Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Just plain weird

This one is just plain weird: back in 1994 the US Air Force sought funding to create a "gay bomb" which would disrupt enemy forces by turning them all homosexual:

As part of a military effort to develop non-lethal weapons, the proposal suggested, "One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior."

The documents show the Air Force lab asked for $7.5 million to develop such a chemical weapon.

"The Ohio Air Force lab proposed that a bomb be developed that contained a chemical that would cause enemy soliders to become gay, and to have their units break down because all their soldiers became irresistably attractive to one another," Hammond said after reviwing the documents.

Clearly they'd never heard of the Sacred band of Thebes.

I'm not sure whether this is offensive or absurd, but it does say rather a lot about the bigotry and neuroses of the USAF's "scientists" that they'd regard such an idea as either effective or credible.


dropping mind altering chemicals all over an enemy - hmmm I think that would be the main issue.

However I think it would have an effect - thinking about sex could distract you quite effectively particularly if that thought hapened to be one that disagreed with your own morals. So it might be of only minimal use if fighting the netherlands but quite effective against iran.

One could consider the bomb to be er a "homophobe bomb"


Posted by Anonymous : 6/13/2007 07:30:00 AM

> And its absurd because there's so much medical data that shows that sexual orientation is immutable and cannot be changed."

by the way I find this laughable. Of course you can change sexuality you might as well say I can't learn how to use my right hand if I'm left handed. (which would be a much stronger claim I think)

Dont tell me no 'gay' people are ever attracted to the other sex and no straight people are ever attracted to their own sex, thats just crazy talk.

Of course debating this sort ofthing is usually like debating with a religious fanatic.

and to answer the obvious yes I think if I wanted to I could become gay or not gay. and the 'why would anyone choose to be gay argument is A) silly - it does have benefits and B) like asking why people dont make strategic choices in all their decisions in life (people just dont because we are not robots).


Posted by Anonymous : 6/13/2007 07:43:00 AM

This is such a fun item!
Of course we need a bomb like that: turning fighting units into a bunch of madly raving drag queens setting loose on the enemy will win any war!
The Theban band of soldier lovers were a legendary fierce fighting force, something the US armed forces should be advised to emulate instead of trying to suppress it with that ridiculous Don't ask Don't tell policy. That is completely counterproductive, because it seems it's getting rid a lot of intelligence gathering ability: 58 Arab translators have been dismissed (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/opinion/08benjamin.html)

But on the other hand, imagine what the constant shelling during World War I with pellets of amyl nitrate could have done to shorten that carnage. Men on men loving is a far greater threat to religious and bigoted societies than wars ever will be.

Posted by Hans Versluys : 6/13/2007 10:42:00 AM

What a fantastic idea.

Instead of Mutually Assured Destruction we would have Mutually Assured Mardigras. If that wouldn't turn Iran Liberal then what would?

Posted by Anonymous : 6/13/2007 10:50:00 AM

The true use of this bomb was as the cover story for why they are Gay. Obviously coming into contact with the active agent which turned them. Who hasn't the USA poisoned - as such what a great excuse for the thousands of gays in the military to be 'victims' of poisoning. Therefore victims of active duty, Defending America and allowed to stay in the Military.

Posted by Michael : 6/13/2007 11:39:00 AM

An aphrodisiac bomb? But what if terrorists uleashed it on a bus?

Posted by Lyndon : 6/13/2007 12:48:00 PM

Or in Congress?

Of course, back in 1994 when this idea was floated, the US (like most militaries at the time) allowed women to serve in non-combat roles. And its the non-combat troops who tend to get bombed. So maybe it would be better called the "rape bomb"?

(Nowdays of course the US - along with Saudi Arabia, Iran, Cuba and China - is one of the few countries inthe world that cares which way its soldiers swing. To everyone else its just a non-issue).

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 6/13/2007 01:04:00 PM

Blogged about this before: http://uroskin.blogspot.com/2005/01/useless-inventions-ive-been-little-bit.html

Posted by Hans Versluys : 6/13/2007 01:28:00 PM

I supose its more desirable they do that than biological, genetic race targeted wepons.

Posted by Anonymous : 6/13/2007 05:13:00 PM

LOL - I like Mutually Assured Mardigras.

"I'm going to KILL YOU!!" changes to..."Oh my! Combat fatigues make your butt look so hot! I know you're the enemy but come here you hunk of muscle."

And btw, of course sexual orientation can be changed for some people. Others seem to be more set in their orientation, but I've seen plenty of hetro lads getting it on with the hot boy at the party. And girls are even more fluid when it comes to attraction.

Posted by Muerk : 6/13/2007 06:14:00 PM

I've never quite understood the US obsession with homosexuality.

If you're going to experiment with this sort of thing then why try to turn the soldiers gay?

Wouldn't it be just as effective to drop a busload of bunny girls in front of the troops?

Posted by Anonymous : 6/13/2007 06:14:00 PM

Because gang raping bunny girls would be so much better than a bunch of soldiers having sex amongst themselves??

Hello! You'd be a guy I'm suspecting. Yes?

Posted by Muerk : 6/14/2007 01:12:00 PM

Some people decide their orientation, others just know.

I would think the first group are really bisexual predominately though (just of note Joss Stone is thinking of going lesbian). Whereas the second group have had social forces construct their sexuality much more intensely and thus 'know' that they are straight or gay.

This debate really comes down to nature versus nurture.

Posted by G7 : 6/14/2007 01:50:00 PM

I note with amusement that the Navy wasn't consulted on this plan ;-)

Posted by Anonymous : 6/14/2007 04:17:00 PM

I note with amusement that the Navy wasn't consulted on this plan ;-)

Posted by Anonymous : 6/14/2007 04:17:00 PM