I do not often write about military-style radionics. Everything in this article is from open sources, mostly books and articles. Nothing is confirmed or denied. If you read carefully, you will notice that everything in this article is common sense. In addition, I am not talking about any specific military. Not American, not Russian, not British, not European, etc. I am talking about the military as a profession, and that transgresses nationality and lies in professionalism and mindset. If you want to learn Military Radionics, stop reading; you won’t learn it here. If you want to know what any specific military is doing, this is not the place, as I don’t know.
There are several reasons I don’t write about military-style radionics.
The first is simple: this is not a subject that should be handled casually. Not everything that can be discussed should be turned into public instruction. Every serious field has private areas. Medicine has private patient records. Law has privileged communications. Computer security has techniques that should not be handed to criminals. Engineering has safety limits. Even cooking has recipes people refuse to share.
Radionics is no different.
The second reason is that the actual military has been very tight-lipped about this general subject for a long time. The public record contains material on remote viewing, psychoenergetics, intelligence collection, and related programs. Anyone can now find declassified documents showing that the subject was taken seriously enough to be studied, organized, funded, criticized, defended, and eventually officially discontinued.
But those documents do not tell the whole story.
They also do not prove every story that has been told around campfires, conferences, bookstores, and late-night radio shows. This is where discipline is required. A serious person must be willing to say two things at the same time: yes, there was official interest in unusual human perception and intelligence collection; and no, that does not mean every rumor about psychic warfare is true.
This is where radionics enters the discussion carefully.
Military-style radionics should not be understood as a civilian hobby or even a civilian profession with camouflage painted on it. It is not merely taking a witness, turning dials, and giving the operation a more dramatic name. Military-style work begins with a different mindset.
Civilian radionics usually begins with a problem.
A person is uncomfortable. A field is not producing. A house feels wrong. A business is stuck. A student wants to learn. A practitioner seeks balance, correction, improvement, or understanding.
Military-style radionics begins with mission. Mission is the driving force behind all military actions. It is not to be misunderstood, and it is not even close to what a civilian may think of as goal-oriented actions. It is much more.
That changes everything.
A mission requires a defined legal target, a purpose, a boundary, an expected militarily legal result, a method of observation, and an understanding of risk. The question is not simply “Can something be done?” The question is, “Should this be done, by whom, under what authority, with what restraint, and how will anyone know whether the result was useful?”
That is a very different standard.
This is also why I am cautious about teaching too much. Radionics without ethics is already a problem. Radionics with targeting discipline and no ethics is a larger problem. The more capable a method becomes, the more important restraint becomes. A child can be careless with a rubber band. He should not be careless with a rifle. The principle is the same.
Military-style work also teaches one of the hardest lessons in radionics: information is often more important than force.
Beginners like force. They want big broadcasts, strong fields, dramatic symbols, and heroic intentions. That may satisfy the ego, but it is not always good work. In intelligence, the first need is often not to push but to perceive. What is the target? What is present? What is hidden? What is changing? What is the pattern? What is the resistance? What does the operator think he knows that he does not actually know?
A wrong answer delivered with confidence is worse than no answer at all.
This is one of the places where remote viewing and radionics touch each other, even though they are not the same thing. Remote viewing attempts to obtain information about a target beyond ordinary sensory access. Radionics uses witness, rate, intention, instrument, and operator to interact with target information. Both fields force us to ask whether information may be available in ways not accounted for by ordinary material assumptions.
That does not make every session accurate.
It does not make every operator reliable.
It does not make every claim true.
In fact, the military problem is partly that the standard is higher. A farmer may experiment with a field and learn over a season. A private operator may work on a personal concern and judge the outcome gradually. An intelligence officer does not have that luxury. Intelligence must be timely, relevant, and usable. It must be checked against other sources. It must be separated from imagination, projection, wishful thinking, and noise.
This may explain why official conclusions about remote viewing were mixed or negative even when some participants believed useful work had been done. The military does not merely ask, “Was something interesting observed?” It asks, “Can this be used reliably in operations?” That is a much harsher question.
Radionics people should understand that distinction.
Anecdotes are not enough. Strong impressions are not enough. A dramatic hit is not enough. If a method is to be used seriously, especially in a military or intelligence context, it must be disciplined, recorded, reviewed, and compared against reality. The operator must be willing to be wrong. That is not a weakness. It is the beginning of competence.
Military-style radionics also differs from ordinary practice in its use of language. The civilian practitioner may speak in broad terms: balance, vitality, clearing, support, correction. Military-style work thinks in terms of target, objective, signal, interference, protection, concealment, exposure, timing, and effect.
That language is not decorative. It shapes the mind of the operator.
If you call something a “wish,” you mentally treat it one way.
If you call it an “operation,” you mentally treat it another way.
Words matter because they organize intention.
