Top Secret Weapons of the Pentagon

Oh dear oh dear… when the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan trembled at the thought of American troops unleashing their latest secret weapon, I dare bet they were not prepared for :

• gay bombs that will make enemy soldiers sexually irresistible to each other. The presumption is that enemy soldiers (presumably men), some of whom are prepared to blow themselves and a busload of other people up at the slightest provocation would forget their duty and instead fall all over the next soldier in throes of passion. They wanted US$7.5m to research it! And we thought our B O C O R Parliament, Courts and various Government buildings requiring investigations of RM22m was ludicrous?
• chemical weapons that would attract rats and wasps. Um… ok. What if there are no wasps in the territory? And in some parts of the world, they might even be happy to see rats. It might be dinner! It might even be a feast!
• chemical weapons that will cause “severe and long lasting halitosis”. How would bad breath allow the Americans to win the war? I wonder if it occured to the researchers who came up with the idea, that not everyone in the world has top quality dental services nor even access to toothpaste. Have they checked the teeth and breath of the hill billies in the Appalachians?
• a bomb that would simulate flatulence in enemy ranks. In the midst of war, with the smell of gunpower, fear and death in the air, what is the smell of fart? Would anyone actually look up from the face of a dead comrade and say “Who farted? Own up!” 

Gosh, who are the people in the Pentagon who come up with these ideas? And they actually do up papers on them? They get paid for this? I have a great imagination too, and a sense of humour. I could do this job! I got this version of the news off the BBC website.

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.”

Some other Related posts: