The Pentagon’s Gay Bomb

The Pentagon is full of it-I mean full of them; good ideas, that is. Turns out, in 1994, they had a thought. That’s newsworthy itself, but the thought was this; what we’ll do is, we’ll deliver a bomb to a site where there are a bunch of enemy troops. It will contain, not explosives, but a chemical aphrodesiac that will turn them into homosexuals. This is what the best and brightest career bureaucrats over there are thinking about. Strange, I thought they were just sick perverts wasting coerced tax money on dumb ideas and undermining the safety of the US by messing with other countries. Let’s ask the obvious question; 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. With an idea like this, the Pentagon has crossed into James Bond-supervillainy, and, at first, the thought process might seem too outlandish to ascribe any sanity or logic. I must, however, recall George Carlin’s observations about the language of American pop culture, such as George Bush Senior’s tough talk during Gulf War 1 (“we’re going in”…”this time, we’re going to finish the job”), as well as his ideas about what all of those bombs and missiles are shaped like. Perhaps, then, this is just the Pentagon following a train of thought? Perhaps screwing the enemy (sorry…) up sexually is the ultimate climax-er, I mean victory?

Yes, I know they said it was about spoiling the morale of enemy troops, but I don’t buy that. There are a number of obvious problems with that reasoning. First, who wouldn’t want to go into battle sporting a huge hard-on? I would prefer it was over a girl, being girl-crazy myself, but in the end, who cares? You wouldn’t even be concentrating on the fact that you just might die in this fight. It would make the whole unpleasantness of possibly being killed so much more tolerable. Second, an all-homosexual army would clearly be the best-dressed army in mankind’s bloody history. Remember those Moroccan troops at the start of Patton, which inspire him to comment “magnificent … I wish our troops looked that good”. What would happen to the morale of poorly dressed US troops in battle with such a dapper opponent? Perhaps the Pentagon realized the erroneous train of thought and that’s why they never developed this weapon. On the other hand, if the assumption is that the Pentagon can see its errors and correct for them, how does that explain the V-22 Osprey?

If, in 1994, the Pentagon wanted to make the US safer, it could have thought up a way to end the murderous sanctions regime against the civilian population of Iraq, which, at that point, had not quite killed all of the millions of people it was destined to. The Pentagon could also have thought up a way to extricate US troops and equipment from sacred Muslim territory in Saudi Arabia, and pretty much leave the region to its own devices.