Non-Lethal Weapons
The U.S. Military has revealed that it spent millions of taxpayer dollars attempting to create a new generation of non-lethal weapons. One of these weapons is a chemical that was intented to make soldiers "sexually irresistible" to each other.
While I'm sure this could have some use in the field (I'm sure it's much easier to neutralize enemy troops while they are occupied with....each other.), I find the whole notion reprensible. It really ticks me off that my money is going to fund such moral degrading research.
As far as the whole non-lethal weapons thing goes, I think most of it is a massive waste of time and money. In most cases I would prefer that they just kill the enemies instead of wasting time, lives and money trying to make war humane.
While I'm sure this could have some use in the field (I'm sure it's much easier to neutralize enemy troops while they are occupied with....each other.), I find the whole notion reprensible. It really ticks me off that my money is going to fund such moral degrading research.
As far as the whole non-lethal weapons thing goes, I think most of it is a massive waste of time and money. In most cases I would prefer that they just kill the enemies instead of wasting time, lives and money trying to make war humane.
18 Comments:
Other of these projects included chemicals that would attract swarms of rats or wasps to troop positions.
While I understand your angst, I understand their point of view. It's the same thing as psychological warfare. We put out radio messages for months or weeks before we get there to lower the troops' morale.
We don't want the fight to be fair. We want the enemy demoralized, with worse and fewer weapons and soldiers. Hence chemical weapons that could take care of some of our work before we actually get there - it's just like when we pound them with artillery for a few days before the infantry moves in. Anything that lowers the chances of U.S. casualties is okay by me, although I find the "sex bomb" as they call it, pretty reprehensible too. I can't imagine who that's aimed at. The Iraqis already have plenty of homosexual activity within the ranks I'm pretty sure.
If it makes you feel any better, your tax dollars also pay my paycheck. Actually, MY tax dollars also pay my paycheck. hmmm ...
Instead of using the "Sex Bomb" why not just use Sarin, VX or a Fuel Air Bomb and just kill the buggers?
Well, technically our national policy is: nuclear weapons - we use them first. chemical weapons - we use them only after the enemy does and biological weapons - we don't use them.
The idea being that we can kick their a**es while maintaining the moral high ground as far as humanity. Not because we are afraid of what THEY will think of us, but because our own countrymen (liberals) have a tendancy to hang us out to dry for the slightest error. That's how much they love their own country.They're looking for our mistakes and have their hammers and nails out to crucify us for any misstep.
We're stuck between trying to look like good guys and trying to keep our troops alive while we 'win hearts and minds' - between a rock and a hard place, so to speak.
So we maintain the moral high ground with Sex Bombs?
Ha! well said, friend. :)
No, I'm just saying we can't use chemical weapons to kill everybody - at least not until they do. Hence the non-lethal concept.
But what am I doing defending the Pentagon anyway? This is a sign I've spent too many years in Army public affairs ... I'm starting to believe my own propaganda!
The FAE's still work pretty good. They're expensive but probably nowheres near as costly as a decent sized Sex Bomb.
I never really looked into the price of either ... what would I need a giant sex bomb for? Anyway, you need that information more than I do, being an assistant dictator and all.
I am currently unemployed. However, it is important to keep up to date on what the latest goodies are.
The other ones I like are
The pain beam.
The very lethal goo dispenser thingies that they use to secure nuclear missile silos.
Brass Knuckles
Riot Gloves (steel ribs and shot + glove + punch = severe bodily damage).
Tazers
Pepperspray filled paintballs
The new style AP grenades with the spring thingy
Another interesting weapon was the sonic weapons that the military was/is testing. They are non-lethal (at least the ones that I was reading about) weapons. I'm pretty sure the aticle I read mentioned that they were being tested in Iraq (along with some other nifty things such as the combat robots but that's a different story) and that one of their uses was providing a determent so that people wouldn't come near the area that the soldiers were guarding. If people came to close, the sonic device would start "playing" its track of doom and the people would suddenly undergo mild to severe discomfort.
Which sonic weapons are those? The really loud, directionalized sound that incapacitates the target because their eardrums feel like they will explode? Or the sonic weapons that make the target crap their pants by upsetting their colon?
I'm still a big fan of multi-megaton hydrogen bombs. I think we should detonate one on the moon every 4th of July, to show our vastly superior, American fireworks as opposed to the cheap, Chinese ones that they sell at the Indian Reservations.
I second that. As for the sonic weapons, I think it was the eardrum issue but I can't remember.
First off, it seems highly unlikely that they were really doing this, and if so, I would love to know where you got this information.
Secondly, I find it odd that you would call a chemical that makes everyone "fag out" on each other, instead of having to kill them "morally degrading" and "reprensible", which I assume was meant to be reprehensible.
If so, I would like to know just how killing a bunch of people is morally acceptable but by not killing them somehow crosses a moral boundary that you cannot bare to live with?
Yes it's stupid to think that such a chemical might actually work, I say drop porn on them, it would be the first time these muslim fighters have ever seen such a thing and they would surely be intrigued and distracted by such a thing. Did you ever hear the term “thou shall not kill”? I’m pretty sure it was in the same verse as “thou shall kill fags”.
The proper term is "thou shalt not murder." Murdering someone and killing someone are not the same thing. While the effect is the same, there is a difference.
I would encourage you not to "answer a fool according to his folly," as the saying goes. I could write a few articles debating this gentleman on all points (he's commented on my blog too) - religion, politics, spelling, rhetoric - but the nature of his comments make it clear that would be an exercise in futility and a waste of my time.
Not necessarily. Sure you really don't have a chance to disssuade the foolish, but debating them can have a much more noble reason:
http://despair.com/mis24x30prin.html
I think you'll know what I mean.
That's awesome. Thanks.
Very true Kate. Thanks for reminding me.
Post a Comment
<< Home