Benign Weather Modification 

BARRY B. COBLE, Major, USAF


School of Advanced Airpower Studies


THESIS PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF 

THE SCHOOL OF ADVANCED AIRPOWER STUDIES, 

MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, ALABAMA, FOR COMPLETION OF 

GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS, ACADEMIC YEAR 1995–96. 

Air University Press


Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama


March 1997 
Disclaimer 

Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the 

author(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of Air University, the United States Air 

Force, the Department of Defense, or any other US government agency. Cleared for public 

release: distribution unlimited. 

ii 
Contents 

Chapter Page 

DISCLAIMER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii


ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v


ABOUT THE AUTHOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix


INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1


AN OVERVIEW OF WEATHER MODIFICATION . . . . . . . . . 7


1


2


3


4


5


BARRIERS TO WEATHER MODIFICATION . 

MILITARY APPLICATIONS OF WEATHER 

MODIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

iii


. . . . . . . . . . . 13


. . . . . . . . . . . 21


. . . . . . . . . . . 29


. . . . . . . . . . . 33


Abstract 

Weather modification is a technology once embraced by the United States (US)

military as a tool to help both wartime and peacetime missions. However, interest in

the ability to modify weather has waned over recent years and is now nearly

nonexistent. 

This study examines one aspect of weather modification, benign weather

modification (BWM), for possible use in assisting military operations. After briefly

reviewing the history and science of weather modification, this thesis bounds the

aspects of weather modification being addressed. It then describes barriers to BWM,

showing how they affect current weather modification policy in the military.

Examples are shown of current civilian BWM techniques, their possible use by the

military, and some military-unique needs for weather modification.

After examining current weather modification and projected future BWM

technology, the author concludes that military BWM use deserves another look.

Increased reliance on precision guided munitions makes BWM a possible new tool in

ensuring accurate targeting with minimal collateral damage. In addition, BWM

offers the war planner a means to dictate battle space elements at a critical point in

a conflict. At a minimum, the US military should conduct a more in-depth review of

weather modification to see if technological advances offer opportunities for more

“bang for the buck.” 

v 

About the Author 

Maj Barry B. Coble was commissioned in 1981 through the Reserve Officer 

Training Corps at North Carolina State University. His first assignment was as an 

environmental simulations analyst at the USAF Environmental Technical 

Applications Center at Scott Air Force Base (AFB), Illinois. From there he went to 

Fort Bragg, North Carolina, as officer in charge (OIC) of 7th Special Forces Special 

Operations Weather Team and assistant OIC of the XVIII Airborne Corps Weather 

Team. After completing an Air Force Institute of Technology assignment, he 

returned to Scott AFB and worked in the Special Projects Directorate at 

Headquarters Air Weather Service. He then went to Ramstein Air Base, Germany, 

where he served as commander, Detachment 2, 31st Weather Squadron and as the 

technical operations officer at the 86th Weather Squadron. Major Coble has 

completed Squadron Officer School and Air Command and Staff College in residence. 

He has a bachelor’s degree in meteorology from North Carolina State University and 

a master’s degree in meteorology from Utah State University. In July 1996 Major 

Coble was assigned to Headquarters USAF as chief, Weather and Navigation 

Systems Requirements. He is a 1996 graduate of the School of Advanced Airpower 

Studies. 

vii 

Acknowledgments 

I recognize Col John A. Warden III, USAF, Retired, for challenging me to prove 

why a weather officer should attend the School of Advanced Airpower Studies. His 

challenge led directly to this report. 

Col Tamzy House, USAF, provided the technical review for this thesis and gave 

me several valuable insights as to the controversy surrounding this subject. Her 

objectivity and encouragement are greatly appreciated. 

I thank the numerous members of air weather service and weather support 

personnel worldwide. Many of their opinions while discussing this contentious topic 

helped my thoughts come together for this study. 

I would be remiss if I did not express my heartfelt love and appreciation to my 

wife, Andrea, and my daughters, Misha and Piper. Their patience while I locked 

myself in my office on a nightly basis working on this study was greatly appreciated. 

Now I can go back to reading Dr. Seuss’ books to you on a more regular basis, kids. 

ix 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it. 

—Mark Twain 

On 30 August 1995 a French Mirage 2000N carrying two crew members 

was shot down over Bosnia during Operation Deliberate Force. Two 

parachutes were spotted descending to earth, leading to the planning for a 

rescue attempt. The first combat search and rescue (CSAR) attempt, 

scheduled for 6 September 1995, was canceled due to unsatisfactory launch 

site weather for the participating aircraft. A second CSAR mission was then 

scheduled for 7 September 1995. 

The second CSAR mission consisted of four helicopters and four variants of 

the C-130. Providing protection and close air support were 10 additional 

aircraft. All aircraft took off with no problems, and the mission was a smooth 

one until arrival of the CSAR package at the search area. There the aircraft 

encountered an unanticipated condition, fog. Fog was covering the valley 

where they expected to locate the crewmen. In all 18 aircraft had flown that 

night, only to be thwarted from completing their mission by a fog bank. At the 

end of September the Bosnian Serb Army told the world that they held the 

crew as prisoners, having captured them soon after they ejected over their 

territory. Their release came later.1 

Weather and War—the two concepts are closely linked. Warriors 

throughout the ages have used weather to their advantage, and some have 

suffered from its effects on the outcome of battles. The timing of the 

Normandy invasion on D day, 6 June 1944, was dictated by a favorable 

weather forecast. While the Allied weather forecasters got it right, the 

German forecasters felt the weather would prohibit the successful crossing of 

the English Channel. This forecast contributed to the unsuspecting mood of 

the German military on that particular day. During the same war but in a 

different theater, the Japanese used the weather to conceal their approach to 

the Hawaiian Islands, enhancing their surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. 

There are numerous examples of situations where weather played the critical 

role in the outcome of war. 

Historically the military adapts to the weather. What if military forces 

could shape the weather to enhance operations, hinder or prevent enemy 

operations, or both? Such is the promise of weather modification and its role 

in support of the military. 

1 
This thesis determines whether the military should revisit using weather 

modification for enhancing military operations. Weather modification is an 

area of operations that the military has tried, and because of a variety of 

reasons, has stopped conducting. I reexamine this decision by first looking at 

current weather modification science and what the future holds for the 

weather modification field over the next 10 years. A detailed look at weather 

modification limitations follows, with the idea of examining certain factors 

that retard or restrict military use of weather modification. The second 

portion analyzes civilian applications of weather modification which can be 

applied to military uses. It also looks at those weather modification 

applications which are/which appear suitable only for military operations. 

The recommendation and conclusion section proposes ways in which the 

military can, potentially, exploit any benefits of weather modification. 

Limits of This Study 

The idea of weather modification conjures up many different images. As a 

result, bounding this study will let the reader know exactly the meaning of 

weather modification in this context. United Nations (UN) treaties prohibit 

using weather modification to kill or maim people. Modifying weather to 

cause injury or death is outlawed. For instance, causing lightning to strike 

exposed enemy infantry is illegal. Therefore, discussion about deadly or 

hostile weather modification is beyond the scope of this work. Instead, I focus 

on weather modification aimed at suppressing existing weather or enhancing 

the effects of weather without causing direct physical harm to people. This 

type of weather modification is called benign weather modification (BWM). 

Any harm caused by BWM is strictly a secondary effect. For military 

operations, BWM is a way to enhance friendly actions or impede enemy 

actions. 

The general notion of weather modification tends to create a negative 

response in many circles. It is pertinent to delineate the different types of 

weather modification capabilities and to discuss those that fall within the 

limits of the study. Further discussion concerning the “barriers” to weather 

modification efforts, why they exist, and why they need not apply to BWM 

takes place in chapter 3. 

This study only examines the current state of the field and those advances 

expected within the next 10 years. While this may exclude some interesting 

and exotic forms of weather modification, what is most important at this 

stage is a good first step towards understanding possible military uses of 

BWM. This thesis mentions other BWM techniques that may aid future 

military operations. For the most part, however, the focus is on existing BWM 

techniques developed for civilian purposes. It seems likely that the transition 

of these techniques to military applications represents the most inexpensive 

2 
option for military BWM, something quite desirable given current constraints 

in defense spending. 

Why Study Weather Modification? 

The history of weather modification by the military is checkered, to say the 

least. Initial interest by the United States (US) Department of Defense (DOD) 

goes back to the late 1940s, when the US Army Signal Corps contracted to 

provide support for Project Cirrus. This project was the first scientific effort to 

seed clouds in order to make rain. Shortly after the project began, the Office 

of Naval Research and the Air Force joined the research team and provided 

additional support to the project.2 

During the 1950s and early 1960s, military interest in weather 

modification was limited. With the onset of the Vietnam War, operational 

interest in modifying weather to support combat operations increased, 

ultimately leading to a multiservice effort called Project Popeye. Its goal was 

to flood supply routes used by the North Vietnamese into South Vietnam by 

seeding clouds in the area. When this effort was exposed, however, the 

military endured tremendous pressure and criticism, especially from 

Congress. Within five years of the negative publicity, US military weather 

modification research had ceased, and operational use of BWM gradually 

declined. For instance, three Air Force bases had installed cold fog clearing 

equipment by the early 1970s. Currently the only cold fog clearing system 

that exists in the USAF is located at Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington, 

and it is used very sparingly.3 

DOD funding for weather modification research peaked at $2.8 million in 

1977. Funding was eliminated in 1979. Since then there has been no active 

research effort into weather modification by DOD. The Air Force spends no 

money on research, and there is no effort to monitor civilian research, 

applications, and advancements. The Army’s program, “Owning the Weather 

for the Battlefield,” deals only with incorporating weather information into 

the digitized battlefield of the future. Efforts to modify the weather for battle 

are not being pursued.4 

Many countries throughout the world practice weather modification. The 

Russians have long been interested in using weather modification as a way to 

control hail.5 The Chinese recognize the value of weather modification and 

believe, incorrectly, that the US military continues to use weather as a 

weapon.6 However, there is little available evidence showing active efforts by 

other countries to use weather modification for military use. 

