COULD THESE BE THE BOMBS OF THE FUTURE?
BY DAN MILLER
(originally posted January 14, 2005)
A few years ago we heard a lot about the development of "neutron bombs" by this country and others. Remember that? Bombs that would kill lots of people, but wouldn't destroy buildings and cities.
Now -- to me at least -- it seemed the desired results might be switched. Wouldn't it be better to just destroy the buildings and weapons, but spare the lives of people?
I've also read lately about military E-bombs. Through some sort of electromagnetic burst, they would shutdown everything electronic -- computers, circuits, all communication and data processing. Seems terrible, but -- if nations must have bombs -- I suppose it would be a step in the right direction.
But yesterday, I read about some proposed bombs that take the cake for humanitarian enterprise.
NewScientist Magazine tells, in its latest issue, about several non-lethal chemical bombs that the Pentagon had toyed with developing, that would disrupt morale and discipline among enemy troops.
They actually considered developing an "aphrodisiac" chemical weapon that would make enemy soldiers sexually irresistible to each other. The proposal said the chemicals would provoke widespread homosexual behavior among troops, leading to a "distasteful but completely non-lethal" blow to morale.
I'm not making this up. If you want to read about these newly declassified documents from the Pentagon, it's on page 4 of the NewScientist Magazine, dated January 15, 2005.
Other ideas included chemical weapons that attract swarms of enraged wasps or angry rats to troop positions, making them uninhabitable.
Another.... (and this is difficult to believe).... was to develop a chemical that caused "severe and lasting halitosis", making it easy to identify guerrillas trying to blend in with civilians.
The proposals were dated 1994, and came from the US Air Force Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio.
The lab wanted Pentagon funding for research into what it called "harassing, annoying and 'bad-guy' identifying chemicals."
You know, if science can develop these sorts of bombs, why can't they develop a "peace bomb".
When the enemy is exposed to the chemicals, he immediately starts to love and respect everybody else.
That would be real progress.
_________________________