[ExI] This would almost qualify as hilarious ... if only it weren't true

[J. Andrew Rogers]

On Jun 11, 2007, at 7:50 PM, Olga Bourlin wrote:
> I didn't think it was possible for our "leaders" in the Pentagon to  
> be even
> more stupid than I already thought they were.  I was wrong.


There is nothing stupid about it, and I would suggest that your  
assertion that it is betrays a pretty basic ignorance of the several  
decades of solid scientific and military research that is being  
applied here.  The only "problem" is that it plays to your  
ideological biases and preconceptions and triggers an emotional  
reaction on that basis.

A lot of non-lethal chemical weapons research dating back to at least  
the 1960s is based on mechanisms of temporary radical behavior  
modification, usually below the level where the targets would realize  
they are being chemically manipulated, to destroy military unit  
cohesion.  At a minimum the US and the Soviet Union did extensive  
research and testing in this area.  By chemically inducing behaviors  
far outside the norm in various ways for individuals in manners that  
destroy trust and implicit social contracts, you can effectively  
render a military unit useless without killing anyone or doing  
permanent physical damage (psychological damage might be another  
story).  This is not theory, these agents have seen limited use in  
the field, and testing and research has shown that the principle is  
very sound in practice.  If you destroy the social structure of a  
military unit, you have all but destroyed the unit whether or not the  
soldiers and equipment are still around.

The novelty and potential value of a chemical weapon that can induce  
homosexual behavior in military troops is obvious when you consider  
that a rather substantial percentage of the cultures in the world  
that find themselves in regular military conflicts have very strong  
taboos against homosexuality.  What would be the psychological impact  
of such a weapon on a military unit from a culture in which  
homosexuality is not only strongly forbidden but punishable by  
death?  I expect that some left-wing ideologues would find that  
scenario -- extreme homophobes inexplicably compelled to homosexual  
behavior -- to be schadenfreudelicious.

In my book, these kinds of chemically induced mind games are far  
better than killing folks.  I can think of far worse fates.

Cheers,

J. Andrew Rogers