Would it have heterosexual effects on womans? I think this could be wide used for much more human purposes that way.
('Ox would agree, I'm sure
)
| ClanKiller.com http://forums.clankiller.com/ |
|
| US had plans to make a 'Gay bomb' http://forums.clankiller.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1873 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Rinox [ Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | US had plans to make a 'Gay bomb' |
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." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americ ... 19.stm?alt "I've got something to put in you...at the gay bar, gay bar!" |
|
| Author: | Satis [ Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ox has volunteered to have the gaydar tested on him. |
|
| Author: | RB [ Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Would it have heterosexual effects on womans? I think this could be wide used for much more human purposes that way. ('Ox would agree, I'm sure )
|
|
| Author: | ElevenBravo [ Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Come on guys, enough with the gay comments. Gay people are people too. Show some respect. |
|
| Author: | Satis [ Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Certainly. We mean no disrespect to our gay brethren. I think "sex bomb" would've been a better name anyway...that way you get the Spinal Tap reference in there too. Besides, there are female soldiers. It might just turn into a really ugly orgy. |
|
| Author: | J [ Wed Jun 14, 2006 1:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hehe i already read this some time ago and couldn't help thinking "just what other crazy stuff do they waste money on?". A "who?me?"-bomb, that's pure monty python material if you ask me. Never would think anyone would take such an idea serieus. |
|
| Author: | Myrddin L'argenton [ Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Just proves that no-one is taking war seriously anymore. Prefer those sorts of tactics to anything else, plus imagine the benefits of that sort of bomb on the extremists- putting each other to the sword for buggery. |
|
| Author: | ElevenBravo [ Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:25 am ] | |||||||||
| Post subject: | ||||||||||
O gross! Army female lesbian action. YUK!! Maybe they could paint a "11" on the side of the bomb. |
||||||||||
| Author: | Satis [ Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
hehe....This bomb's been cranked up to eleven! Err, anyway.... people've wated money on hare-brained ideas for the history of the world. That doens't make it bad...imo it's bad if we stopped wasting money on em. You never know what cool stuff comes out of crazy research. M&M's were developed during World War II to let soldiers have chocolate that wouldn't melt. Nonmelting chocolate qualify as wierd research? I think so. |
|
| Author: | Rinox [ Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
heh...why does everyone connect gay bombs with me? 
Maybe it's my sexiness spreading over vast fields affecting man, woman, child and alien alike. When you think of sex, you think of me. There's a scary thought.
|
|
| Author: | RB [ Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:29 am ] | |||||||||
| Post subject: | ||||||||||
Oh, just in your dreams, sweetheart. 
Maybe the first word which comes up when someone say "Rinox" is "Porn", but when someone says "Porn", I am certainly not thinking of "Rinox".
Now one math question. What is the name of such relation? Answer is down: implication. Better said Thinkof(Rinox) => Thinkof(Porn) does not mean Thinkof(Porn) => Thinkof(Rinox) |
||||||||||
| Author: | Peltz [ Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
heh i copy/pasted that into word file and made it readable only to find its utterly and completly useless information 
|
|
| Author: | RB [ Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Why so much of you do copy-paste insted of just clicking the "quote" button? I belive that would be a smarter way.
|
|
| Author: | J [ Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Damn, only read that last reply after copy-pasting it into Word ... ah well i am who i am, no need denying that. But who else can say they had an easy and relaxed exam today? 
|
|
| Author: | RB [ Wed Jun 14, 2006 1:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I had one but can hardly say it was relaxing. Gah... who's for a bit of CS1.3? |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