The US military, especially the Air Force, is considered the preeminent 

world leader in technology and its applications in the battle space. Since the 

late 1970s, the Air Force has “backed away” from pursuing weather 

modification technology even though the scientific understanding and the 

technological capability have evolved, albeit slowly, over time. It is a 

3 
well-known fact that weather affects the battle space, contributing to the “fog 

of war.” New developments in the field of weather modification may help 

eliminate some of this “fog” and turn weather into a force multiplier. 

Glossary of Weather Modification Terms 

Weather modification is a scientific field with its own language and terms. 

The American Meteorological Society, the leading professional society of 

meteorologists, defines the term weather modification as “the intentional or 

inadvertent alteration of weather by human agency.” A similar term, weather 

control, is defined as “weather modification, with the implication that 

modification effort is purposefully applied and its consequences predictable.”7 

The Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) have a definition of environmental 

modification. Although not explicitly defined, weather modification can be 

viewed as a specialized category under the more general environmental 

modification definition: “Environmental Modification . . . refers to changing 

(through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes) the dynamics, 

composition, or structure of the earth, including . . . [the] atmosphere.”8 

A mix of the two definitions is more appropriate for this study. Weather 

modification refers to the intentional enhancement or suppression of the 

current weather conditions over a given area by human agency. Inadvertent 

weather modification, which refers to the accidental alteration of weather via 

pollution or other human activities, is not addressed. This study does not use 

the term weather control. Since the natural weather producing processes 

associated with the earth-atmosphere system are nonlinear and dependent on 

feedback mechanisms, predictable consequences, as implied by the word 

control, are not a surety. 

There are two basic types of weather modification: hostile and benign. 

Hostile weather modification is the use of weather as a weapon to harm 

people. Benign weather modification refers to enhancing or suppressing 

weather effects to benefit the modifier without directly harming others. BWM 

is also environmentally safe and, most important, not indiscriminate. These 

two concepts are often confused, as the term weather modification seems to 

carry with it the hostile connotation. Unfortunately, rejecting all weather 

modification may cause the overlooking of possible BWM benefits. This 

discussion deals with the benign aspect. A JCS directive prohibits using 

weather to harm people.9 

The most well-known type of BWM is cloud seeding. It refers to any process 

of injecting a substance into a cloud for the purpose of influencing the cloud’s 

subsequent development. A cloud seeding agent is any variety of substances 

dispensed for the purposes of cloud seeding. These substances include silver 

iodide, dry ice (frozen carbon dioxide), calcium chloride, salt, or carbon black 

to name a few.10 Cloud seeding is one of the main areas of practical weather 

modification and is used to enhance or retard precipitation development as 

4 
well as to increase or decrease cloud cover. Hail suppression is any method of 

reducing the damaging effects of hailstorms by operating on the hail 

producing cloud (via cloud seeding).11 

Using a tracer allows better prediction of the results of cloud seeding. A 

tracer is an environmentally safe, easily detectable substance injected into 

the atmosphere for the purpose of measuring subsequent atmospheric motion 

such as trajectory, diffusion, and so forth.12 Tracers float along with the cloud 

seeding agent introduced into a cloud, thus allowing scientists to monitor the 

dispersal of the agents. These results lead to a better understanding of the 

cloud structure. Commonly used tracers include aluminized glass chaff fibers 

and sulfur hexafluoride, which are detectable either by radar or by 

instruments carried through the seeded clouds. Tracers are approved for use 

by the Environmental Protection Agency and are used in very small 

quantities.13 

Another area of weather modification focus concerns fog. Fog dispersal is 

the elimination or reduction of fog in a limited area by artificial means. Fog 

enhancement is just the opposite: the creation or increase of fog in a limited 

area by artificial means.14 Methods to accomplish fog dispersal are similar to 

cloud seeding, with the addition that mechanical mixing can also help 

dissipate fog. 

The rest of this study looks into weather modification science, barriers to 

weather modification use, and possible military applications of weather 

modification. This glossary helps the reader better understand the more 

technical aspects of each chapter. 

Notes 

1. Lt Gen Michael E. Ryan, “NATO Air Operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina: Deliberate 

Force—29 August 1995–14 September 1995,” address to the School of Advanced Airpower 

Studies, Maxwell AFB, Ala., 7 February 1996. 

2. Horace R. Byers, “History of Weather Modification,” in Weather and Climate 

Modification, ed. W. N. Hess (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1974), 14. Others may argue that 

the US military dabbled in weather modification as far back as the Civil War, but most 

scientists agree that modern weather modification was born with Project Cirrus. 

3. Maj Robert J. Rizza, “Cold Fog Dispersal System (CFDS) End-of-Season Report, FY95,” 

Fairchild AFB, Wash., 92d Operations Support Squadron/OSW Fax, 27 February 1996, 2. 

4. Stanley A. Changnon Jr. and W. Henry Lambright, “The Rise and Fall of Federal 

Weather Modification Policy,” Journal of Weather Modification 19, no 1 (April 1987): 3. 

5. Ye Vostruxov, “Laser and Cloud: Unusual Experiment of Siberian Scientists,” translated 

by SCITRAN, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, Foreign Technology Division, September 1987, 5. 

6. Zhou Wei, “Meteorological Weapons,” translated by SCITRAN, Wright-Patterson AFB, 

Ohio, Foreign Technology Division, March 1985, 4. 

7. Louis J. Battan, ed., Glossary of Terms Frequently Used in Weather Modification (Boston: 

American Meteorological Society, 1968), 57. 

8. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction (CJCSI) 3810.01, Meteorological and 

Oceanographic Operations, 10 January 1995, 2. 

9. Ibid. 

10. Battan, 13. 

11. Ibid., 30. 

5 
12. Ibid., 53. 

13. James A. Heimbach Jr. and William D. Hall, “Observations and Modeling of 

Valley-Released Silver Iodide Seeding over the Wasatch Plateau,” address to the American 

Meteorological Society Convention, Atlanta, Ga., 30 January 1996. 

14. Battan, 27. 

6

Chapter 2 

An Overview of Weather Modification 

Introduction 

This chapter reviews the science and methods of weather modification. It 

also forecasts likely trends and developments for weather modification for the 

next ten years and examines the factors driving them. 

Manipulations of the local atmosphere date back to the beginning of 

recorded time. Primitive man used spells, dances, rituals, and prayers to 

encourage needed rains.1 These efforts do not necessarily depend upon high 

technology. For example, the use of smudge pots to keep the air in citrus 

groves above freezing is a type of weather modification. The smoke from the 

smudge pots holds in the warmth, keeping the air above a critical temperature 

threshold. The thermostats and walls of our homes are man-made mechanisms 

to manipulate the atmosphere around us. Although these methods naturally 

led to grander attempts at controlling the temperature and humidity in our 

atmosphere, they do not constitute weather modification. The first 

scientifically controlled and monitored effort generally recognized by the 

meteorological community as constituting weather modification occurred in 

1948, when Dr. Irving Langmuir first experimented with artificially seeding 

clouds in order to produce rain. His experiments showed positive results, 

sparking tremendous interest in the field nearly overnight.2 

Most BWM efforts focus on four general areas: precipitation enhancement, 

hail suppression, fog dispersal, and snow augmentation.3 All four areas are of 

commercial interest, spurring continued research. Agricultural interests 

continue to focus on precipitation enhancement to alleviate occasional drought, 

while hail suppression is important in reducing crop damage. The aviation 

community continues to explore the means needed to disperse fog in order to 

improve airport efficiency and safety as well as on-time rates. Ski resort 

operators use snow augmentation techniques in order to supplement the natural 

snowfall. In addition, local communities depending on snowpack for drinking 

water occasionally use snow augmentation to increase winter snowfall.4 

The Science of Weather Modification 

Weather phenomena such as rain, snow, hail, and fog are the result of 

atmospheric processes ranging in scale from global circulation patterns to 

7 
water molecule interactions resulting in droplet creation. Between these 

interaction extremes are several levels of disturbances, from large scale 

cyclones covering thousands of square kilometers down to individual 

convective clouds that lead to thunderstorms. These processes interact in an 

extremely complex fashion. All are interdependent, with the energy released 

in small scale disturbances feeding the development and movement of the 

larger scale forces.5 

Weather modification seeks to change the interactions between the various 

levels of activity. These changes, made on a small scale, will hopefully lead to 

larger scale changes and cause the desired change in the weather. The 

sought-after changes are on a much more modest scale than making climatic 

changes; only local weather changes are desired. 

Weather Modification Methods 

Modification of weather can occur in a number of ways: 

•	 altering the available solar energy by introducing materials to absorb or 

reflect sunshine; 

• adding heat to the atmosphere by artificial means from the surface; 

• altering air motion by artificial means; 

• influencing the humidity by increasing or retarding evaporation; and 

•	 changing the processes by which clouds form and causing precipitation 

by using chemicals or inserting additional water into the clouds.6 

In modifying clouds, the idea is to introduce cloud seeding agents into 

existing clouds in order to induce precipitation, increase precipitation, cause a 

change in precipitation, or dissipate the cloud entirely. Cloud seeding agents 

cause the additional formation of ice crystals in clouds. Raindrops form by the 

coalescence of water droplets on the ice crystals. The presence of more ice 

crystals means more raindrops can form. Cloud seeding agents work because 

their crystalline structure closely resembles ice, thereby “fooling” the water 

droplets into coalescing onto them.7 

In order to produce precipitation, each liter of air needs only one artificial 

ice nucleus. Overseeding a cloud causes so many ice crystals to form that the 

cloud becomes glaciated or made of mostly ice crystals. With few supercooled 

water droplets left in the cloud, the ice crystals do not grow, and thus 

evaporate. An excellent example of this can occur through cloud seeding from 

the air with an abundance of dry ice. Within a few minutes the cloud will 

dissipate, leaving holes along the path of seeding aircraft.8 

Introducing cloud seeding agents into the proper cloud regions will cause 

rain to occur sooner or more heavily than it otherwise would, aiding in the 

suppression of hail. This deprives hail of the water droplets needed to 

continue growing, reducing hailstone size and the damage they can cause.9 

8 
Fog is similar to clouds in that it is a result of a supersaturated 

atmosphere, except that it is located at the surface of the earth. Fog 

classification is based on the temperature at which it exists. There are three 

basic types of fog: warm fog (above 0° C), cold fog (between –30° and 0° C), 

and ice fog (colder than –30° C). There are specific means to suppress or 

eliminate each type of fog. 

