, just about three quarters of an hour ago. Dr. WEISS. I think Admiral Davies' statement is very noteworthy. Senator PELL. But he should not be hung with this because that is his view. Maybe others in the Government differ with him. Only in ultimate practice will we find what will happen. Obviously I would agree to make the language as tight as possible, but I do not think he should be taken completely out of context. The Government has not taken a firm position. That is just his view. Dr. WEISS. I have a question about the definition of long lasting. If you define it as a week, which was the basis for the view that these activities would be prohibited under the treaty, would you need a week of continuous operations, or would the definition cover operations which last less than a week but may be resumed several weeks later? Senator PELL. I think many of these things cannot be clarified until the time comes. It is very hard to cross every "t" and dot every "i" at this stage. When we have this as concrete and agreed to by many nations, then, perhaps in a few years from now, we can move ahead in another convention to define and spell it out further. DELETION OF "WIDESPREAD, LONG-LASTING OR SEVERE" SUGGESTED Dr. WEISS. I would like to suggest that we consider deleting the adjectives "widespread, long-lasting and severe" from the text of the convention. This would eliminate many of the problems which we have been discussing today. Under the present terminology, there is uncertainty as to what is covered. Would cloud-seeding activities designed to increase snow pack in mountain passes or to increase rainfall in order to wash out jungle trails, be permitted under the convention? Would the dispersal or generation of fog be covered? If the convention prohibits all of these activities, there is no reason. for the presence of the three adjectives, "widespread, long-lasting or severe." Thus my own recommendation would be to delete these words from the draft. Then the convention would unquestionably ban use of any environmental techniques for military or other hostile purposes. Senator PELL. It would be my recommendation too. But my recommendations are not being accepted. Frankly we are stuck with this draft. We are lucky to have gone this far. Dr. WEISS. What I would like to do today is to point out some of the ambiguities in the draft in the hope that it might be of service to the committee. I think the terminology of article I that we discussed is particularly disturbing when taken together with the language in article II, which is designed to define the environmental modification techniques covered by article I. Article II specifically refers to changes in weather patterns. The use of the term "weather patterns" implies more than the individual clouds. Similarly it speaks of an upset in the ecological balance of a "region." This language, taken together with the use of the terms "long-lasting, widespread, and severe" could suggest that smaller scale types of weather modification are not included within the treaty. In particular, it seems doubtful whether all hostile uses of techniques for affecting fog would be included within the language of the treaty. The problem is that if we do not include the hostile use of all techniques for modifying weather, we may defeat some of the usefulness of the convention. Accepting any environmental modification techniques as legitimate weapons undermines the already shaky distinction between conventional and unconventional means of warfare. It makes acceptable the idea of using techniques of environmental modification as a weapon of war. I think this is particularly undesirable in a world which is becoming increasingly vulnerable to unconventional means of warfare. Even the chance that States can use some techniques for hostile purposes without violating the convention casts suspicion on the development and use of weather modification technology for peaceful purposes. In the long run, it can endanger the international cooperative programs in weather forecasting and atmospheric research, which help us to understand and use weather to benefit mankind. If even one state uses environmental modification for hostile purposes and it is acceptable under the convention, she invites other states to do likewise. Prohibiting all hostile uses of these techniques |