New Weapon - GAY GAS????

Non-Lethal Systems Already in Use
Instant Banana Peel: It is a slippery surface coating first used for riot control in 1972 to deny either foot or vehicular travel.

Uh, would that be shortened in name and become the "K-Y Bomb," Boomer?

The bigotry aside, which I think we all agree was clearly demostrated by the fella that suggested it, I'm intrigued by the idea of a weapon that would cause the enemy to become non-violent or in some way inhibit their desire to fight.

Something like an opium bomb might be interesting and would give Afghanistan a new market.

Quote:

In January, the Department of Defense confirmed a report that Air Force officials proposed developing a chemical weapon in 1994 that would turn enemies gay. The proposal, part of a plan from Wright Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, was to develop "chemicals that effect (sic) human behavior so that discipline and morale in enemy units is adversely effected (sic). One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior." SLDN also condemned that report, and the Pentagon later said it never intended to develop the program.

Some Info Here

Sorry, but other than the outrageous suggestion that "gays" are unable to fight, I actually think the idea of a weapon that causes the enemy to focus on making love not war is pretty doggone good.

Any thoughts?

As I attempted to note, Setanta. I don't believe that to be the case.

However, a weapon that causes the enemy to have perpetual "hard-ons" would seem to divert their attention, and would appear to be a decent weapon if there is such a thing.

Would it be against Geneva or any other rules of war to use such a chemical?

Quote:

In January, the Department of Defense confirmed a report that Air Force officials proposed developing a chemical weapon in 1994 that would turn enemies gay. The proposal, part of a plan from Wright Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, was to develop "chemicals that effect (sic) human behavior so that discipline and morale in enemy units is adversely effected (sic). One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior." SLDN also condemned that report, and the Pentagon later said it never intended to develop the program.

Some Info Here

Sorry, but other than the outrageous suggestion that "gays" are unable to fight, I actually think the idea of a weapon that causes the enemy to focus on making love not war is pretty doggone good.

Any thoughts?

Despite the fact that the Articles of War in the United States had always prohibited "sodomy," not much effort ever seems to have been made to prevent the practice. Anectdotal evidence suggests that instances of "buggery" always increased during and after battles--the notion that it would have any affect on the fighting effectiveness of troops is indeed an instance of gross stupidity on the part of whoever came up with this idiocy.

Women have been involved in battle throughout history. Among the Kelts, not only was it common, it was considered the place of women to go into battle just as did the men, and older women were often charged with teaching martial skills to the boys and girls of the tribe. The legends surrounding the great Irish mythic hero Cu Chulainn have him learning his weapons skills from two Scots (i.e., in the Dalraida, Irish colonists) "witches." The word "witch" is an English corruption of "wicca" (the modern day "wiccans" are an even grosser, and witless, corruption), which simply means an initiate into certain mysteries. Therefore, calling these Scots women witches meant they were well schooled in their metier--in that case, the use of weapons.

When the French foreign legion marched into Dahomey to put down the slave trade in 1892, they found themselves fighting an all-female army numbering in the thousands. It is also thought the legend of the Amazons derives from Aryan tribes, and perhaps Kelts, among whom female warriors were common.

Did you have to bring up the woman thing??? I'm not saying that women can't be brave, but the notion that they can physically compete with men in battle is ludicrous.

However, a weapon that causes the enemy to have perpetual "hard-ons" would seem to divert their attention, and would appear to be a decent weapon if there is such a thing.

My ancient ancestors went into battle nekkid . . . havin' a big hard-on was considered a sign of martial prowess . . .

John Creasy wrote:

Did you have to bring up the woman thing??? I'm not saying that women can't be brave, but the notion that they can physically compete with men in battle is ludicrous.

Talk about GAS!