Warm fog suppression can occur through two methods. One method 

involves warming the foggy air in order to increase the amount of water it can 

hold. The warmer the air, the less likely the air will be saturated to the point 

that fog formation occurs. Often this is only a matter of a few degrees of 

temperature. During World War II, open trenches filled with gasoline or other 

fuel lined the runways of bomber air bases in England. These trenches were 

set ablaze during foggy periods. The fog often lifted as a result, allowing 

planes to take off and land that might not have otherwise been able to do so. 

Later attempts to use similar systems at US commercial airports failed due to 

costs, aesthetic objections, and the effect on airline passengers of seeing a 

runway apparently ablaze.10 

The other method to suppress warm fog is to mix it with drier air. This 

mixing causes the water droplets in the fog to evaporate. Large fans, 

helicopter downwash, or running airplane engines can all be used to 

accomplish this. One added bonus of using jet airplane engines is that the air 

is warmed as it passes through the engine, increasing the efficiency of the 

process.11 

Introducing a cloud seeding agent into a cold fog can increase visibility 

even if it does not cause complete fog dissipation. The method is similar to 

cloud seeding for precipitation enhancement, in that the agent causes fog 

droplets to form into larger droplets. The larger droplets, unable to remain 

suspended in the air, fall to the surface. This increases visibility by thinning 

the fog. Another cold fog dispersal method involves causing the supercooled 

water droplets to freeze and “snow” out of the fog. The introduction of dry ice 

or other seeding agents can accomplish this most efficiently.12 

The best way to suppress ice fog is by attempting to disrupt its formation. 

The amount of energy needed to do this is quite large. As a result, most ice 

fog-prone locations simply try to eliminate the source of moisture responsible 

for the fog. For instance, Eielson AFB, Alaska, set out to eliminate as many 

sources of water vapor around the base as possible. Many smaller power 

plants around the base, burning diesel or coal, were eliminated with the 

construction of one central power plant. Such measures can greatly reduce 

emissions containing unwanted water vapor, but ice fog can remain a 

persistent problem. Reductions in visibility due to ice fog occur even as 

aircraft run up their engines and take off.13 

Another type of weather modification is the suppression of lightning. The 

US Forest Service conducted several experiments in this area of BWM during 

the 1960s and 1970s hoping to reduce the number of forest fires caused by 

lightning. Scientists thought seeding clouds over forests would reduce the 

electrical potential of clouds with respect to the ground. The introduction of a 

9 
cloud seeding agent would cause the formation of more ice crystals, resulting 

in less electrification of the cloud. However, causing a massive increase in ice 

crystals reduced the amount of precipitation from the cloud (overseeding). 

The reduced rainfall worked against the overall objective of reducing forest 

fires, causing the experiments to be abandoned in 1973.14 

Each of these weather modification types has commercial applications, and 

several companies exist to practice these types of BWM. US governmentsponsored BWM research, however, is on the decline. Annual government 

funding (both state and federal) peaked in FY77 at $19 million. In 1992 the 

funding level fell to $5 million.15 The current emphasis on global climate 

change (receiving $400 million in federal research funding in FY91), coupled 

with continued cutting of overall government expenditures, does not bode well 

for increased BWM research funding.16 

Future Benign Weather Modification Trends 

Changing public concerns, however, may cause the emphasis in 

atmospheric research to move towards BWM. At a recent conference on 

weather modification, Dr. Joseph Golden of the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Research at Silver Spring, Maryland, stated that “regional water issues will 

dominate weather modification for the next 10 years.”17 Water resources in 

the Midwest are being strained by continued drainage of underwater aquifers 

as population growth and accompanying water usage increases. International 

concern over water rights continues to increase as countries vie for dwindling 

resources. Two hundred fourteen river basins around the world are shared by 

more than one country, with most rivers in Africa and Europe being 

multinational.18 These pressures are likely to encourage efforts to squeeze 

more rain out of clouds through weather modification techniques. 

Dr. Golden also sees three new likely areas of weather modification 

research: ice storm suppression or abatement, hurricane modification, and 

tornado modification. These three areas, he believes, will be the focus of new 

weather modification efforts due to recent disasters. For instance, in 

February 1994 ice storms in the United States caused more than $1 billion in 

damage. Hurricane Andrew devastated southern Florida in 1992. Tornadoes 

continue to threaten many areas of the United States and kill an average of 

92 people per year.19 Dr. Golden expects that the impetus to seek economic 

benefits, as well as technological and computational advances, will spur 

increased funding of weather modification research.20 

As Dr. Golden sees it, there are three new developments that now make 

weather modification of severe storms feasible. The first is the fielding of 

Doppler weather radars throughout the United States. Installation is nearly 

complete for almost total US coverage by Doppler radars. These radars give 

scientists an unprecedented ability to examine the structure and dynamics of 

10 
weather. Coordination between seeding efforts and radar observations allows 

researchers to determine optimum cloud seeding timing and location. This 

increases the cloud seeding efficiency and makes success more likely. 

The second development making weather modification more feasible is 

satellite data collection. New sensors are flying aboard weather satellites, 

providing better data resolution and coverage of the atmosphere. These 

increases are important in improving the computer model resolution 

necessary for predicting weather modification effects. 

The third area of advancement having an impact on weather modification 

is sheer computing power and modeling improvements. High resolution 

weather depiction models running on super computers are becoming the rule 

rather than the exception. Computer models now simulate weather for longer 

time periods more quickly, making determination of weather modification 

effects easier. These transient 3-D models, along with the ability to display 

results in graphic form on high resolution screens, improve scientists’ abilities 

to spot promising weather modification opportunities.21 

These expected improvements in weather modification science focus on the 

observational aspect of the science, not on the applications technology. The 

ability to predict BWM effects is critical to the success of the science; recently 

positive cloud seeding results, proven beyond simply statistical means, hold 

promise for the application of BWM.22 The use of Doppler radars coupled with 

the introduction of tracers in cloud seeding have conclusively shown increases 

in rain formation within clouds. There is no doubt that seeding clouds can 

increase rainfall. Since this is the most common method of BWM, more 

attention can now be focused on refining cloud seeding techniques. This is 

likely to increase interest in BWM and result in increased funding. 

Conclusion 

Overall, the BWM field made little progress until quite recently. One 

reason was the lack of funds for research. To be done right, weather 

modification experiments require years of effort in order to collect enough 

data to show results. Most government agencies will not or cannot fund 

studies beyond a single year, retarding efforts to design multiyear 

experiments. Another reason for the lack of significant BWM progress is a 

lack of leadership from the federal government. A national plan to coordinate 

weather modification experiments has never been developed. A divided effort, 

dispersed among a variety of agencies, is the norm. Rather than trying to 

break new ground, BWM experiments tend to concentrate on seeking minor 

improvements in familiar areas. With the introduction of new observational 

techniques as well as improved computer modeling of BWM effects, the 

science is ready to take off once again.23 

11 
Notes 

1. Horace R. Byers, “History of Weather Modification,” in Weather and Climate 

Modification, ed. W. N. Hess (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1974), 4. 

2. Irving Langmuir, “Final Report: Project Cirrus,” General Electric Research Laboratory 

Report No. PL 140, Schnectady, N.Y., 31 December 1948, 14. 

3. “Call for Papers: 45th Annual Meeting of the Weather Modification Association,” Bulletin 

of the American Meteorological Society 76, no. 11 (November 1995): 2314. 

4. Stanley A. Changnon Jr., “Where Does Weather Modification Fit within the Atmospheric 

Sciences?” Journal of Weather Modification 24 (April 1992): 118. 

5. John M. Wallace and Peter V. Hobbs, Atmospheric Science: An Introductory Survey (New 

York: Academic Press, 1977), 28–29. 

6. Morris Neiburger and H. K. Weickmann, “The Meteorological Background for Weather 

Modification,” in Weather and Climate Modification, ed. W. N. Hess (New York: John Wiley & 

Sons, 1974), 94. 

7. Wallace, 267. 

8. Ibid., 266. 

9. Joe R. Eagleman, Severe and Unusual Weather (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 

1983), 284–85. 

10. Louis J. Battan, ed., Glossary of Terms Frequently Used in Weather Modification 

(Boston: American Meteorological Society, 1968), 27. 

11. Bernard A. Silverman and Alan I. Weinstein, “Fog,” in Weather and Climate 

Modification, ed. W. N. Hess (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1974), 356–58. 

12. Eagleman, 282–83. 

13. Silverman and Weinstein, 381. 

14. Stanley A. Changnon Jr. and W. Henry Lambright, “The Rise and Fall of Federal 

Weather Modification Policy,” Journal of Weather Modification 19, no. 1 (April 1987): 4. 

15. Changnon, 121. 

16. Ibid. 

17. Joseph H. Golden, “On Future Prospects for Severe Weather Modification,” address to 

the American Meteorological Society Convention, Atlanta, Ga., 30 January 1996. 

18. Arthur Westing, Global Resources and International Conflict: Environmental Factors in 

Strategic Policy and Action (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 97. 

19. Thomas P. Grazulis, Significant Tornadoes: 1680–1991 (Saint Johnsbury, Vt.: 

Environmental Films, July 1993), 14. 

20. Golden. 

21. Ibid. 

22. Joe Gelt, “Weather Modification: A Water Resource Strategy to Be Researched, Tested 

Before Tried,” Arroyo 6, no. 1 (Spring 1992): 9. 

23. Changnon and Lambright, 9. 

12

Chapter 3 

Barriers to Weather Modification 

Introduction 

The US military has used BWM in the past, with positive results. As 

recently as three years ago the USAF was still showing a cost benefit due to 

the operation of the Fairchild AFB cold fog dispersal system.1 Yet the military 

has not conducted research into BWM since the mid-1970s and has no future 

plans to do so. This chapter reviews several reasons why the military does not 

currently embrace weather modification: scientific concerns, legal concerns, 

and moral or ethical concerns. 

