Non lethal blow

[SLCPUNK]

US military pondered love not war

The unconventional proposals were made by the US Air Force
The US military investigated building a "gay bomb", which would make enemy soldiers "sexually irresistible" to each other, government papers say.

Other weapons that never saw the light of day include one to make soldiers obvious by their bad breath.

The US defence department considered various non-lethal chemicals meant to disrupt enemy discipline and morale.

The 1994 plans were for a six-year project costing $7.5m, but they were never pursued.

The US Air Force Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio, sought Pentagon funding for research into what it called "harassing, annoying and 'bad guy'-identifying chemicals".

The plans were obtained under the US Freedom of Information by the Sunshine Project, a group which monitors research into chemical and biological weapons.

'Who? Me?'

The plan for a so-called "love bomb" envisaged an aphrodisiac chemical that would provoke widespread homosexual behaviour among troops, causing what the military called a "distasteful but completely non-lethal" blow to morale.

Scientists also reportedly considered a "sting me/attack me" chemical weapon to attract swarms of enraged wasps or angry rats towards enemy troops.

A substance to make the skin unbearably sensitive to sunlight was also pondered.

Another idea was to develop a chemical causing "severe and lasting halitosis", so that enemy forces would be obvious even when they tried to blend in with civilians.

In a variation on that idea, researchers pondered a "Who? Me?" bomb, which would simulate flatulence in enemy ranks.

Indeed, a "Who? Me?" device had been under consideration since 1945, the government papers say.

However, researchers concluded that the premise for such a device was fatally flawed because "people in many areas of the world do not find faecal odour offensive, since they smell it on a regular basis".

Captain Dan McSweeney of the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate at the Pentagon said the defence department receives "literally hundreds" of project ideas, but that "none of the systems described in that [1994] proposal have been developed".

He told the BBC: "It's important to point out that only those proposals which are deemed appropriate, based on stringent human effects, legal, and international treaty reviews are considered for development or acquisition."

[25]

None of those are a patch on the incendiary bat bombs. Poor bats.

[Rockin' Rose]

2 things that they should develope,

Stomach-ache bomb

Basicly a bomb that would upon impact, emit stomach-ache causing gass, would be easy to attack while the enemy is feeling sick or sitting in the toilet.

Hallusination bomb

Basicly a bomb filled with the best hallusination drugs, would be easy to attack while the enemy sees rainbows and yetis.

[polluxlm]

What happened to good ol' fashioned killing?

[25]

What happened to good ol' fashioned killing?

The thing is, modern killing machines are so complex as to require some sort of training or education in their use. Much easier to have our Nintendo pilots drop gas bombs on people and let science do all the work.


But seriously, a gay bomb? It's not enough that all the bullets and the bombs are dick-shaped? 

[polluxlm]

What happened to good ol' fashioned killing?

The thing is, modern killing machines are so complex as to require some sort of training or education in their use. Much easier to have our Nintendo pilots drop gas bombs on people and let science do all the work.


But seriously, a gay bomb? It's not enough that all the bullets and the bombs are dick-shaped??

Man, you just opened to me a whole new level of understanding.

[Axlfreek]

What happened to good ol' fashioned killing?

The thing is, modern killing machines are so complex as to require some sort of training or education in their use. Much easier to have our Nintendo pilots drop gas bombs on people and let science do all the work.


But seriously, a gay bomb? It's not enough that all the bullets and the bombs are dick-shaped??

Man, you just opened to me a whole new level of understanding.

"Suck dicks. Not war"


 

[polluxlm]

[Rockin' Rose]

That looks kinda unpractical

"Ahmed! Hide behind that car!"

[Gordon Gekko]

"The Russians developed a chemical that could be put in the drinking water supply and cause mass stupidity. The result of this experiment was the election and when the dosage was increased the subsequent reelection of Bush, the worship of Paris Hilton, and the popularity of Gansta Rap music."

[Prometheus]

What happened to good ol' fashioned killing?

The thing is, modern killing machines are so complex as to require some sort of training or education in their use. Much easier to have our Nintendo pilots drop gas bombs on people and let science do all the work.


