You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 03, 2016, 04:08:47 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: US military pondered love not war  (Read 1127 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ElviTopic starter

US military pondered love not war
« on: September 21, 2007, 07:20:50 PM »
I really wasn't sure where this one should have gone, but as this has had Strangely and myself in stitches, I felt it was best placed here......
 
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.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4174519.stm

Online HairyHeretic

  • Lei varai barbu - The true bearded one
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2006
  • Location: Ireland
  • Gender: Male
  • And the Scorpion said "Little frog .. I can swim."
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: US military pondered love not war
« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2007, 07:25:30 PM »
*checks the date* I thought that was an old story.

I'm a hell of a lot more worried by their agony inflicting ray gun.

Offline Sabby

Re: US military pondered love not war
« Reply #2 on: September 21, 2007, 07:28:39 PM »
well, it actually has some sort of strategic value, but I don't think it'd come in much use against the Navi

Offline Brandon

Re: US military pondered love not war
« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2007, 01:50:07 AM »
The idea of a bomb designed with an airborn aphrodisiac is in fact very possible but unfortunatly it would do little but lower morale. The problem with chemical and biological weaponry is just about everyone has effective countermeasures so in the last 10 or so years the use of NBC weaponry is little more then a way to slow down an enemy force. Sure if a group of soldiers were caught off guard and didnt bring their protective gear with them any number of agents could be lethal but in today's warfare that just doesnt happen anymore.

Now the idea of a chemical or biological agent that converts a persons sexual orentation? I find that idea outright ludicrous because there is no scientific proof of what makes a person heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. There are a lot of theories from slight chemical differences to outright choice but none have been proven to date. Without a control to work off of the chances of making a working chemical or biological agent is astronomical.

Also I should note that the United states military has a policy against the general use of chemical and/or biological weapons

Offline ElviTopic starter

Re: US military pondered love not war
« Reply #4 on: September 22, 2007, 04:14:23 AM »
Well...the jury is still out on white phosphorus isn't it?

Offline kongming

Re: US military pondered love not war
« Reply #5 on: September 22, 2007, 10:49:41 AM »
I believe white phosphorus is indeed covered by the Hague and the Geneva Protocol*, because it, you know, sets people on fire. However, it CAN be used on equipment - to burn down blockades and destroy munitions, so some soldiers have been known to use whi-pho to ignite equipment that people happen to be wearing.

And when it gets publicised, they don't generally get away with it.

But in general, the funny thing about these restrictions is that they only apply to military use against other signatory countries - hence police tend to use hollow point ammunition but the military is not allowed to. Similarly, if you're fighting against someone who uses mustard gas and all that, then you can theoretically unleash ebola-zombies against them. In theory.

At any rate, the idea of a gay-bomb is just funny - even the name.

*Different from the Geneva Conventions

Offline Brandon

Re: US military pondered love not war
« Reply #6 on: September 22, 2007, 06:04:15 PM »
Well...the jury is still out on white phosphorus isn't it?

White phosphorous is considered to be a incendiary weapon, or least last I heard it still was

Offline ElviTopic starter

Re: US military pondered love not war
« Reply #7 on: September 22, 2007, 06:24:11 PM »
That is why I said "The Jury is still out".
A chemical bomb that burns skin through to the bone, but it's OK it bursts into flames as well.

Offline Brandon

Re: US military pondered love not war
« Reply #8 on: September 22, 2007, 06:30:13 PM »
I see your point but thats a very loose definition of Chemical weapons. By that reasoning, I could likely rule that gunpowder could be classified as a chemical weapon. Instead chemical and biological weapons are more often classified that way because they only affect the body.

White phosphorous is an incendiary device because it burns everything not just organic material or at least thats why I think its classified as an incendiary weapon.

Offline kongming

Re: US military pondered love not war
« Reply #9 on: September 23, 2007, 04:31:38 AM »
Indeed, it's an incendiary, but you're still not allowed to use it on people (unless they've already declared that they have no issues with doing the same to you. See: Ebola zombies).