Scientific Concerns 

Weather modification is grounded in physical principles applied to a 

chaotic, complex atmosphere. These principles can interact, causing 

unexpected results. For instance, attempts to lift fog by mechanical mixing 

(trying to blow fog away with aircraft engines) can make the fog worse under 

some circumstances. If by blowing air into the fog one increases the number of 

condensation particles, the water vapor present will condense onto those 

particles. Thus the fog can become worse (lower visibility) even though the 

intention was to increase the visibility. This is one example where weather 

modification can produce unintended effects. 

In the late 1940s and the 1950s many saw weather modification as a 

promising science of the future. Several commercial activities sprang up 

overnight after the well-advertised efforts of Project Cirrus (the first scientific 

cloud seeding endeavor), and they took on the big problems from the start. In 

1949 the city of New York became especially concerned about its dwindling 

water supply. Based on Project Cirrus, the city hired a recommended weather 

modification expert to make it rain, increasing the water in New York 

reservoirs. While it did eventually rain, those involved had no proof that they 

caused the event to occur.2 

Similar efforts were made throughout the United States and the rest of the 

world during these years, all with unproven results. That was the crux of the 

problem: How do you prove that you, and not Mother Nature, caused it to 

rain? Scientists and the public voiced similar concerns for all other types of 

weather modification. 

13 
Because of this uncertainty, the initial euphoria about the promise of 

weather modification wore off by the mid-1960s. The public could not be 

shown a definitive example of a weather modification success. The failures of 

weather modification attempts usually received more publicity. 

Part of the problem was that practical application of weather modification 

occurred before science could explain why weather modification worked. The 

temptation was too great to overcome drought conditions as soon as possible. 

Weather modification offered a chance to bring much needed rains to farmers 

and large population centers desperate for precipitation. Commercial efforts 

ignored the use of the scientific method to prove their ability to successfully 

modify weather. For instance, in order to prove that BWM made a cloud 

produce rain, leaving an identical cloud unseeded is necessary in order to 

provide an experimental control. With so few promising situations for 

weather modification, such control efforts were often ignored. When farmers 

want it to rain, they do not want a promising cloud “skipped” since it, too, can 

produce rain. For commercial success, rain was all the proof needed. For 

scientific success, controls are necessary.3 

This situation leads to another part of the problem: Conditions must be 

perfect for weather modification to work. Weather modification does not 

“create weather,” it simply takes existing weather and changes it marginally. 

Making rain from a cloudless sky is impossible. Alleviating a drought requires 

the presence of suitable clouds for seeding in order to generate rain. Certain 

techniques of fog dissipation require a narrow temperature range. Cold fogs 

are not conducive to warm fog dissipation techniques and vice versa. 

Unfortunately when one needs the weather changed the timing may not be 

perfect. 

Another scientific concern is rooted in chaos theory. The earth’s atmosphere 

is considered the classic example of a chaotic system. The “butterfly effect” is 

an oft-quoted example of a cause-and-effect relationship based on the tenets 

of chaos theory. In the example, chaos theory states that, because the earth’s 

atmosphere is chaotic, the simple action of a butterfly flapping its wings in 

Beijing is enough to cause a subtle change leading to, say, a tornado in 

Illinois (or any other Midwestern state) at some future date.4 

The butterfly, however, did not cause the tornado in Illinois. Rather, the set 

of conditions in the atmosphere in Illinois was such that the effect caused by 

the butterfly flapping its wings was just enough to create the perfect 

conditions for a tornado to form. It could be just as likely that a moth flapping 

its wings in Chile would cancel out the effects of the butterfly. Chaos is all 

about many subtle variations in a system that make the system extremely 

difficult to understand and predict.5 

The scientific concern regarding chaos theory is that any input into the 

atmospheric “system” via weather modification will result in some unknown 

and unforeseen output somewhere else. The more chaotic a system is, the 

more sensitive the system is to small perturbations. Why make a system more 

chaotic and unpredictable by introducing man-made perturbations? On the 

other hand, if the system is so chaotic, why worry about disturbing it? 

14 
A recent article points out, though, that chaos may be used beneficially to 

shape a system’s actions. The third International Sun-Earth Explorer Satellite 

(ISEE-3) was launched in 1978 by the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) in order to monitor solar activity. This satellite orbited 

at a libration point, a point of equal gravitation attraction between Earth, the 

Moon, and the Sun. Seven years after launch NASA decided to send the satellite 

into a rendezvous orbit with an approaching comet in order to observe closely the 

comet’s coma, or head. In order to make the rendezvous most efficiently, ISEE-3 

was “nudged” out of its orbit in such a way as to cause it to fly by the Moon a 

number of times. This allowed the satellite to pick up speed with each 

consecutive fly by, enabling it to reach the comet on time. With the smallest use 

of fuel onboard the spacecraft, NASA was able to achieve a tremendous change. 

The chaos in the satellite’s orbit gave NASA an ability to control the spacecraft’s 

position that it could not have otherwise had.6 

Most scientists feel it is important to eliminate chaos in order to make 

sense of a system. The effort described above with the satellite illustrates the 

idea of working with chaos in order to adjust a system. It may turn out that it 

is more efficient to design chaos into a system rather than try to remove it. In 

other words, chaos might actually be useful.7 

These examples are different ways of pointing out the same scientific 

concern: It is hard to show definitive proof of BWM success. How do 

researchers know that they caused the change in weather when it could have 

changed due to natural climatic variability? There are methods available 

today that show researchers whether their attempts at BWM are succeeding. 

Doppler weather radar will show whether the amount of precipitable water 

droplets in a cloud is increasing due to cloud seeding. The researcher, though, 

can never be completely sure that the efforts caused the increase. 

For instance, a study suggested that silver iodide seeding can trigger 

production of secondary ice nuclei by some organic means. This research 

suggests that fields sprayed with silver iodide release secondary ice nuclei 

particles at 10-day intervals. These releases could account for inferred 

increases in precipitation one to three weeks following seeding in several 

earlier projects. If this is the case, then scientific concerns are even more 

valid. There may be some unknown coupling between cloud seeding materials 

and the biosphere. If true, many cloud seeding experiment results are 

contaminated by bad data. Thus, not only is the weather modification 

community faced with daunting physical science processes such as the 

natural variability of meteorology, but they also face the possibility of 

responses to seeding through biological processes.8 

Legal Concerns 

Not everyone wants it to rain at the same time. For instance, while farmers 

may want rain to help their crops, a resort owner may want sunny skies for 

15 
the tourists. These competing interests may lead to the involvement of the 

legal profession. 

Weather modification offers a unique problem when it comes to property 

rights. Who owns the clouds and the rain in the clouds? When the first cloud 

seeding experiments in the late 1940s and early 1950s were advertised to the 

general public, litigation began between the modifiers and those supposedly 

affected by the weather modification results. Early state court interpretations 

held that the clouds and the rain in them belonged to those underneath them, 

as if people on the ground had “mineral rights” to the air above them. This 

was quickly overturned in favor of the idea that there are no vested property 

rights in clouds or the moisture in them. In other words, rain belongs to 

everyone. Interestingly enough, this idea is not as accepted in the western 

United States as in the East, because the West has had a long history of 

fighting for private water and mineral rights. However, the idea still stands 

that the sky above belongs to everyone.9 

Assessing legal liability is also a problem concerning weather modification: 

If there is a flood (or some other disaster), who did what to whom? The 

defendants in such a case are the weather modifier and that person’s or 

organization’s sponsor. Often that sponsor is a government agency. However, 

it can be much harder to identify the injured party or parties. First, it is hard 

to prove that a particular weather event that may have harmed someone was 

caused by weather modification. Second, while some in an area may feel they 

were “harmed” by a modified-weather event, others may have benefited from 

the same event. For instance, a case in the early 1950s pitted a resort owner 

in upstate New York against a commercial weather modification effort to 

increase rain for New York City reservoirs. Even though the resort owner 

“may” have been hurt by the increased rainfall, the court found that the 

benefit to the millions needing the water far outweighed the inconvenience to 

the owner.10 

To increase public acceptance of weather modification, some states levy a 

tax to help pay for BWM. In this way the public has a stake in the effort 

itself. Other states regulate weather modification efforts by issuing licenses to 

operators before such efforts. In order to obtain a license, operators must 

show they are competent and have a firm understanding of all possible 

consequences of their efforts. In this way the government protects the public 

from “snake oil” weather modifiers as well as incompetent practitioners of 

weather modification.11 

Since most cloud seeding efforts are at a local level, regulation also occurs 

at the local or state level. In other words, the scale of intervention fits the 

scale of the activity. The only federal regulation concerning weather 

modification is the requirement for all those who conduct such efforts to 

report those efforts to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and 

the Department of Commerce.12 

Note that all these cases referred to cloud seeding efforts to enhance 

precipitation. Efforts to modify more localized weather events, like fog, are 

not heavily regulated. On the other hand, efforts to modify more violent 

16 
weather like hurricanes would come under close international scrutiny. 

Getting approval for such an effort would be extremely difficult, probably 

involving the United Nations and the State Department. In general, the 

greater the number of people affected by the proposed BWM, the higher the 

approval level necessary.13 

There are also international legal concerns with respect to weather 

modification. The United States is a signatory to the 1978 United Nations 

Convention on the Prohibition of Military of any Other Hostile Use of 

Environmental Modification Techniques or the ENMOD Treaty. This is the 

only international document dealing with weather modification that 

specifically outlaws military use of weather modification as a weapon. 

