The Sex Bomb

I have now officially heard everything. I saw something about this months ago, in one of those grocery store tabloids, but I paid it little attention. Now it appears again, seemingly from a scientific source. Is this real?

THE Pentagon considered developing a host of non-lethal chemical weapons that would disrupt discipline and morale among enemy troops, newly declassified documents reveal.

Most bizarre among the plans was one for the development of an “aphrodisiac” chemical weapon that would make enemy soldiers sexually irresistible to each other. Provoking widespread homosexual behaviour among troops would cause a “distasteful but completely non-lethal” blow to morale, the proposal says.

This is a joke, right? I mean, they can’t really do that. Can they? Then again it’s an interesting idea. Think of the fun that could be had releasing that chemical in some places: the Capitol, while Congress is in session and voting on the same sex marriage amendment; the next Republican convention; the state of the Union Address.

Imagine the possibilities.

About Terrance

Black. Gay. Father. Buddhist. Vegetarian. Liberal.
This entry was posted in Current Events, Gay Rights, War on Terror. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to The Sex Bomb

  1. sennoma says:

    What gets me is how they think it will just destroy those manly macho men, those quintessentially heterosexual soldier warrior heroes, to have a little frolic on the other team. I mean, everyone knows there are no homos in the army, right?

    Also, think twice before you release that stuff: do you really want the image of Tom DeLay making out with Rick Santorum seared indelibly into your retinas?

  2. Rod says:

    You’ve made my day, I’m linking you in today’s blog.

  3. Tina says:

    “do you really want the image of Tom DeLay making out with Rick Santorum seared indelibly into your retinas?”

    A small price to pay for the sheer glee in seeing that image replayed over and over on the television news, and plastered across the front pages of the New York Times, the WaPo, and the cover of Out Magazine!

    Another possible use: make Ann Coulter snog a liberal (preferably one nobody likes, like Joe Lieberman). She could call her next book “How to Make Out with a Liberal (If You Can’t Help Yourself)”.

  4. Terrance says:

    Brandon, at the AntiWar.Com blog makes an interesting point. On I wish I’d thought of.

    Why did the Pentagon think it wanted to deliver a bomb right to the location of a whole bunch of enemy troops-but NOT kill them? I mean if you can get the bomb exactly where it needs to be to affect enemy troops – why not just load it up with TNT and blow them up? I’ll tell you why (don’t read any left-wing hysteria about ‘homophobia’ or one of these other meaningless New Age terms, because I’m not suggesting that); The Pentagon thinks that homosexuality is worse than death. [his emphasis, not mine]

  5. Mike Rock says:

    ” Provoking widespread homosexual behaviour among troops would cause a “distasteful but completely non-lethal” blow to morale, the proposal says.”

    Uh… these morons have obviously never cracked open a history book and discovered the Sacred Band of Thebes… or heard of the Spartans/Lakedaimonians..

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sacred+Band+of+Thebes

    I mean, somehow it would seem like this plan would backfire in a big way, like I can’t think of any better way to piss a dude off than to ice his booty-buddy… a bunch of dudes all doing it together would BOOST morale from where I’m sitting.

    mike

  6. mythago says:

    So an aphrodisiac would make soldiers fall all over each other? More like they’d simply do what badly-disciplied soldiers have always done, and take it out on female civilians.

    They must still the guys who did the post-Bay of Pigs plotting against Castro. What next? Dropping exploding cigars on Sadr?

Comments are closed.