Offline AK47

Re: US military pondered love not war
« Reply #10 on: February 18, 2008, 11:38:52 AM »
Actually the primary use of WP is as a smokescreen. Because it burns constantly and makes thick clouds of opaque white smoke.

I don't really think it should be classified as a chemical weapon because it does not kill by poisoning. The 'Burns' it causes are the normal fire kind not chemical burns.

Online MagicalPen

Re: US military pondered love not war
« Reply #11 on: February 18, 2008, 11:53:40 AM »
I find it utterly amusing that they even have laws on how to KILL people....dead is dead, no matter what the method.

Chemical Warfare was pretty much outlawed more due to the fact that you can't control where the wind blows it and theres a greater risk to civilians, not to mention there is no real 'precision' with Chemical Warfare. Its also not very effective for its intended purposes.

Offline ElviTopic starter

Re: US military pondered love not war
« Reply #12 on: February 18, 2008, 03:46:52 PM »
Yes dead is dead, however, it's what happens to get to that state that concerns most.

I have to admit, I am a little confused by your reasoning AK
Could you actually explain what chemical weapon 'poisons' people?
Most burn (both outside and in), causing great agony and in the case of the survivors, from very long periods of time...

Offline AK47

Re: US military pondered love not war
« Reply #13 on: February 18, 2008, 05:13:38 PM »
Yes dead is dead, however, it's what happens to get to that state that concerns most.

I have to admit, I am a little confused by your reasoning AK
Could you actually explain what chemical weapon 'poisons' people?
Most burn (both outside and in), causing great agony and in the case of the survivors, from very long periods of time...


Well in this case I meant what kind of burn.

WP burns like fire does rather than burns like mustard gass or acid does.

Offline ElviTopic starter

Re: US military pondered love not war
« Reply #14 on: February 18, 2008, 05:42:44 PM »
Really?
Not even mentioning the gas that white phospherous gives off when it comes in contact with water....

Have a look at this: http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/3624

Though I warn you, it's not very pleasant and tell me that those are 'natural' burns.


And incase you believe that is 'hogwash', read these:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/22/usa.iraq1

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4441902.stm


and I quote:

If particles of ignited white phosphorus land on a person's skin, they can continue to burn right through flesh to the bone. Toxic phosphoric acid can also be released into wounds, risking phosphorus poisoning.

Skin burns must be immersed in water or covered with wet cloths to prevent re-combustion until the particles can be removed.

Exposure to white phosphorus smoke in the air can also cause liver, kidney, heart, lung or bone damage and even death.

A former US soldier who served in Iraq says breathing in smoke close to a shell caused the throat and lungs to blister until the victim suffocated, with the phosphorus continuing to burn them from the inside.

Long-term exposure to lesser concentrations over several months or years may lead to a condition called "phossy jaw", where mouth wounds are caused that fail to heal and the jawbone eventually breaks down.

 


Offline AK47

Re: US military pondered love not war
« Reply #15 on: February 18, 2008, 05:55:51 PM »
Ok than,
I was not aware of the nasty side effects.
I retract my earlier statements about the nature of the burns. I should have remembered that burning chemical substances often leads to more complicated chemical substances.

However it still stands that WP was designed as a incendiary weapon and not a chemical one and that it is still primarily used to mark positions and mask troop movements. The Clouds it makes are hot and opaque to both visible and infrared light putting up a perfect smokescreen.

I was however already aware of its uncanny ability to cauterize itself into wounds and re-ignite when the shrapnel is dug out by a surgeon.

Offline ElviTopic starter

Re: US military pondered love not war
« Reply #16 on: February 18, 2008, 06:06:21 PM »
Designed for and used for is a far different matter.

After all, gun powder was designed to make pretty fireworks....

Offline AK47

Re: US military pondered love not war
« Reply #17 on: February 18, 2008, 06:08:26 PM »
Designed for and used for is a far different matter.

After all, gun powder was designed to make pretty fireworks....

All good points.