However, the language of the treaty is vague and open to interpretation. For 

instance, the Republic of Korea interprets the treaty to mean that 

deliberately changing the natural state of rivers is an attempt at 

environmental modification. In other words, the deliberate destruction of 

dams to cause flooding is considered illegal by South Korea’s interpretation of 

the ENMOD Treaty.14 Of critical importance are the treaty’s three limitations 

imposed on military use of environmental (weather) modification. Weather 

modification cannot be used by the military or as a weapon if it will cause, 

“widespread, long lasting, and severe effects.” These limitations are open to 

widely ranging interpretation.15 

In order to clarify the Department of Defense’s interpretation of the 

ENMOD Treaty, the Joint Chiefs of Staff issued an instruction, with the 

latest version being issued on 10 January 1995. The Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff Instruction (CJCSI) 3810.01, Meteorological and Oceanographic Operations, interprets the terms widespread, long lasting, and severe 

as follows: 

1. Widespread. Encompassing an area on the scale of several hundred 

square kilometers. 

2. Long lasting. Lasting for a period of months, or approximately a season. 

3. Severe. Involving serious or significant disruption or harm to human 

life, natural and economic resources, or other assets.16 

Even within these limitations, there is a lot of room for weather 

modification efforts by the military. Currently, however, the US military 

interprets the ENMOD Treaty as allowing no involvement with weather 

modification efforts. As mentioned earlier, the only active weather 

modification effort involving the US military began before the treaty 

ratification in 1978. 

In summary, few court cases have been successfully argued against 

weather modification efforts due to the lack of laws, difficulty in obtaining 

evidence, and “fuzziness” of the results of BWM. The United States has 

signed a UN treaty banning weather modification given the previously 

mentioned limitations, and the military supports that treaty by limiting its 

use of weather modification as a weapon. 

17 
Moral or Ethical Concerns 

This author has personally witnessed the anger some people (many of them 

meteorologists) feel when the idea of military weather modification, benign or 

not, is mentioned. Their arguments against weather modification fall 

generally into three categories: opposition to interfering with the natural 

order, concern for the environment, and opposition to the indiscriminate 

nature of weather modification use. 

Many people base their ideas on misconceptions. Early weather 

modification pioneers were often responsible for those misconceptions. These 

experts were very sensitive to criticism, making them exaggerate the 

perception of negative feelings towards weather modification. However, 

surveys taken in the late 1960s in areas where weather modification occurred 

showed public opinion ranging from ambivalence to muted support.17 

While there have been sporadic protests against weather modification 

efforts, they have been few in number and small in size. Weather modifiers, 

however, have shown themselves to be especially sensitive to even limited 

criticism. Unfortunately, their tendency is to become more secretive about 

their work. This works against them in the long run since most efforts will, 

sooner or later, be discovered.18 The more successful weather modification 

efforts have been those which advertised the intention and scope of the effort 

before the action began. In addition, they often generate the greatest public 

support.19 

Still, feelings run deep when it comes to altering what many consider to be 

“God’s domain.” Animosity towards weather modification grew in the early 

1970s as the environmental movement gained momentum. This, coupled with 

the revelations concerning weather modification use in the Vietnam War 

(Project Popeye), was a double blow to weather modification efforts.20 The 

environmental movement continues to grow today, making it even more 

difficult to propose weather modification experiments and operations. 

Unfortunately weather modification is viewed as “harming” the environment, 

even though BWM simply alters weather by enhancing or suppressing it. 

Simply changing the weather from one form to another may not harm the 

environment, since it could have occurred even without human intervention. 

Such arguments, however, usually fall on deaf ears. 

Another aspect of weather modification that strikes fear in some people is 

its apparently indiscriminate nature. People often picture weather 

modification being similar to chemical and biological warfare: It affects 

everyone, civilians and military alike. The ENMOD Treaty addresses this by 

prohibiting weather modification from occurring over a large area. Today 

weather modification efforts can be focused down to a single storm, for 

instance, when that storm is a potential hail-producer. While BWM is not 

capable of making pinpoint alterations, the science has progressed to a point 

where limiting the effects to a few square miles or less (such as a runway 

being cleared of fog) is possible. 

18 
Conclusion 

Many of the current barriers to BWM stem from an uninformed public. 

Many still remember the days when weather modification promised much yet 

delivered little. Others consider all weather modification to be wrong, 

lumping together BWM with science-fiction tales of generating hurricanes to 

strike an enemy (guilt by association). Legal authorities have kept their 

hands off the issue, only issuing the barest minimum of laws and regulations. 

States make most laws concerning BWM, and differences in those laws can 

actually prevent operators from practicing BWM. For instance, even if one 

state allows weather modification, an adjacent state may prohibit it. The 

situation could get very difficult if a seeded cloud were to drift across the state 

line. 

However, none of these barriers is insurmountable. Currently the military 

unnecessarily equates limitations on hostile weather modification with 

limitations on all weather modification. A distinction between hostile and 

benign weather modification is important since few, if any, of the concerns 

mentioned here apply to BWM. If BWM makes sense, overcoming these 

obstacles is possible. 

Notes 

1. Maj Robert J. Rizza, “Cold Fog Dispersal System (CFDS) End-of-Season Report, FY95,” 

Fairchild AFB, Wash., 92d Operations Support Squadron/OSW Fax, 27 February 1996, 3. 

2. Horace R. Byers, “History of Weather Modification,” in Weather and Climate 

Modification, ed. W. N. Hess (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1974), 22. 

3. Robert D. Elliot, “Experience of the Private Sector,” in Weather and Climate 

Modification, ed. W. N. Hess (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1974), 51. 

4. James Gleick, Chaos: Making a New Science (New York: Penguin Books, 1987), 20–23. 

5. Ibid. 

6. William Brown, “Mathematicians Learn How to Tame Chaos,” New Scientist 134, no. 

1823 (30 May 1992): 16. 

7. Ibid. 

8. William R. Cotton and Roger A. Pielke, Human Impacts on Weather and Climate (New 

York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 60. 

9. Ray J. Davis, “Weather Modification Litigation and Statutes,” in Weather and Climate 

Modification, ed. W. N. Hess (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1974), 768. 

10. Ray J. Davis, “Weather Modification Law as a Prototype for Local Control of 

Inadvertent Weather and Climate Change,” Journal of Weather Modification 24, no. 1 (April 

1992): 122. 

11. Ibid., 123. 

12. Ibid., 124. 

13. Davis, “Weather Modification Litigation and Statutes,” 772–73. 

14. Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General: Status as of 31 December 

1992 (New York: United Nations Publications, 1993), 810. 

15. Ibid. 

16. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3810.01, Meteorological and 

Oceanographic Operations, 10 January 1995, 2. 

19 
17. J. Eugene Haas, “Sociological Aspects of Weather Modification,” in Weather and Climate


Modification, ed. W. N. Hess (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1974), 808.


18. Ibid. 

19. Ibid. 

20. Charles C. Bates and John F. Fuller, America’s Weather Warriors: 1814–1985 (College


Station, Tex.: Texas A&M University Press, 1986), 231.


20

Chapter 4 

Military Applications of Weather Modification 

Introduction 

The US military virtually ignores current techniques of weather 

modification. The purpose of this chapter is to examine possible benefits to 

the military of using existing civilian and military-unique weather 

modification technology. This chapter reviews current civilian efforts in 

weather modification with potential for military applications. It addresses 

possible weather modification applications or techniques that are unique to 

military operations but are not yet being researched. The final section 

examines the feasibility and efficacy of using weather modification for 

military operations. 

Current Methods Applicable to Military Operations 

The one type of weather modification still used by the US military is fog 

suppression. Fairchild AFB in Spokane, Washington, has the only operational 

fog suppression system in the US military. Installation of this system 

occurred in the early 1970s as part of Project Cold Wand, an experiment to 

explore the possibilities of fog suppression.1 Two other systems were installed, 

one at Elmendorf AFB, Alaska, and the other at Hahn Air Base (AB), 

Germany. Closure of the system at Elmendorf AFB was due to a mission 

change in the late 1980s. The new mission commanders no longer felt the 

need to fund this system due to little perceived benefit.2 The Hahn AB system 

closed before control of the base reverted to German authorities. 

The Fairchild system consists of 23 sites around the base equipped with 

propane sprayers. Liquid propane, cooled to –43° F, is injected into the fog 

when certain other meteorological conditions are met. At the proper time, the 

weather station activates the system from an on-site computer. The propane 

causes the water droplets present in the fog to freeze and precipitate out as 

ice crystals. The process takes about an hour, with the hope that winds will 

push the hole opened by the system over the runway. By reducing the amount 

of water vapor present, the fog lifts and visibility increases. This allows more 

aircraft to take off and land than would have been possible given the reduced 

visibility.3 

21 
While the system saved money throughout the 1980s, its use today is rare. 

In fact, from 19 October 1994 to 5 January 1996, the system lost nearly 

$18,000. This is due primarily to an increased reluctance to use the system to 

assist in generating training sorties. Use of the system is now allowed only 

when conditions are right and there is a need to assist an operational, 

nontraining Air Mobility Command mission. The odds of such an occurrence 

are slim, which explains use of the system only three times in the past two 

years. Meanwhile the system must be maintained, and supplies must be 

purchased, which contributes to the overall operating loss.4 

Part of the reluctance to use the system stems from a legal concern. When 

the system is turned on, frozen precipitation is deposited on surfaces around 

the base, which can occur on roads used by civilians. Such unexpected 

slippery roads could lead to automobile accidents, and the leadership at 

Fairchild is sensitive to possible legal action as a result.5 

Although this system has shown an ability to clear cold fog, it uses 

technology from the early 1970s. Upgrades occurred several times previously 

to make it more automated and easier to monitor. However, more recent 

advances in cold fog dispersal research have not been incorporated due to the 

cost of significantly changing the system. Further upgrades to the system 

seem unlikely given the infrequency of its use.6 

Warm fog dispersal has not been tried as an operational BWM technology 

by the military. Warm fog requires a totally different technique for 

dissipation from cold fog. Warm fog is also much more common than cold fog 

as it can occur whenever the temperature is above 32° F and the air is 

saturated. Overall, warm fog accounts for nearly 95 percent of the ground fog 

in the continental United States (CONUS). Ground fog impacts one to two 

percent of all flights at bases in the United States. In Europe this percentage 

rises to two to four percent.7 

One promising technology yet to be proven is the use of lasers to dissipate 

warm fog. Dr. Edward Tomlinson, in a report published in 1992, undertook a 

study to review the feasibility of using lasers to evaporate the water droplets 

in fog. Illumination of the fog with a 10.2 micron laser (an infrared frequency) 

