Can we defeat an enemy by "gaying" him up?
This is bizarre:
The U.S. military rejected a 1994 proposal to develop an "aphrodisiac" to spur homosexual activity among enemy troops but is hard at work on other less-than-lethal weapons, defense officials said Sunday.
The idea of fostering homosexuality among the enemy figured in a declassified six-year, $7.5 million request from a laboratory at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio for funding of non-lethal chemical weapon research.
The proposal, disclosed in response to a Freedom of Information request, called for developing chemicals affecting human behavior "so that discipline and morale in enemy units is adversely affected."
"One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior," said the document, obtained by the Sunshine Project. The watchdog group posted the partly blacked-out, three-page document on its Web site.
Reportedly, the suggestion of a homosexuality-inducing aphrodisiac arose from a brainstorming session -- what quality of brain was being stormed? -- where it was rejected outright.
We're never told the identity of the person making this suggestion. But what made him think it was possible to even develop such a chemical? How did he think it would work? And most importantly, how did he imagine the relationship between the chemical and an enemy's military defeat?
Even if you believe that homosexual conduct undermines an army's morale and cohesion, that's presumably true only in a military culture with an aversion to homosexuality. But an aphrodisiac elicits desire, not aversion, and you might get the "Epaminondas effect:"
While in Thebes, the general Epaminondas commanded a regiment composed of 150 pairs of lovers. This 'Band of Lovers' became a formidable fighting force, with lover defending lover until death.