Gay Bomb
Shocking news of U.S. interest in a Gay Bomb!
Not exactly news. It was widely reported a couple of years ago:
PENTAGON SEXES UP THE BATTLE; But `Gay Bomb’ goes bust in the lab
JULES CRITTENDEN
15 January 2005
We asked. They told.
The Gay Bomb, a Pentagon spokesman confirmed yesterday, was a real proposal - an idea floated by Air Force researchers to render enemy troops ineffective by making them homosexual.
It was 1994. Some creative thinkers at a Wright Patterson Air Force Base lab were brainstorming on possible nonlethal weapon projects. Someone hit on this:
“Category # 3: Chemicals that affect human behavior so that discipline and morale in enemy units is adversely affected. One distasteful but completely nonlethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior.”
It is unclear what substance would jack up the sex drive and break down the inhibitions of normally heterosexual troops. Presumeably, the idea was that rampant homosexual activity would cause shame and confusion, destroying unit cohesion.
The Pentagon didn’t bite.
” `Gay Bomb’ is not our term,” said Marine Capt. Daniel McSweeney, who spent all day fielding calls after the unorthodox proposal was brought out of a Pentagon closet by a watchdog group called the Sunshine Project.
“It was not taken seriously. It was not considered for further development,” he said. “By way of context, the Department of Defense received literally hundreds of proposals for nonlethal weapons. Admittedly, some of them were nontraditional.”
Others that have been proposed have included hitting enemy troops with LSD-like substances that would leave them stumbling around and hallucinating, or spraying troops with an insect sex hormone to make bugs swarm them. But McSweeney said, “The United States observes chemical weapons treaties.”
Besides, noted Charles Heyman of Janes Information Group, there has always been the fear of blowback - the threat that a weapon meant for the enemy will end up disabling one’s own soldiers.
“You don’t know what the effect will be on your own troops. It’s incredibly dangerous,” Heyman said about spraying chemicals.
Now in development by the U.S. military are some equally creative but less startling nonlethal ideas: the Mobility Denial System, a slippery gel; the Active Denial System, using millimeter-wave technology to heat up the enemy’s skin. Already deployed is the Vehicle Lightweight Arresting Device, a spiked netting designed to entangle tires.
But, McSweeney said, no Gay Bomb.
CBS5.com, WPIX San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose reports:
Edward Hammond, of Berkeley’s Sunshine Project, had used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain a copy of the proposal from the Air Force’s Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio.
They didn’t really need to use the Freedom of Information Act, which cost them a stamp and cost the United States Government untold bureaucratic time and resources … military resources that otherwise could have been used to support the troops, combat terrorism, etc. They could have used Google, though of course that would be significantly less impressive in the report.* More from CBS5:
Gay community leaders in California said Friday that they found the notion of a “gay bomb” both offensive and almost laughable at the same time.
“Throughout history we have had so many brave men and women who are gay and lesbian serving the military with distinction,” said Geoff Kors of Equality California. “So, it’s just offensive that they think by turning people gay that the other military would be incapable of doing their job. And its absurd because there’s so much medical data that shows that sexual orientation is immutable and cannot be changed.”
Those gay community leaders seem to be a little out of the loop. Either that or they didn’t want to get in the way of a good Pentagon-bashing story by tipping off CBS5 that this was an old, non-story. There’s also all that sex poll data about large numbers of heterosexuals having had homosexual experiences that suggests Kors is over-simplifying the issue, but never mind that.
Let’s think this “offensive … almost laughable” option through as a moral proposition, applying the most progressive, libertarian, gender-orientation accepting, peace-loving standards possible:
Gay Bomb, good or bad?
Non-lethal = good.
Homosexuality is an increasingly accepted sexual orientation and lifestyle. Not that there’s anything wrong with that = neutral.
If homosexuality is OK, then the real problem with the Gay Bomb is not that it would reduce male soldiers’ inhibitions and encourage them to boff each other, but that it is intended to cause shame. Shame about gayness = bad.