causes the water droplets to rise in temperature. This rise leads to the 

evaporation of the droplet, causing an increase in visibility.8 

The laser system described in his report can be deployed around an airfield 

with no harm coming to those in the area during use. The liquid propane 

release in the Fairchild AFB system can take an hour to produce the needed 

rise in visibility. Dr. Tomlinson’s study shows that a laser system could 

achieve the same results in minutes. He estimates that the money needed for 

a proof of concept demonstration, new laser development, installation and 

initial operational development would amount to $20 million. However, 

subsequent systems would be cheaper because of earlier payment of fixed 

development costs. Tomlinson estimates that a demonstration of this method 

would cost between $600,000 to $750,000. Development of a deployable 

version of such a system is also possible.9 

22 
Why did this effort stop at phase one? According to Dr. Tomlinson, there 

was not a stated, hard requirement for such technology. While warm fog is a 

significant problem for airports, few believed a practical technology would 

emerge to overcome it. Instead, technologies were developed to “work around” 

the problem. While scientists like Dr. Tomlinson see promise in this 

technology development, lack of a technology “pull” from operational 

customers will restrict development.10 

Other, less esoteric methods of fog dissipation are available today in the 

civilian community. Considering fog simply to be a cloud on the ground leads 

to other methods, such as seeding from the air. Experiments have shown the 

use of cloud seeding agents like silver iodide can cause fog to precipitate or 

“rain” out. The fog’s moisture condenses on the silver iodide particles, forming 

larger droplets until gravity takes over and drops fall. The effect is rapid, and 

it can be shaped via a planned dispersion pattern so that the fog only clears 

where needed. While this is a proven fog dispersal technique, the civilian 

community does not use it in an operational fashion. This is due mainly to 

cost and, as stated before, acceptance of the problem itself as a given factor in 

flight operations. 

A related method that was tried but later abandoned by the military is the 

use of aircraft dry ice seeding to dissipate cold fog. In the late 1960s and early 

1970s, specially configured WC-130 aircraft were equipped with a dry ice 

crusher and dispenser. On a typical mission such aircraft would fly a seeding 

pattern consisting of between five and 30 parallel lines, each five to six miles 

long and 0.5 to 1.5 miles apart. This pattern would be flown just above the fog 

at a distance between 45 and 60 minutes upwind of the area where clearing 

was desired, with the machine generally dispensing 15 pounds of crushed dry 

ice per minute. The hole then, hopefully, drifts over the desired area at the 

desired time. The return on the investment in these operations was 

significant; during the winter of 1969–70, fog dispersal operations in the 

United States via this method cost $80,000 but saved $900,000. As weather 

modification became discredited in the mid-1970s, this method was 

abandoned.11 

New techniques being explored by the civilian community include the use 

of flares attached to aircraft flying through clouds. However, the most 

promising new developments involve not the seeding but the measurement of 

the results. Airborne and ground-based Doppler radars now provide real-time 

data on cloud seeding efforts. The radar data are used to evaluate cloud 

seeding efforts as well as to adjust those efforts immediately for better 

results. Another new technology that has been discussed but not yet exploited 

is the use of remotely piloted vehicles (RPV) to carry measuring instruments 

through the seeding candidate clouds for nearly instantaneous 

measurements. The ability of inexpensive RPVs to loiter for extended periods 

over a given area make them ideal for measuring seeding effects during a 

storm’s life. Current military operations could easily take advantage of all of 

these techniques.12 

23 
Future Military BWM Techniques

with Civilian Applications 

If the military were to pursue BWM with vigor, assistance by the military 

in civilian BWM applications would be a distinct possibility. There are two 

significant ways in which the military can use its skill in BWM: through 

unique application approaches and through unique measurement techniques. 

RPVs are quickly becoming an indispensable part of any task force. Mainly 

used for reconnaissance, RPVs are now becoming larger and carrying heavier 

payloads. While experiments have not explored this idea, it may be possible to 

use RPVs to apply seeding agents either to clouds or fog to achieve BWM. 

The advantages of using RPVs involve issues of safety as well as expense. 

What if there is a need to increase visibility over a hostile area? Seeding 

clouds or fog may be a way to increase visibility for targeting. For the 

military, using an RPV to carry and disperse a seeding agent means not 

risking a more expensive airframe over hostile territory. This also lessens the 

risk to crew members in these situations, making the use of RPVs in 

contested airspace an attractive option. Given the right configuration, an RPV 

could carry the seeding agent as well as measure and report back the results 

of the seeding. For example, one RPV configured to seed and view results 

could replace portions of the extensive airplane package involved in the CSAR 

attempt described at the beginning of this study. Such an RPV could clear the 

fog and search for the downed airmen at the same time. To increase the odds 

of finding the airmen, several RPVs could fly over a much larger area. 

Extraction could be quicker due to the ability to pinpoint the location of the 

downed airmen, increasing the safety of those involved in the mission by 

reducing exposure to the enemy. 

RPVs, because they are cheaper than aircraft and require less maintenance 

in terms of money and personnel, would also make ideal platforms for civilian 

seeding activities. Either the military or the civilian sector could develop the 

RPV, and then lease or lend the aircraft to the other. RPV deployment may 

also be less obvious, avoiding diplomatic concerns for host nation basing. 

Satellite instruments could also provide a unique perspective in measuring 

BWM effects. As instruments become more sensitive in more wavelength 

bands, it may be possible to use them to monitor ongoing activities in real 

time as well as keep an “eye” out for unforeseen weather effects. Satellites 

have a bigger footprint and can see farther over the horizon than airplanes. 

Coordination between instruments looking into different wavelengths of the 

electromagnetic spectrum will give a more complete picture of weather 

modification efforts. 

As military technology advances, every effort should be made to examine 

whether these advances have any civilian applicability. Only through close 

coordination between civilians and military researchers, though, will this 

cross flow of ideas and technology occur. 

24 
Purely Military Applications of BWM 

Civilian research and methods do not address all needs of the military. 

Perceived or actual economic benefits drive civilian BWM efforts. Therefore, 

pursuit of those techniques without any economic benefit by the civilian 

development community is unlikely. Several military-unique BWM 

applications are addressed here. 

Fog generation could be of significant value to the US military, primarily to 

obscure the view of enemy reconnaissance platforms (both aircraft and 

satellites). Military efforts at generating fog have been conducted in order to 

experiment with ways to dissipate that same fog. However, as with fog 

dissipation, the conditions must be right to generate and sustain fog. The goal 

of generating fog deliberately to hide forces from observation or attack is 

different than previous researcher goals. Therefore, future experiments would 

have to be tailored for the new objective of hiding military operations via fog 

generation.13 

Artificial fog generation occurs through the injection of water into a nearly 

saturated or saturated atmosphere. Winds must be light or calm, and surface 

heating must be at a minimum to avoid dissipating the fog too early. One use 

would be to hinder the employment of precision guided munitions (PGM) 

against friendly forces, especially those using the infrared (IR) spectrum for 

acquisition and lock on. Fog is an excellent method of preventing IR weapons 

from “seeing” enough of a contrast between the background and target to 

provide firm lock on. Fog could also protect forces from attack by lasers and 

visually aimed weapons. 

One alternative to fog generation is smoke generation. It is not as 

dependent on ideal atmospheric conditions for success. Military forces on the 

ground and ocean already use this technique to “hide.” However, it only 

obscures in the visible spectrum, whereas fog can obscure in both the visible 

and IR portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Iraq used a form of this 

when retreating troops set fire to Kuwaiti oil wells at the end of the Gulf War. 

Great amounts of smoke were produced, greatly reducing visibility over a 

large area. 

Dr. Tomlinson, in his efforts at dissipating warm fog, inadvertently found 

another way to generate fog. A pulsed laser literally causes water droplets to 

shatter. The more water droplets per given volume of air, the lower the 

visibility of the air. His studies showed an initial decrease in visibility, 

followed by the expected increase in visibility as the water droplets warmed 

and evaporated. As a result, he recommends the use of a continuous wave 

laser to avoid this initial decrease in visibility during fog dissipation. When 

asked about using a pulsed laser to deliberately decrease visibility, he said he 

felt such a decrease would be greater and more effective the closer the laser is 

to the fog (or target).14 

Another possible method of modifying the environment to hinder PGM lock 

on would be to decrease the temperature contrast between potential targets 

25 
and the surrounding terrain via heating the local environment. This would 

involve warming the ambient air around possible friendly targets. The air 

could be warmed via direct energy inputs by mechanical means or by clearing 

away clouds, allowing the sunshine to raise the temperature of the 

surrounding air. Creating clouds to block sunshine would reduce heating of 

potential friendly targets. The less the temperature contrast between the 

target and the surrounding environment, the harder it is for an IR PGM to 

achieve lock on. 

One final BWM technique with unique military applications involves 

millimeter wave (MW) radar. Dr. Tomlinson notes that his numerical 

simulations showed that larger water droplets evaporated faster than smaller 

ones. This was due primarily to their larger cross-sectional area; the larger 

the area of the droplet, the more energy the droplet absorbed and, therefore, 

the faster it would evaporate. MW radars are being developed to allow 

airplanes to land in extreme fog conditions. It is possible that a precisely 

timed effort to decrease the size of larger water droplets working together 

with the MW radar would reduce the backscatter noise from those larger 

droplets. This would make the radar more effective in “seeing” through the 

fog. Hence, Dr. Tomlinson speculates, an MW radar could be made cheaper 

since it would not have to be as efficient. In turn, the same ability can 

decrease MW effectiveness. This would help prevent enemy MW radar from 

finding friendly ground forces.15 

This brings up the obvious point: Why should the military pursue BWM 

when development is under way to alleviate weather effects via better sensors 

and radars? The fact that technology is leading to the development of more 

“all weather” products shows that weather impacts are recognized by the 

military. BWM may offer a way to reduce the weather impacts further, and it 

may be cheaper in the long run. 

