6 ms·
It may be a stupid question...but why doesn't a country simply use something like "LSD gas" or "psyilocybin gas"? The assumptions are: 1) it renders people temp
by graderjs 5y ago
It may be a stupid question...but why doesn't a country simply use something like "LSD gas" or "psyilocybin gas"? The assumptions are: 1) it renders people temporarily crazy and docile / compliant, 2) it will wear off in a day or two, 3) people will fully recover, 4) while they are gassed, you can just gently shepherd them out of their dwellings / fortifications and onto buses to take to refugee camps or something, while they have an out-of-body mystical experience and comprehend the totality of existence.
Everybody wins.
It seems that a non-lethal / no permanent disability hallucinogenic agent would not violate the treaty against chemical/biological weapons, would basically achieve passive area denial, with create zero casualties, and would (if it actually worked as intended) probably be a heck of a lot of fun (ignoring all the un-fun aspects of war like "these new people now own this territory and here are the consequences for everyone who used to own it".)
Note: if a gas is impractical as delivery mechanism (hello, gas masks), be creative: a 'contact agent' (skin absorption ~~ like DMSO), cheap 'cluster darts' sprayed from drones, etc, etc.
- krono 5y ago> no permanent disability hallucinogenic agent Reactions with other (perscription) meds, pre-existing medical conditions, side effects, and more such things could lead to permanent damage anyway.
- graderjs 5y agoGood point. Would need to be thought through.
- disambiguation 5y agoAre you on LSD gas right now?
- graderjs 5y agoHahaha you said "lsd gas". Awesome! Heh, I wish :) Never tried the LSD. Would love to. Never came across it. Hook a brother up? ;p xxx ;) edit: re-thinking this after reading the sibling comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30685186 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30685186): I very well may be! hahaha
- mbg721 5y agoWho's to say they haven't been doing exactly that for years? That would answer a whole lot of unresolved questions.
- graderjs 5y agoAn excellent hypothesis. Thank you! What's the on-the-sly delivery mechanism in that case do you think?
- nyanpasu64 5y agoFor what it's worth, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychochemical_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychochemical_warfare describes past research and uses with mixed effectiveness.
- graderjs 5y agoGreat reference, thanks!!! :) I bet the CIA FOIA reading room may have some other interesting data, asides from the shameful MK*** stuff. But perhaps not as relevant as military applications...if only DIA (or the competent authority) had a FOIA reading room that was as good...
- stef25 5y agoThe British army actually dosed soldiers with LSD to see how they'd perform in drills. Needless to say the result was hilarious (climbing trees to feed the birds, incapable of reading maps) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziqpwkhqTRs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziqpwkhqTRs Not sure if I'd trust people tripping around ballistic missiles though. These guys have been living in rough conditions, underfed and sleep deprived ... not the best "setting".
- esperent 5y agoThis comment clearly written by someone who has never tried a hallucinogen. There are drugs that could render people docile enough to be "gently shepherded"... But not these ones. A high dose administered in a war zone could lead to permanent psychosis in thousands of people, however. Overall, using these kind of drugs in war would be wildly unpredictable, probably very ineffective, and would be considered a chemical attack, probably.
- graderjs 5y agoThis comment is clearly written by someone who has never admitted to being wrong, or never encountered someone who had a different experience to what they understood or assumed ;). I've done psyilocybin. Multiple times (where it's 'legal', in Amsterdam). And majored in Chemistry XD I agree, the, er, details (heh) would need to be worked out. You sound like you like to sound like you know what you talk about with hallucinogens, care to suggest a good compound, huh? :) edit: I love how I'm pushing back against the arrogant counter factual mis assumption / ad hominem in the parent, but I'm the one who gets downvoted. Anyone want to share a view on why?
- hajile 5y agoTake hallucinogens in a nice calm atmosphere and you'll generally have a nice, calm experience and maybe even gain a new perspective. Take them under stress (eg, a war) and you are almost certain to have a terrible trip with disastrous psychological effects. Not a great plan.
- graderjs 5y agoGood point. BUT, what if we made the "war" like an information war. So soldiers war multi-color rainbow tie-died "conceptual disruption" camo. And brought munchies and flowers, and those head-massager spiders, and shamanic drumming music...in other words, basically the "invading army" did everything in their power to make sure everyone had a f** fantastic trip, because that would make everyone more docile and just be easier. It could really revolutionize warfare. An invasion of overwhelming peace love and fun...Killing your former property rights with seductive kindness...
- o_m 5y agoThat would be against the Geneva convention, probably under poisonous gas.
- bluGill 5y agoNote that the Geneva convention was signed only after consulting with the generals. If it isn't allowed there it is because modern military doesn't really want it. Landmines for example are allowed because there are generals who see a real war use for them. (countries that have signed a treaty not to use them are allies with some other country that will place them as needed thus allowing a symbolic promise that can be worked around easially)
- bluGill 5y agoBecause you can't control who gets hit. Sometimes the wind will blow it back in your face and so you do no harm the the enemy, and your own people (anyone who didn't have a gas mask properly on - note that this can be people miles away that you didn't inform) are hit. When you need to wear protection and the enemy doesn't is a big advantage for the enemy. Have you ever worn a gas mask? They are worse than the n95 masks people object to wearing for COVID. They really are hard to breath in. No modern army wants to use chemical weapons because they don't get enough control. The times when it backfires are common enough that you can always find a better tool for war.
- graderjs 5y agoI used to run around in an old WWII disposal gas mask as a kid for a lark. Was pretty fun and weird, but I have no idea if it actually worked. Maybe there could be some temporary gene therapy that could infect the deploying side with 'immunity' against the drug, maybe by quickly metabolizing it?
