“Instead of using guns and bombs, let’s attack the enemies of freedom with bugs, rats, and horny gay men. That seems to be the sentiment behind a 1994 Air Force proposal, unearthed by bioweapons-watchers at the Sunshine Project. The document — entitled ‘Harrassing, Annoying, and ‘Bad Guy’ Identifying Chemicals’ — strings together a couple of ideas for non-lethal agents that could mark an opponent, temporarily change his behavior, or ‘attract annoying creatures to an enemy position…’ But as irritating as a swarm of bees or rats might be, it’s nothing compared to the distraction generated by a man in heat. No wonder, then, that the Air Force document calls for ‘chemicals that affect human behavior so that discipline and morale in enemy units is adversely effected. One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior.’” —DefenseTech.org (US)

(Thanks to Erect Scumson for the link.)

This Air Force document was “outed” by the Sunshine Project, a group that opposes the development of bioweapons, and broadcast by DefenseTech.org, which caused it to be picked up by the popular press. Once the story of the “Gay Bomb” hit the mass media, the Pentagon disavowed it, saying they never seriously considered the idea. And in response to that, the Sunshine Project made a case that the Pentagon was lying. So there you have the media etiology of one of the military’s many kooky ideas for disheartening enemy fighters.

Setting aside this he-said she-said and taking the idea at its face value, do you think transforming enemy combatants into a gay circle jerk would really demoralize them? After all, it’s not as though soldiers don’t engage in a certain amount of homo interplay anyway. What’s more, Plato himself once proposed the argument that the strongest army imaginable would be an army of lovers. Here’s the pertinent passage from the Symposium:

“And if there were only some way of contriving that a state or an army should be made up of lovers and their loves, they would be the very best governors of their own city, abstaining from all dishonour, and emulating one another in honour; and when fighting at each other’s side, although a mere handful, they would overcome the world. For what lover would not choose rather to be seen by all mankind than by his beloved, either when abandoning his post or throwing away his arms? He would be ready to die a thousand deaths rather than endure this. Or who would desert his beloved or fail him in the hour of danger? The veriest coward would become an inspired hero, equal to the bravest, at such a time; Love would inspire him. That courage which, as Homer says, the god breathes into the souls of some heroes, Love of his own nature infuses into the lover.”

It’s a pretty compelling argument. Think about it. When you love something, as when a mother loves a child, you will put up the fiercest fight in its defense. Might it not just backfire, then, to transform an enemy army into a cohesive group of lovers-at-arms? Or was the Pentagon counting on the fact that men become notoriously indifferent to their lovers? After all, having a helicopter spray you with Spanish Fly might cause feelings of lust, but could it really make you love your fellow soldiers?

VideoBox

It's like the iTunes Music Store for Porn. Download unlimited high-quality video for only $9.95/month.