3 ms·

Would have been more effective just to spray the enemy with hallucinogens.

• chrischen 3y ago
  Along that line what if you dropped cocaine or heroine over the enemy country? These things are cheap to produce.
  • hammock 3y ago
    What about crack? Even cheaper, and you could distribute it in the inner cities (or wherever it made sense) to control a target population
  • dzhiurgis 3y ago
    400M fentanyl pills seized in US last year, 70% of them lethal.
• tyingq 3y ago
  I would guess you wouldn't even need to make it a weapon. Just airdrop ready-to-use drugs across their positions. Enough bored and/or shell shocked soldiers will self administer.
• MilStdJunkie 3y ago
  Google Edgewood Arsenal and the BZ munition. Long story short - just like with gay bombs and all these other sorts of Cold War esoterica - is that humans are really complicated, and war is even more complicated. Turns out making people gay or psychotic - even if the chemicals did work at doing this, which is dubious given their tenuous understanding of what "gay" or "psychosis" was - doesn't actually reduce their warfighting capability. Sometimes, it even made a tenable tactical situation much worse. Now, when it came to making people think they were going crazy, that's where these substances really started to find some traction, but that wasn't a military application. More the territory of the CIA headshrinkers.