In addition, BWM development may lead to counter-BWM technique 

development. Many countries use BWM primarily to enhance or protect 

agricultural output. There is no evidence that other countries are pursuing 

military applications for weather modification. As this chapter has shown, 

though, there are civilian BWM techniques that could easily be transitioned 

to military applications. Military pursuit of BWM could reveal possible 

countermeasures to enemy BWM. 

Economic Costs and Benefits of BWM 

As mentioned earlier, the only currently operational weather modification 

effort saved the Air Force money until other considerations prevented its 

efficient use (see chap. 3). There have been other weather modification efforts, 

however, that have also demonstrated the potential savings from BWM. 

Examination of insurance claims from hail damage in North Dakota 

revealed that, when potential hail producing storms were seeded, damage 

26 
was reduced in the operational area by 43.5 percent. Estimates showed a 

benefit-to-cost ratio of eight times the cost of operations. The study results 

confirmed the value of North Dakota’s continuing cloud seeding experiments. 

The study was not used to “sell” insurance companies on cloud seeding 

benefits.16 

While involvement of the US military in hail suppression in CONUS may 

not be necessary, there is precedence for the military to provide foreign 

assistance. The Philippine government in 1969 requested and received US 

military cloud seeding assistance. The effort was to increase rainfall to 

alleviate drought in the country. Partly in response to the seeding, there was 

a marked increase in sugar, rice, and corn production.17 BWM efforts, 

coordinated through the State Department and carried out by the Defense 

Department, may be an excellent way to support US allies. 

In the past weather modification experiments have been costly and 

prolonged. In order to gather enough data and to factor out climatological 

trends, modification experiments ideally last several years. As techniques and 

observation abilities improve, however, weather modification costs are falling. 

In addition, fewer necessary case studies in weather modification will mean a 

decrease in experiment length. This will translate into a more precise ability 

to apply BWM at the right place and time. 

Ultimately, the cost of BWM must be weighed against the operations it will 

benefit. What cost is too high when measured against the success or failure of 

a military operation? That decision falls to the commander directing the 

operation. BWM capability is simply an available tool that may help the 

commanders. If other techniques (smoke generation, camouflage) achieve the 

results more efficiently, they should continue to be the commander’s tool of 

choice. 

Conclusion 

This chapter reviewed current techniques in weather modification and 

their possible applicability to military operations. All these examples, 

whether developed by civilian or military researchers, have the potential to 

benefit military operations and the commander in the field. However, lack of 

study of military-specific BWM precludes the opportunity to determine BWM 

efficacy. The next chapter proposes possible next steps if the US military 

wishes to explore BWM. 

Notes 

1. Maj Robert J. Rizza, “Cold Fog Dispersal System (CFDS) End-of-Season Report, FY95,” 

Fairchild AFB, Wash., 92d Operations Support Squadron/OSW Fax, 27 February 1996, 3. 

2. MSgt William Shacklady, station chief, 3d Operations Support Squadron/OSW Fax, 3 

May 1996, 1. 

27 
3. Rizza, 5. 

4. Maj Robert J. Rizza, “Interim Activity Reports and Final Report to NOAA,” 92d 

Operations Support Squadron/OSW Fax (NOAA Form 17-4A), 21 April 1995, 1. 

5 Maj Robert J. Rizza, interviewed by author, 21 April 1996. 

6. Rizza, CFDS Report, 3–4. 

7. Edward M. Tomlinson, Kenneth C. Young, and Duane D. Smith, “Laser Technology 

Applications for Dissipation of Warm Fog at Airfields,” Phillips Laboratory Report 

PL-TR-92-2087, Hanscom AFB, Mass., March 1992, 2. 

8. Ibid., 5–7. 

9. Edward M. Tomlinson, “Re: Warm Fog Dissipation,” E-mail to the author, 24 March 

1996. 

10. Ibid. 

11. Bernard A. Silverman and Alan I. Weinstein, “Fog,” in Weather and Climate 

Modification, ed. W. N. Hess (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1974), 367–68. 

12. Joseph H. Golden, “On Future Prospects for Severe Weather Modification,” address to 

the American Meteorological Convention, Atlanta, Ga., 30 January 1996. 

13. Robert A. Sutherland, “Results of Man-Made Fog Experiment,” address to the 1991 

Battlefield Atmospherics Conference, Fort Bliss, Tex., 3–6 December 1991, 1. 

14. Tomlinson, “Re: Warm Fog Dissipation.” 

15. Ibid. 

16. Paul L. Smith et al., “An Exploratory Study of North Dakota Crop-Hail Insurance Data 

for Evidence of Seeding Effects,” address to the American Meteorological Society Convention, 

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 1987, 89. 

17. Capt Henry A. Chary, “A History of Air Weather Service Weather Modification: 

1965–1973,” Air Weather Service Report AWS-TR-74-247, Scott AFB, Ill., June 1974, 21. 

28

Chapter 5 

Conclusion and Recommendations 

Introduction 

This study examined benign weather modification as a possible option for 

assisting the military in war and peace. After reviewing briefly the history of 

scientific weather modification and defining the scope, an explanation of the 

science and technology of weather modification followed. The barriers to 

current use by the military of weather modification were then described in 

some detail. Examples were shown of current civilian techniques at weather 

modification, their possible use by the military, and some military-unique 

needs for weather modification. This chapter offers some ideas as to how the 

military should approach the subject of weather modification in the future. It 

also details some actions that the military should take in order to begin 

reusing this potentially valuable tool in war fighting. 

Why Weather Modification Now? 

Why should the military again explore the use of benign weather 

modification? Simply, the science and technology offer a way to save both 

money and lives in military operations. 

Until recently the fog dispersion system at Fairchild AFB was a proven 

money saver. From the fog season (winter) of 1980–81 until the season of 

1989–90, the system saved the Air Force $4.5 million. Over 650 departures 

and nearly 400 recoveries occurred during this same period, accounting for 

the cost savings as determined by Air Force regulations. The system has paid 

for itself many times over at this airfield.1 If the warm fog dispersion method 

by laser array can prove itself in operational tests, such a system would 

benefit both military and civilian airports worldwide. A tactical version of a 

fog dispersion system is now technically feasible. Such a device would be of 

great help during deployments to unimproved airstrips. 

As for strictly military operations, BWM could increase targeting accuracy 

while helping to reduce collateral damage. If a high value target must be 

struck with little or no collateral damage, BWM could be used first to ensure 

that the pilot is able to achieve a lock on with a precision weapon. Keep in 

mind, however, that the conditions must be right for the use of BWM in the 

29 
first place. However, having that option in the right situation may help 

prevent loss of innocent civilian lives near that target. 

BWM offers yet another tool for the war planner to use at a critical point in 

a conflict. BWM can alter the weather to assist friendly operations or deny 

the enemy protection from the elements. For instance, generating or 

dissipating clouds can hide friendly forces or expose the enemy. Enhancing 

precipitation increases available water supplies, potentially assisting both 

friendly forces and civilians in the affected area. Generating or dissipating fog 

can mask friendly troops and movements while revealing enemy forces. 

Weather modification may be the key to success or failure of the mission at a 

critical moment in a weather-sensitive military operation. 

What Will It Take to Work? 

The science of weather modification deserves another look by the US 

military. What follows are a series of recommendations based on the research 

and conversations held with weather modification experts, both in and out of 

the military. 

Recommendation one: Make a commitment to use benign weather

modification. 

Any effort to reopen and expand the use of BWM by the military will be 

met with resistance, both within and outside of the military. Therefore, the 

senior leadership will need to make clear what efforts are being explored 

with respect to weather modification. Publicizing these efforts is necessary 

in order to eliminate all traces of “cloak and dagger” efforts tainting earlier 

military weather modification efforts. Rewriting the CJCSI on meteorological operations to define legal and illegal BWM would be an excellent 

first step. 

Recommendation two: Make weather modification a dual-use technology. 

To attempt BWM in the most economical manner, make weather 

modification a dual-use effort. Examination of civilian efforts at BWM 

must be made and exploited first to achieve faster integration into military 

operations. To this end, assigning a military liaison officer to NOAA, 

preferably a weather officer, will assure the military of maintaining close 

contacts with the latest efforts in US civilian weather modification efforts. 

Because NOAA is responsible for monitoring all weather modification 

efforts in the United States, liaison with them will give the military an 

excellent opportunity to monitor the current state of the art in weather 

modification. 

30 
Recommendation three: Make weather modification a joint-use

technology. 

The Air Force is not the only service to benefit from weather modification 

efforts. While the Air Force stands to benefit the most from BWM due to its 

extensive and diverse flying mission, all services will ultimately benefit from 

BWM efforts. As a result, serious consideration must be given to make BWM 

a joint effort. Perhaps a joint office with both Navy and Air Force weather 

officers would be better at proposing military uses of BWM techniques. A joint 

office also ensures better funding for the effort as well as greater acceptance 

of weather modification among all the services. 

A joint office dealing with military weather modification could also better 

coordinate military-unique BWM science and applications. Such an office 

would provide seed money to scientific research into military-specific areas. 

Feeding these results back to the civilian community for possible civilian 

BWM benefits should be encouraged by this office. 

Recommendation four: Determine necessity for a BWM military applications cell. 

While it would seem appropriate to establish a BWM cell within the Air 

Force’s Air Weather Service (AWS), the mission may not yet warrant having 

such a cell created. Whether the scope of the effort deserves having a separate 

office established would depend on the efforts of the NOAA liaison officer. If 

an immediate payoff can be realized for military operations, then such a cell 

makes sense. However, if the military needs several years to fully exploit 

existing BWM technology, such a cell may be premature. 

If enough money and interest are immediately placed in BWM by the 

military, then such a cell of military expertise is warranted. Establishment of 

this cell would make best sense at the AWS Combat Weather Facility at 

Hurlburt Field, Florida. This facility reviews all technology and science for 

applicability to battlefield weather support. Since BWM can only legally occur 

at the tactical level of war, the individuals at the Combat Weather Facility 

would have the best vision of BWM applicability. 

