Sunday, June 10, 2007
The gay bomb
No, the title of this post does not refer to the 1997 flick Batman and Robin. I'd call this report jaw-dropping, but some folks might take that as a pun.
The story implies that the lads at Dayton have somehow isolated a factor that turns straight men gay.
From the tone of the article, this proposed weapon was not blue-sky conjecture. Someone presented evidence in some document somewhere that persuaded high-level folks at Wright Labs that such a device was technically feasible. Can sexuality be reconfigured? If there's a gay chemical, might there not also be a "het bomb"?
Let us presume, for the sake of argument, that such a device is feasible. What are the ethical implications? I'm not just talking about usage in warfare.
By the way, the military history of ancient Greece leads me to doubt that homosexuality would necessarily induce docility. There was this fellow named Alexander...
A Berkeley watchdog organization that tracks military spending said it uncovered a strange U.S. military proposal to create a hormone bomb that could purportedly turn enemy soldiers into homosexuals and make them more interested in sex than fighting.This sounds like a plotline for an episode of "American Dad." We even have a reference to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base -- which, according to American folklore, has hosted captured alien technology. You think Roger the Alien has anything to do with this?
Pentagon officials on Friday confirmed to CBS 5 that military leaders had considered, and then subsquently rejected, building the so-called "Gay Bomb."
Edward Hammond, of Berkeley's Sunshine Project, had used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain a copy of the proposal from the Air Force's Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio.
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 story implies that the lads at Dayton have somehow isolated a factor that turns straight men gay.
"The notion was that a chemical that would probably be pleasant in the human body in low quantities could be identified, and by virtue of either breathing or having their skin exposed to this chemical, the notion was that soliders would become gay," explained Hammond.And that chemical is...what? (There are dozens of jokes to be made at this point; feel free to supply your own.)
From the tone of the article, this proposed weapon was not blue-sky conjecture. Someone presented evidence in some document somewhere that persuaded high-level folks at Wright Labs that such a device was technically feasible. Can sexuality be reconfigured? If there's a gay chemical, might there not also be a "het bomb"?
Let us presume, for the sake of argument, that such a device is feasible. What are the ethical implications? I'm not just talking about usage in warfare.
By the way, the military history of ancient Greece leads me to doubt that homosexuality would necessarily induce docility. There was this fellow named Alexander...
The plan wouldn't work. Studies show that gay soldiers are better than straight soldiers. If we turned the enemy gay, they'd just kick our butts.
By the way, the military history of ancient Greece leads me to doubt that homosexuality would necessarily induce docility. There was this fellow named Alexander...
That is why they rejected it!
That is why they rejected it!
Make love not war. Shit these warmongers don't want any part of that. How's them war profiteers goin' to get rich off that ?
Assuming the ludicrous hypothetical that such a device IS possible, the ethical implications are horrifying.
Firstly--many synthetic hormones, especially when given to people in like, massive quantities, are highly carcinogenic. Lots of chemicals which alter hormone function are carcinogenic. The alteration of hormone function can have a carcinogenic impact on the body (as well as cause a host of other serious health problems). So this supposedly plausible weapon's use in warfare alone is quite disturbing from an ethical perspective.
Second--and I can't believe that I have a second, here--can you imagine what the American population would do with this alleged technology if say, the folks at Wright kicked their findings over to Pfizer (and really, would...or does...Pfizer even need the help)?
Firstly--many synthetic hormones, especially when given to people in like, massive quantities, are highly carcinogenic. Lots of chemicals which alter hormone function are carcinogenic. The alteration of hormone function can have a carcinogenic impact on the body (as well as cause a host of other serious health problems). So this supposedly plausible weapon's use in warfare alone is quite disturbing from an ethical perspective.
Second--and I can't believe that I have a second, here--can you imagine what the American population would do with this alleged technology if say, the folks at Wright kicked their findings over to Pfizer (and really, would...or does...Pfizer even need the help)?
If this concept (aphrodisiac bomb) sounds familiar, you may have heard it (as I did) in a Joe Frank episode (An Enterprising Man, 1996).
If there's a gay bomb and a het bomb it's inevitable this will turn up as some kind of party spray, like the disco in Blade.
And don't they worry about it blowing back when the wind shifts?
'Hey, Sarge, I never noticed how nice yer butt looked in those camo-jammies. . .'
Post a Comment
<< Home
And don't they worry about it blowing back when the wind shifts?
'Hey, Sarge, I never noticed how nice yer butt looked in those camo-jammies. . .'
