From New Scientist
The Pentagon considered developing a host of non-lethal chemical weapons that would disrupt discipline and morale among enemy troops, newly declassified documents reveal.
Most bizarre among the plans was one for the development of an "aphrodisiac" chemical weapon that would make enemy soldiers sexually irresistible to each other. Provoking widespread homosexual behaviour among troops would cause a "distasteful but completely non-lethal" blow to morale, the proposal says.
The other plans - halitosis bombs, wasp-attractors, and the like, can be read about at the link.
One must ask, though: Is having sex necessarily a blow to morale, though?
Comments (8)
What I wonder is, how could they even _begin_ to think that a bomb that turns soldiers homosexual would be okay'd by the White House?
Posted by Prof. Buttumsup | January 13, 2005 3:06 PM
Posted on January 13, 2005 15:06
Prof, if you look at the story, the *rejected* proposals date back to 1994... two years into the first term of President Bill Clinton.
Also, the story makes it pretty clear that the proposals were made by scientists (and that would be *scientists seeking funding*), and are not simply requests from insane military types.
Posted by cars | January 13, 2005 6:35 PM
Posted on January 13, 2005 18:35
Now that's some funny stuff! ☺
Posted by Garth Wallace | January 14, 2005 12:50 AM
Posted on January 14, 2005 00:50
Cars, I fail to see your reasoning. What's wrong with insane scientists seeking funding? In this case though, I'm sure there must have been military type involved. Nobody with the IQ of a scientist would think this scheme would pass the White House. BILL CLINTON, of all people, should believe enemy soldiers would feel being dozed with an aphrodoziac is a BAD thing???
Posted by Prof. Buttumsup | January 14, 2005 9:50 AM
Posted on January 14, 2005 09:50
What reasoning are you referring to, Prof? I simply pointed out a couple parts of the story that were left out here.
Posted by cars | January 14, 2005 4:04 PM
Posted on January 14, 2005 16:04
Weel, no need to spell out the story you linked to in full, methinks =)
Posted by Einar | January 14, 2005 9:06 PM
Posted on January 14, 2005 21:06
Prof, how are those X-Ray specs coming along?
Posted by Reinder | January 14, 2005 9:17 PM
Posted on January 14, 2005 21:17
My good man, re your recent complaint about the beta-test x-ray specs mailed you November last: Over the Christmas holidays our technical department have carried out extensive testing, and ascertained to our complete satisfaction that your retinal burns are not due to any faults wiith the product but must be attributed to user error. Please refer to the user manual, which will be provided with release 2 of the finished product.
You may be interested in learning that our laboratory is already working on "X-SPEC 2.C", which features computer-enhanched image generation. In this edition, electrodes inserted behind the users eyeballs will accurately interpret his expectations and enhance the produced images accordingly. Enhacement degree may be adjusted on a scale ranging from, in laymans terms, the marginally possible to well beyond utter wishfulfillment.
This product is fully sponsored by the Orbital White House.
Posted by Prof. Buttumsup | January 17, 2005 9:03 AM
Posted on January 17, 2005 09:03