But seriously, a gay bomb? It's not enough that all the bullets and the bombs are dick-shaped??

aside from bombs/missles and well fixed and rotor wing aircraft, training is not really required..... however to argue that it is... the depth of training to shoot a gun throw a nade fire art'y and drive a AFV (includes tanks and HUMMWV and other families of vehicles) would require more training now then from middle ages. is hog wash..... the  degree of required training to effectively use any of the technologies required practice....

if you want a shooter.... to make more effective then here is the gun point this way and pull trigger.... just teach em how to breath and shoot..... and tell them the engagement distance..... and then let em fire off a few hundred rounds..... and u will ahve a 50-60% effective shooter..... professional armies (NATO) train and train and train, making the actual pointy end of the spear very sharp and effective......but you may only get up to 80-85% effective. less then about 1% would fire above 95%..... but with everything the more practice you get the better hence the training aspect you spoke of.....  but to be fair you can look at any professional army in history and all were the same.... they trained with the weapons they used, and conscripts were sort of given a weapon and said go kill that guy......

look at the VC from 'nam..... very large amount of lightly trained soilders given a gun and told kill "gi", fighting against a largely draft military that were trained but not to the degree of a soilder prior to outset of war in 'Nam. Personally I stil do think that Nam like Iraq was a winable war. However the problems were that politicans were making militray decsions when they were not qualified to do so..... if they (the generals) had been loosed to win the war, without dropping the bomb, you would ahve reached peak numbers far earlier and many events that changed the tide of the war would not have occured. The with Iraq its the same arguement really..... not enough boots on the ground to matain order after the war is won.

all the above is pure conjecture, and has no real basis in exact details and should not be taken as pure fact

[25]

What happened to good ol' fashioned killing?

The thing is, modern killing machines are so complex as to require some sort of training or education in their use. Much easier to have our Nintendo pilots drop gas bombs on people and let science do all the work.


But seriously, a gay bomb? It's not enough that all the bullets and the bombs are dick-shaped? 

aside from bombs/missles and well fixed and rotor wing aircraft, training is not really required..... however to argue that it is... the depth of training to shoot a gun throw a nade fire art'y and drive a AFV (includes tanks and HUMMWV and other families of vehicles) would require more training now then from middle ages. is hog wash..... the  degree of required training to effectively use any of the technologies required practice....

Well, I wasn't being entirely serious. My military experience consists of having watched Apocalypse Now a few too many times, that's it. But if I were to speculate I'd think that of all the technological advances (beyond better guns/better armor), integrating new bombs has to be quicker and easier than anything else as it shouldn't require much in the way of procedural changes or specialized training - just load the weapon into the bomber and carry on as usual.   

[Axl4Prez2004]

wasn't Frisco attacked with this very weapon a few decades ago???  I think it worked.
 


modified...not that there's anything wrong with that.   

[The Dog]

I remember reading something about a plan to create a hologram of allah and have it display in the sky, but nobody knew what Allah looks like so they scrapped it (or something like that).

lots of cooky ideas.

this one is pretty funny though.

[fuckin crazy]

 Personally I stil do think that Nam like Iraq was a winable war.

Once the US Military initiated the "Strategic Hamlet Program" that war was lost . That program did nothing more than arm the? insurgency with modern weapons . Before then , they were still fighting with WWl era armaments . It is doubtful the US could ever have pacified the insurgency by military means alone . Once an insurgency gains popular support , it is virtually impossible to defeat by military means . The only example I can think of where a foreign military subdued a popularly supported rebellion , was in Maylaia in the early 50s , and then only by a massive relocation program and catching the insurgency in it's infancy . Political solutions are the only viable options in civil wars ... always have been .?

[polluxlm]

 Personally I stil do think that Nam like Iraq was a winable war.

Once the US Military instituded the "Strategic Hamlet Program" that war was lost . That program did nothing more than arm the? insurgency with modern weapons . Before then they were still fighting with WWl era armaments . It is doubtable the US could ever have pacified the insurgency by military means alone . Once an insurgency gains popular support , it is virtually impossible to defeat by military means . The only example I can think of where a foreign military subdued a popularly supported rebellion , was in Maylaia in the early 50s , and then only by a massive relocation program and catching the insurgency in it's infancy . Political solutions are the only viable options in civil wars ... always have been .?

The question then becomes; why? cui bono?

The administrations aren't interested in winning the war(s), never have been. They want a prolonged conflict to increase the polarization, instigate fear in the population (so they can strip us of our rights) and make a ton of cash.


Why we let this go on as citizens....people truly are stupid.