- Loughla 5y agoSo now, to the chemical attack, you've added large scale gene therapy treatments to troops, civilians, and contractors to make sure "you're side" doesn't get hit? Bombs work pretty well without the need for all of that logistics.
- graderjs 5y agoHahah, true true. We did expand exponentially pretty quickly there with that plan, heh :) Still it was a nice idea / ideal. sigh maybe there's some way one day...
- rascul 5y ago> Have you ever worn a gas mask? They are worse than the n95 masks people object to wearing for COVID. They really are hard to breath in. I have used them in the US Army. They are uncomfortable, hot, and difficult to breathe in (like you mentioned). Drinking water is awkward, but doable. Even worse when you're in full MOPP gear. [0] I was for a time in a unit which trained regularly with MOPP gear (even light physical training at times) and it really sucked every time we had to wear any of it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOPP_(protective_gear) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOPP_(protective_gear)
- JRKrause 5y agoYou are under-estimating the long-term traumatic psychological effects a bad trip can have. Not to mention the inability to properly control dosage in a large-area dispersion scenario.
- graderjs 5y agoNah yeah that's fair enough. Definitely that's may be problem for some people. Surely we could "tune" this with better chemistry, tho? The vector part is really interesting tho. How can you reliably dose a mass population in an urban environment? The limitations of gas have already been discussed (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30685608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30685608). My idea about "cluster darts from drones" sounds 'good' but seems like it could have some serious technical issues / pitfalls. I think a "natural agent" like a virus is the best way.
- kop316 5y agoThis article, in my opinion, makes a very convincing argument for why Chemical warfare is not used anymore. https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-chemical-weapons-anymore/ https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...
- wolverine876 5y agoIt's sad to read how strenuously people argue to deny progress, a desire to make a better world, and its overwhelming effectiveness - we live in the world built by that vision and effort, and we can easily carry it on. It's like the reactionaries have convinced people - against all visible evidence - that our worst angels are our only ones, that we have no free will to be other than depraved. Perhaps the decline of religion has hurt.
- chasd00 5y agoyou can't control the dose. Consider LSD, a little bit goes a long way. "little bit" = the microgram scale.
- sschueller 5y agoThe Russians tried this is a theater taken over by terrorists holding hostages. 130 people died from the gas that was only supposed to make them unconscious. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisi...
- graderjs 5y agoI know. I was thinking of that when I wrote the comment. Tragically sad. But that was fentanyl, the 'safe dose range' of which is pretty tiny because it's so intensely strong.
- f38zf5vdt 5y agoHallucinogen and other narcotic gases were tested extensively in the 1940s-1960s. They were found to be extremely unpredictable as to the areas they affected, which varied with wind, and dosages delivered to combatants. Their ability to neutralize combatants is limited compared to a lethal tactic, such as the chemical gases employed in Syria by Russia and allies. [1] Russia has employed narcotic gases to deal with terrorist situations before, with significant casualties. [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis
- graderjs 5y agoGood data. > Their ability to neutralize combatants is limited compared to a lethal tactic Hard to argue with that...But their neutralization could be so much more morally expansive (and defensible). The Russian fiasco used fentanyl, which in hindsight seems a poor choice because of its off-the-charts potency / low margin for error with safe dosing.
- aseerdbnarng 5y agoThings that spring to mind: - Gas in an open space is the main one. It would need to be very potent stuff to be effective and something that potent in tiny doses is almost certain to be highly toxic - Getting the gas widely disbursed in a built-up area may only be effective by destroying the buildings (so we're likely back to square one) - Logistically a challenge as your own troops/transport would need to be quite close to take advantage (whereas dead people tend to stay put) - Even if you could solve 1-3 it probably takes way too long to zonk someone out and it can be easily stopped by putting on gas masks or retreating.
- graderjs 5y agoFair enough. These are good points. A solid analysis! I think we could try some other vector, but they probably suffer from similar issues. Ultimately, maybe the best one is some sophisticated EMF-activated "latent agent" that you've somehow managed to "infect" the population with, ahead of time, in some arbitrarily long "preparation" step. And then, "zap", when you roll into town with your army of hippy-love-trip-party parade (actually invading force), you can broadcast the frequency that "activates" the latent agent, and induces the desired compliance. But that sounds like some high tech that I haven't seen any papers published about...
- hackeraccount 5y agoI've heard this idea before from Sci-Fi author - Gibson, Dick or maybe Stephenson. I've never used an hallucinogen before but I'm skeptical of the idea. Say it worked as you describe - it'd be lowering the danger to the people being gassed (as opposed to shooting or some sort of genuinely poisonous gas) which is potentially OK for enemy civilians but probably not the effect you want for enemy combatants. Compare it to land mines. Those are dangerous as much or more then deadly. Being maimed is (to put it mildly) disheartening to think about, worse still to see happen to a friend and then on top of that a single wounded soldier will generally send them out of action plus the guys who need to take their legless comrade out of the combat zone. If I were off to war and I had to face an enemy who'd set me up for that vs. one who might subjugate me to party drugs I know which one I'd pick. Trickier question is of course - if you were going to war and had to pick which one to dish out which would you pick?
- steve76 5y ago[dead]
- wolverine876 5y agoAFAIK weaponizing chemicals is the hard part, especially distribution. You need to cover a very large area to be effective, deal with wind, etc. We can imagine all sorts of chemicals that, if they could be distributed widely, would be effective, but it ain't easy.