But in an increasingly open, GLBT-tolerant society, is the shame and disruption of unit cohesion then simply because of unrestrained, indiscriminate sexual activity, regardless of its orientation? Shame about sexuality = bad.
Now, with more and more women in combat situations, that introduces the possibility that the Gay Bomb might induce heterosexual behavior as well. Or girl-on-girl homosexual behavior. Gender equality = good.
But at this point we’ve established that its not really a Gay Bomb but an unrestrained, liberating Sex Bomb. Unrestrained, liberating sex = good.
Which brings us back to an old hippy peacenik standard, Make Love Not War. Peace = good.
One problem: most of the societies we’d be likely to use the Sex Bomb on are not socially advanced in any of the abovementioned areas. We’re not likely to drop this bomb on, say, Amsterdam. So we are back to Square One, Gay Bomb as a weapon intended to induce shame about homosexual behavior. Unless it is presented as a weapon not only intended to render the enemy combat-ineffective in a non-lethal manner, but also to help the enemy escape the bounds of a 14th-century mentality. Non-lethally helping fellow humans to escape the bounds of a 14th-century mentality = good.
One more problem, and it’s a big one: chemical weapons, technically = bad. But we’re in a muddy area here. Tear gas, pepperspray, both non-lethal chemicals in widespread relatively non-controversial use. Non-lethal chemicals = good. Except when used by homophobic capitalist imperialist warmonger military-industrial complex, of course, when use of any chemicals, white phosphorus, gunpowder, etc. = war crime. However, after Hillary Clinton gets elected and don’t-ask-don’t-tell is eliminated, latter problem will be resolved, and non-lethal chemicals to advance social agenda will = good. Whew, that was a hard one.
OK, total it up: good, neutral, bad, bad, good, good, good, good, and after Hillary is elected, good.
Therefore, Gay Bomb = good.
Taylor Marsh exposes something else: She thinks a proposal from 1994 falls under the Bush administration. She also doesn’t get that bombs are meant to dropped on the enemy, to disable the other side. Of course, she belongs to the school of thought that seems to think our side is the enemy and Bush is responsible for everything, so maybe this makes sense:
… Just when you think the Bush administration has gone as far as it can go in the believe it or not category, out comes a story that defies understanding. It’s not even the $7.5 million, which isn’t that much money in the scheme of things. The point is that when you stack up gay service men and women against heterosexuals in the U.S. armed forces, there can be little doubt that there are more of the latter than the former. So what geniuses decided that the goal should to make everyone gay so they’d be consumed with sex?
OK, who remembers which virulently homophobic don’t-ask-don’t-tell administration was in office in 1994?
… But to really go after our enemies maybe we could put hallucinogenics into a bomb so that the Al Qaeda types would start envisioning their brothers in jihad as, say, one of the virgins they would see in heaven after martyrdom.
If she would read her Jules Crittenden, then she’d know that they did consider an LSD bomb. Good idea, I thought. Funny thing is, even as she Gay Bomb-bashes, she seems to admire the thinking that went into it:
If we’d been this creative after the fall of Baghdad, we’d likely not be in the mess we’re in today. But we weren’t, so here we are.
Don’t bother checking it at the Democratic Daily, which ”am at a lost.”
Donklephant: “Will this be the post that spawned a thousand jokes?” Well, it did two years ago, I don’t see why not.
Hotair tries to explain how it works to the gay community leader, who thinks its extra offensive to think gayness = militry ineffectiveness and doesn’t get that for a heterosexual man, having sex with another man might be deeply disconcerting. Says HA gently:
… it isn’t that gay soldiers wouldn’t fight back, it’s that the shock and, er, “disorientation” within the unit from having their sexuality instantly altered would paralyze them for a time and generate a morale crisis given that they’re likely to come from homophobic societies. The “gay bomb” works best against those enemies least tolerant of gays — you’d think that element of poetic justice would mitigate its offensiveness somewhat.