Recommendation five: Fund BWM for the long term. 

The controversy associated with weather modification efforts in the past 

demands a slow, methodical pace if the military wishes to pursue BWM. 

There will be several organizations and individuals highly critical of any 

effort by the military to use weather modification, no matter how benign it is 

made. Many will feel that this is an attempt to circumvent the ENMOD 

Treaty. As a result, advertising successful uses of BWM will help greatly. The 

economic savings as well as lives spared should always be touted when BWM 

is used. Any possible benefits to the civilian sector by military BWM must be 

advertised to generate the greatest possible public relations empathy. 

Funding at a multiyear level assures continued interest in BWM by civilian 

researchers. This avoids previous complaints by researchers and ensures 

31 
well-thought-of involved BWM experiments where the results are not rushed 

or skewed by data gaps. 

Conclusion 

The science of weather modification has progressed while the military has 

ignored its potential. It is time for the military to rethink benign weather 

modification, explore its benefits more in depth, and exploit the science for 

the benefit of all involved. 

Notes 

1. Maj Robert J. Rizza, “Cold Fog Dispersal System (CFDS) End-of-Season Report, FY95,” 

Fairchild AFB, Wash.,” 92d Operations Support Squadron/OSW Fax, 27 February 1996, 5. 

32

Bibliography 

Books 

Bates, Charles C., and John F. Fuller. America’s Weather Warriors: 1814–1985. 

College Station, Tex.: Texas A&M University Press, 1986. 

Battan, Louis J., ed. Glossary of Terms Frequently Used in Weather Modification. 

Boston, Mass.: American Meteorological Society, 1968. 

Breur, Georg. Weather Modification: Prospects and Problems. New York: Cambridge 

University Press, 1979. 

Byers, Horace R. “History of Weather Modification.” In Weather and Climate Modification. Edited by W. N. Hess. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1974, 3–44. 

Cotton, William R., and Roger A. Pielke. Human Impacts on Weather and Climate. 

New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995. 

Davis, Ray J. “Weather Modification Litigation and Statutes.” In Weather and Climate Modification. Edited by W. N. Hess. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1974, 

767–86. 

Eagleman, Joe R. Severe and Unusual Weather. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold 

Co., 1983. 

Elliot, Robert D. “Experience of the Private Sector.” In Weather and Climate Modification. Edited by W. N. Hess. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1974, 45–89. 

Gleick, James. Chaos: Making a New Science. New York: Penguin Books, 1987. 

Grazulis, Thomas P. Significant Tornadoes: 1680–1991. Saint Johnsbury, Vt.: Environmental Films, 1993. 

Haas, J. Eugene. “Sociological Aspects of Weather Modification.” In Weather and 

Climate Modification. Edited by W. N. Hess. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 

1974, 787–811. 

Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General: Status as of 31 December 

1992. New York: United Nations Publications, 1993. 

Neiburger, Morris, and H. K. Weickmann. “The Meteorological Background for 

Weather Modification.” In Weather and Climate Modification. Edited by W. N. 

Hess. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1974, 93–135. 

Silverman, Bernard A., and Alan I. Weinstein. “Fog.” In Weather and Climate Modification. Edited by W. N. Hess. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1974, 355–83. 

Wallace, John M., and Peter V. Hobbs. Atmospheric Science: An Introductory Survey. 

New York: Academic Press, 1977. 

Westing, Arthur. Global Resources and International Conflict: Environmental Factors 

in Strategic Policy and Action. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. 

Addresses 

Barnes, Arnold A. Jr. “Weather Modification.” Address. Air Force 2025 Research 

Group, Maxwell AFB, Ala., 29 November 1995. 

33 
Golden, Joseph H. “On Future Prospects for Severe Weather Modification.” Address. 

American Meteorological Society Convention, Atlanta, Ga., 30 January 1996. 

Heimbach, James A. Jr., and William D. Hall. “Observations and Modeling of ValleyReleased Silver Iodide Seeding over the Wasatch Plateau.” Address. American 

Meteorological Society Convention, Atlanta, Ga., 30 January 1996. 

Ryan, Lt Gen Michael E. “NATO Air Operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina: Deliberate 

Force—29 August 1995–14 September 1995.” Address. School of Advanced Airpower Studies, Maxwell AFB, Ala., 7 February 1996. 

Smith, Paul L., et al. “An Exploratory Study of North Dakota Crop-Hail Insurance 

Data for Evidence of Seeding Effects.” Address. American Meteorological Society 

Convention, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 1987. 

Sutherland, Robert A. “Results of Man-Made Fog Experiment.” Address. 1991 Battlefield Atmospherics Conference, Fort Bliss, Tex., 3–6 December 1991. 

Instructions 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3810.01. Meteorological and 

Oceanographic Operations, 10 January 1995. 

Periodicals 

Brown, William. “Mathematicians Learn How to Tame Chaos.” New Scientist 134, 

no. 1823 (30 May 1992): 16. 

“Call for Papers: 45th Annual Meeting of the Weather Modification Association, 

23–24 May 1996, Pacific Grove, California.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 76, no. 11 (November 1995): 2314. 

Changnon, Stanley A. Jr. “Where Does Weather Modification Fit within the Atmospheric Sciences?” Journal of Weather Modification 24, no. 1 (April 1992): 

118–21. 

Changnon, Stanley A. Jr., and W. Henry Lambright. “The Rise and Fall of Federal 

Weather Modification Policy.” Journal of Weather Modification 19, no. 1 (April 

1987): 1–12. 

________. “Experimentation Involving Controversial Scientific and Technological Issues: Weather Modification as a Case Illustration.” Bulletin of the American 

Meteorological Society 71, no. 3 (March 1990): 334–44. 

Davis, Ray J. “Black Clouds and Silver Iodide: Public Safety and Weather Modification Law.” Journal of Weather Modification 23, no. 1 (April 1991): 63–66. 

________. “Weather Modification Law as a Prototype for Local Control of Inadvertent 

Weather and Climate Change.” Journal of Weather Modification 24, no. 1 (April 

1992): 122–25. 

Gedzelman, Stanley David. “Chaos Rules.” Weatherwise 47 (August-September 

1994): 21–26. 

Gelt, Joe. “Weather Modification: A Water Resource Strategy to Be Researched, 

Tested Before Tried.” Arroyo 6, no. 1 (Spring 1992): 1–9. 

Lambright, W. Henry. “A State Perspective on the Development of Weather Modification: The Case of Illinois.” Journal of Weather Modification 22, no. 1 (April 

1990): 143–51. 

34 
Milbrath, Lester W. “Climate and Chaos: Societal Impacts of Sudden Weather 

Shifts.” The Futurist 28 (May-June 1994): 26–28. 

Monastersky, R. “Can Science Whip Up a Salve for Global Wounds?” Science News 

148 (30 September 1995): 222. 

Nordwall, Bruce D. “Millimeter-Wave Radar Tested as Landing Aid.” Aviation Week 

& Space Technology 142, no. 20 (15 May 1995): 55–56. 

Orville, Harold D. “Report on the Sixth WMO Scientific Conference on Weather 

Modification.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 76, no. 3 (March 

1995): 372–73. 

Phillips, Kathryn. “Breaking the Storm.” Discover 13 (May 1992): 62–69. 

Posey, Carl. “Hurricane Omni: Scenario for Seeding an Imaginary Storm.” Omni 16 

(March 1994): 14. 

“Win the Information War.” Army 45, no. 10 (October 1995): 218–88. 

Reports, Theses, and Papers 

Asmus, Robert B. “Environmental Concerns of the Joint Task Force Commander.” 

Newport, R. I.: Naval War College, 1992. 

Brown, Ronald R. “Military Applications of Weather Modification: Legal Options.” 

Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Air Command and Staff College, 1976. 

Brownfield, Harold H. “Weather Modification and Climate Control as an Element of 

Military Power.” Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Air Command and Staff College, 1965. 

Centner, Christopher, et al. “Environmental Warfare: Implications for Policymakers 

and War Planners.” Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Air Command and Staff College, 1995. 

Chary, Capt Henry A. “A History of Air Weather Service Weather Modification: 

1965–1973.” Air Weather Service Technical Report AWS-TR-74-247. Scott AFB, 

Ill., June 1984. 

Cobb, James T. Jr., et al. “Project Popeye: Final Report.” China Lake, Calif.: Naval 

Weapons Center, 1967. 

Langmuir, Irving, et al. “Final Report: Project Cirrus.” General Electric Research 

Laboratory No. PL 140, Schenectady, N.Y., 31 December 1948. 

Merlo, Anthony L. “Is Weather Modification Defense Feasible?” Maxwell AFB, Ala.: 

Air War College, 1966. 

O’Neal, Joe R. “Military Aspects of Weather Modification.” Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Air 

Command and Staff College, 1967. 

Rizza, Maj Robert J. “Cold Fog Dispersal System (CFDS) End-of-Season Report, FY 

95.” Fairchild AFB, Wash.: 92d Operations Support Squadron/OSW, 27 February 1996. 

________. “Meteorological Conditions, Theory of Operations and History, CFDS.” 

Fairchild AFB, Wash.: 92d Operations Support Squadron/OSW, 21 April 1995. 

Stralka, Raymond J. “Some Economic and Military Aspects of Weather Modification.” Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Air War College, 1970. 

Tomlinson, Edward M., Kenneth C. Young, and Duane D. Smith. “Laser Technology 

Applications for Dissipation of Warm Fog at Airfields.” Hanscom AFB, Mass.: 

Phillips Laboratory, March 1992. 

35 
Vostruxov, Ye. “Laser and Cloud: Unusual Experiment of Siberian Scientists.” 

Translated by SCITRAN. Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio: Foreign Technology Division, September 1987. 

Watt, Angus. “Weather Modification: The Ultimate Weapon?” Maxwell AFB, Ala.: 

Air War College, 1993. 

Wei, Zhou. “Meteorological Weapons.” Translated by SCITRAN. Wright-Patterson 

AFB, Ohio: Foreign Technology Division, March 1985. 

36