The Gay Bomb

Remove all ads!

I'm curious if it would have worked.

 

"John?... John! What are you doing? Get your hand off my arse and pick your gun up you ****, look!"

 

This is the kind of news story you'd swear came from The Onion. It's pretty humiliating for us that it didn't. This was actually seriously considered.

Perhaps we need to drop a "smart" bomb in that wing of the Pentagon.

 

I guess the DARPA has thought HARD about the meanest thing they could to to their enemies, except killing them, and found something WORSE: Make them gay !!!! MWAHAHAHAHA!

Insofar, smart-bombing the Pentagon probably is the unfair, seems they were the guys who rejected that nonsense, as nonsense.

 

Hilarious.

My interpretation of the weapon idea is the development of a chemical which would act as ultra-strong aphrodisiac AND inhibit sexual orientation bias. Put a lot of young men together, make their sexual drive uncontrollable while opening the realm of sexual partners to anyone. Would it work? Interesting question.

There is no statement direct or implied that assumes gays cannot fight for their country -- it is simply an idea to develop a drug which has the temporary affects as I described above. They are not 'making the other soldiers gay' -- just making them ... preoccupied ... at the start of an attack (always an advantage to surprise your opponent).

There is another aspect of the effects of such a weapon -- some cultures are very much against homosexual behavior. This would possibly create morale problems -- the stink sprays developed in WWII were similar, and were intended to destroy the soldiers morale by making them smell REALLY bad (think of the worst thing you have ever smelled and increase the concentration exponentially).

Is it possible? I doubt it. But then I would have laughed at the idea of Viagra 20 years ago, too.

 

I'm actually with T2B on this; the theory is interesting - more of a focus on eliminating the opponents military preparedness.

Even development of the agent may well be possible - ruffies, anyone?

Deployment of same would be problematic - gases and liquids have a notorious inability to tell friend from foe. What happens when your troops occupy the positions you bombarded? They wear full NBC gear? That reduces their combat effectiveness...

 

The solution for dealing with possble blowback of Agent Gay on US troops is to not reintroduce 'don't ask, don't tell'. After a thorough purge there wouldn't be any gayness left in the US armed forces.

Gay troops in the US forces could then sue for compensation, because in a non-gay army utilising such formidable weapons, only blowback could explain their gayness. Crafty.
The US armed forces could then compensate soldiers for being gay instead of firing them. Speak about a good reason to keep them gay translators. Except, of course, gayness is a choice even after the use of Agent Gay. Then fire them anyway because these fornicating perverts are just incorrigible no matter what you spray around.

Ugh. I need coffee. Good morning btw.

 

Actually I like T2's sorta of suggestion. They should invent an improved Viagra bomb. I think that would definitly cause a problem for soldiers. Especially if it was one of those more than four hour bombs.

 

Chemical warfare? I was under the impression that we were opposed to that. Er, or is that only when the other guy is doing it?

 

As of April 1997, the US entered into a treaty with most other nations in the world, agreeing not to use chemical weapons, and to destroy existing stockpiles of the same. In the 10+ years that have elapsed since, we've destroyed about half of the stockpile. But to answer the question, yes, since the Chemical Weapons Convention 10 years ago we aren't supposed to be using chemical weapons. Of course, the current administration doesn't exactly have an outstanding track record of honoring international treaties.

 

That and there is a fairly specific definition of chemical weapon -- but in general it must cause physical harm to the intended victim. This would be outside that definition.

By the way, this administration had nothing to do with this particular issue. Our previous administration was quite adept at pushing definitions to the limit (e.g., the definition of sexual relations was quite interesting).

 

Right. For background information on serious 'non-lethal' chemical or biological weapons the Sunshine Project is probably the best source.

PS: One of their article highlights the persistence of once established defense research structures - as in cold war chemical weapons programs relabeling themselves and coming to new life under the label of 'non-lethal' weapons research.

The first time I noticed that was when I read in the late 1980s about the cancelled Assault Breaker missile system against the Warsaw Pact onslaught, that was reborn as the ATACMS missile system to engage the post cold war world.

[ June 18, 2007, 20:12: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

The Sunshine Project the 'best source?' I don't think so. Biased sources are never 'best sources.'

One item of interest is the interpretation of physical harm. A non-lethal weapon has to be exactly that. The delivery system must be non-lethal (but not during testing phases), and any chemicals used cannot have lethal side effects. This presents some very difficult obstacles to overcome -- even a lethal allergic reaction is unacceptable.

Another item is pain and suffering -- even poison ivy juice is too harsh and not allowed as a non-lethal weapon (it would be a great contact deterrant) because it violates the chemical weapon ban.

Ah, well... I'm not associated with that stuff anymore.

 

T2,
sure they are biased. They are concerned. I understand why, I underwent NBC detection training. You will hardly find a truly 'unbiased source' on chemical and biological weapons. The Sunshiners ask neccessary questions, no matter how biased they might be - the sort of questions I don't expect from the cheerleaders in the labs and the folks who want to keep the labs in the military research business. In that sense the Sunshiners serve an important purpose.

It might be understandable to allow the military to at least use stuff like CS or CN, after all we allow our cops to use that. But there we are at the top of a slippery slope. The potential treaty busting implications of use and research in that field are a point the Sunshiners are absolutely correct about.

Personally, I find such research hard to reconcile with the CWC. It is stupid to uncritically buy gvt utterances. Just think about the frequency of Tony Snow contradicting himself, to put it charitable. Be happy there are folks like the Sunshiners.

 

If an army were to fight the Israelis (just to use them as an example) all they would have to do would make the weapon an ultra-aphrodisiac, as IIRC the genders in that army are about even.

Tear gas is a chemical, but most nations regularly deploy the stuff. I can't see how making a soldier so horny he can't concentrate on fighting being any worse than tear gas.

I REALLY doubt, though, the idea that a chemical could render a straight guy queer or a queer guy straight.

 

No, I doubt it, as well. One possibility would be an ultra-aphrodisiac that makes the subject so horny any sexual orientation becomes moot. (warn the sheep ) But on the other hand, even a session of 'self-love' would still be just as incapacitating to a soldier...