* Turns out it was “the Sunshine Project” that got this document two years ago, so they couldn’t have googled themselves without a time machine. I need to read my own stories closer. Sheesh, I’m almost as bad as Taylor Marsh. So did the Sunshine Project neglect to tell CBS5 it was an old story, or did someone just figure it was so good it deserved a second bite? Judging by the Marsh reaction, this could be part of a concerted effort to undermine the “undeterred determination” of the terrible Bush juggernaut.
Becks in comments suggests such the Gay Bomb would be worthless against the Taliban, known for their fondness for beardless boys. However, she’s confusing the Gay Bomb with the Nambla Bomb, the bomb whose name the Air Force dare not speak, because of the high collateral damage issue.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 7:50 am on Sunday, June 10, 2007
12 Responses to “Gay Bomb”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
June 10th, 2007 at 9:37 am
So, it’s just offensive that they think by turning people gay that the other military would be incapable of doing their job.
I think he’s on to something here. After all, the Taliban are (notorious? infamous? what’s the right term here?) known for homosexual practices with boys. In their case, a gay bomb would hardly be worth the expense.
June 10th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Boy, talk about “friendly” fire……
June 10th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
[...] bloggers this article has touched a nerve with: Taylor Marsh; Democratic Daily; Donklephant; Jules Crittendon (Far Right); Outside The Beltway; Pam’s House Blend; Dvorak Uncensored; [...]
June 10th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Coincidence this occurred during Clinton’s term? I think not.
June 10th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
[...] The Air Force explored development of a bomb that instead of killing enemy soldiers turned them gay, Jules Crittenden of the Boston Herald reported. [...]
June 10th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Well, as long as the government isn’t wasting money on nonsense. . . .
June 10th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
So Jules, what are you doing tonight? Wanna hang out? OH NO, I’VE BEEN GAYBOMBED!
June 10th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
From what I read, the chemicals in the bomb make the targets “sexually irresistable to each other.” I think the whole idea is that it’s harder to defend your base/position while getting it on, no? And the whole homosexual thing, well, that would just be like Yatzee, because heterosexual men don’t like being sexual with other men. Thus, any heterosexuals (the majority of those serving) would find the situation a bit odd, and, like their indisposed comrades, distracted right when we’re breaking through their defenses.
June 10th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Nice observation Purple Avenger!
I loved Jules’ opening bite too “We asked. They told.”
As well as not noticing it was to be used against the (Enemy or opposition - no she’ll misunderstand those) soldiers who shoot guns at the U.S. armed services (she might understand who that means), I don’t think Taylor Marsh noticed that they did not spend the $7.5 million.
It’ s just the old process of brainstorming wild ideas to see whether any of them might work, and guessing how much it would cost to take the idea a step further. A similar thing happens in the last couple of paragraphs of many scientific papers, and they then get picked up as headlines by the media.
The British went quite a long way with ‘crazy’ ideas during WWII. I especially like the aircraft carrier made from a form of ice called Pykecrete
June 11th, 2007 at 1:33 am
Wasn’t there a Get Smart movie about this? If not, shouldn’t there be?
June 12th, 2007 at 12:35 am
This sounds like an old joke “operation” some officers of the CIA devised against the Soviets: Operation Penis Envy. Supposedly the plan was to drop millions of condoms of enormous size on the USSR. They were to be labeled “Texas Medium Size”. This was to demoralize the Russkies and cause them to give up the Cold War. As I say it was a joke, but as one CIA officer later commented to another, Suppose the New York Times got ahold of it and thought it was for real?
This was mentioned in (IIRC) “The Night Watch” by David Atlee Philips, who was in charge of Western Hemisphere operation for the CIA in the early 1970s.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:58 am
[...] damn! I couldn’t wait to blog about this, but thank the blogging gods, I saw this post by Jules Crittenden, who said this was old news that he had blogged about 2 1/2 years [...]