This is where my computer background also affects how I look at the subject. In computing, a system does exactly what it is instructed to do, not what the programmer vaguely hoped it would do. A sloppy instruction produces sloppy behavior. A poorly defined target produces unreliable results. A hidden assumption becomes a bug. A missing constraint can create damage. That is true in software, and I believe something similar is true in radionics. Another difference from computers is that in computers, you define how to get to the goal. In Radionics, the goal is more important than how you get there.
Military-style work must include constraints.
Do not exceed authority.
Do not act without purpose.
Do not confuse curiosity with mission.
Do not substitute emotion for signal.
Do not perform work merely because the operator wants to feel powerful.
Do not publish methods that could be misused by the foolish, the unstable, or the malicious.
That last point is important. Some readers will want details. They will want procedures, rates, structures, or examples. I am not going to provide them. A public blog is not the place for that. The purpose of this article is not to train operators in military-style radionics. It is to explain why the subject exists, why it is guarded, and why it should be approached with more seriousness than fantasy.
There is also a moral problem.
In healing, agriculture, and personal work, the stated purpose is usually improvement or balance. Military work may involve defense, intelligence, disruption, concealment, protection, or other objectives. Some of those objectives may be lawful and necessary under proper authority. Some may not be and must be rejected. The operator cannot hide from that issue by pretending that radionics is only symbolic. If one believes radionics can affect real patterns, then one must also accept real responsibility.
That responsibility is why I prefer the term
“disciplined radionics” over glamorous terms such as “psychic warfare.”
The phrase “psychic warfare” attracts the wrong kind of mind. It attracts people who want power before they have character. It attracts fantasy, paranoia, and theatrical thinking. Disciplined radionics is less exciting but far more accurate. It reminds the operator that the first requirement is not drama. It is clarity.
What can be said publicly?
We can say that governments studied unusual perception and psych energetic questions.
We can say that the military interest was connected to intelligence, threat assessment, and operational usefulness.
We can say that the public record is incomplete.
We can say that remote viewing and radionics are not identical, but they share an interest in information beyond ordinary sensory access.
We can say that military-style radionics, as a concept, is less about theatrics and more about target discipline, restraint, operational clarity, and ethical boundaries.
We can also say that some things should remain taught only under responsible conditions.
That last sentence will disappoint some people. Good.
Disappointment is sometimes a useful filter.
A serious student will understand that guarded knowledge is not always hidden because it is false. Sometimes it is guarded because careless publication would damage the field, the student, or other people. Radionics has suffered enough from ridicule, exaggeration, and irresponsible claims. It does not need more of them.
Military-style radionics is real enough to discuss but not something to sensationalize.
It belongs in the same category as other serious subjects: worthy of study, surrounded by uncertainty, historically entangled with secrecy, and requiring moral restraint.
The machine is never the whole issue.
The operator is.
I may not ever write about this topic again, but I think I have said all that needs to be said in a public forum.
OPEN SOURCES
The following open sources are useful for readers who want to understand the public historical background. They do not all discuss radionics directly. Most of the public record concerns remote viewing, psychoenergetics, parapsychology, and intelligence collection.
CIA Reading Room: STAR GATE Collection
This is the primary public archive for declassified U.S. government documents connected with STAR GATE and related material.
Defense Intelligence Agency / National Security Archive: SUN STREAK and related declassified source material
These documents are useful because they show the official vocabulary used in the field, including remote viewing, psychoenergetics, intelligence collection, foreign assessment, GONDOLA WISH, GRILL FLAME, SUN STREAK, and STAR GATE.
American Institutes for Research: An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications, 1995
This is important because it gives the official review perspective. It is not a believer’s document. It discusses the history, controversy, research issues, and operational usefulness question.
Russell Targ and Harold E. Puthoff, Mind-Reach
A useful early book from the Stanford Research Institute side of the story. It helps explain how remote viewing entered the modern research vocabulary.
Paul H. Smith, Reading the Enemy’s Mind: Inside Star Gate
A detailed insider account of the U.S. military remote viewing program. Useful for understanding the operational culture and the difference between casual psychic experimentation and structured intelligence work.
Joseph McMoneagle, Remote Viewing Secrets
Recommended for readers who want a disciplined remote viewing perspective from one of the best-known figures associated with STAR GATE.
Lyn Buchanan, The Seventh Sense
Another insider-style account connected with the military remote viewing community. Best read with discernment, but useful for understanding the culture, language, and claims of that world.
Annie Jacobsen, Phenomena
A journalistic history of U.S. government interest in extrasensory perception, psychokinesis, intelligence, and national security. It is broader than remote viewing alone and is useful as an overview for readers new to the subject.
A final caution: open sources are not the same as complete sources. Declassified documents show that official interest existed. They do not prove every claim made by later writers, teachers, or enthusiasts. A responsible reader should keep both facts in mind.
©September 2026 by Peter V. Radatti