Would the revelation of Climate Control Technology to the Public render it unusable?

Question

I assume two Empires, A and B. A direct conflict between them would be tantamount to total annihilation, as both sides possess nuclear weapons and noone will be the first side to use them.

They also have both acquired the ability to wipe out the entire biosphere, as would have been previously possible with the nuclear weapons.

Provided one of the sides discovered technology to cause drought and flooding by climate control and earthquakes and subsidence by methods of vibration applied to the ground of their planet.

That would provide them with a crypto-military macro alternative, namely bringing down pseudo-natural elemental disasters upon the other empire through climate or seismic tempering.

However that would not be pseudo-natural for long, as anyone who is himself able to act cryptomilitarily will recognize similar actions taken against his empire.

If either Empire was now attacked cryptomilitarily, would the revelation of the attack to the own public (and as much possible to the public of the other Empire) make such attacks unpractical?

Would the revelation of the possibility of cryptomilitary attacks, which inevitably would have to entail some information about the method of attack, make the employment of such methods less feasible, as the awareness of the mechanisms and necessary precursors for such an attack to succeed would now be recognized by the public and hence, cause the public to look out for signs of such methods of attack being launched at them (with the invariably occuring accusation that such attack was launched by one's own empire against one's own public)?

So if I am Empire A and I put a drought on Empire B and Empire B finds out about it, it would not tell about it to all because then it couldnt use that method itself anymore, right?

Answer 1

Assumptions:

• Both Empires want the other to become their empire.
• Both Empires cannot use direct conflict due to Mutually Assured Destruction.
• The PR people of each empire don't want to admit ethical mistakes or inhumane actions, despite their willingness to do shady crypto-military things.
• There are no Edward Snowdens.

Should these governments disclose their ability to manipulate weather?

The Case For No

If one empire crumbles because of drought, floods, etc., it can be sold to people as an (legal) "act of God," and the relief effort for that can be used as a method of takeover. We actually saw a glimpse of "using human rights to take over" with the Russian Annexation of Crimea.

The history books would simply blame an empire's collapse on nature, not on the other empire. The conquering relieving empire would be seen as taking the moral high road. Besides, weather manipulation could be a weapon neither side expected to see from the other, and in this situation, each empire would leverage even small advantages.

The Case for Yes

If a population found out they switched their empire for the other empire because of shady crypto-military operations, that could cause a former peaceful group into a revolutionist entity. Revolutions are generally bad things, as you can see in Syria.

Besides, an empire can use the other empire as a scapegoat for all the bad weather they experience, which could lead up to war or other reparations. However, both empires can play this game, and it may devolve into either each country officially controlling their own weather or playing the blame game.

The Verdict

The Case for No seems more compelling. I would see these empires not disclosing their ability to manipulate the weather. It's too good as a secret to tell anyone.

Answer 2

Your question is confusing, so I'll just focus on the one part that actually is a question -

"If either Empire was now attacked cryptomilitarily, would the revelation of the attack to the own public (and as much possible to the public of the other Empire) make such attacks unpractical?"

Answer: No.

First of all, the attacks may or may not actually be attacks. After all, natural disasters do occur all by themselves, and really makes for some pretty good plausible deniability. Secondly, I think you're ignoring the political motivation a group could have for taking credit for a natural disaster. Take terrorist groups for instance. They could claim they have the technology to cause, or have caused, an earthquake, and threaten governments at will. The government being threatened may know whether the claims are credible, but the general public may be more fearful, uneducated, or just generally conspiracy-minded. Weather control, especially if the technology is known to the general public, could be a very effective social, political, and military tool, even if it is never really used.