(full site)
Fark.com

Try out our new mobile site!


Back To Main
   US Military driving soldiers crazy

10 Dec 2012 10:14 AM   |   11840 clicks   |   The New Yorker
Showing 1-50 of 89 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
fyrewede     
This is sad. We have 62,000+ homeless veterans in this country. I have to wonder if that number would be closer to 57,000 if it weren't for this sort of dangerous and reckless experimentation.

10 Dec 2012 07:15 AM
AverageAmericanGuy    [TotalFark]  
Oooh oooh oooooh

10 Dec 2012 07:41 AM
MorrisBird    [TotalFark]  
Back in 1975 Elliott Gould starred in a "comedy" about this. Link

10 Dec 2012 09:09 AM
gopher321    [TotalFark]  
But do they stare at goats?

10 Dec 2012 10:13 AM
duffblue     
My mother works for a Catholic program that puts homeless veterans into apartments. The stories I hear are absolutely crushing.

10 Dec 2012 10:16 AM
Ebbelwoi     
I didn't even RTFA. No more Chili-Mac!

10 Dec 2012 10:18 AM
KrispyKritter     
i know another government that thought nothing of experimenting on its people.

10 Dec 2012 10:19 AM
Billy Bathsalt    [TotalFark]  
This is the reason I've been hardening my brain cells for an eventual psychedelic gas attack.

10 Dec 2012 10:20 AM
ZAZ    [TotalFark]  
Same group that worked on the "gay bomb"?

10 Dec 2012 10:22 AM
This text is now purple     
But we want to entrust more of our services to the government, right?

10 Dec 2012 10:24 AM
omeganuepsilon     
I can't say as I blame someone who wants to do such experiments. It's a frustrating thing to have your science hampered so greatly by morality.

Actually doing them on innocent people, however, is too much.

I advocate testing(drugs and psychology) on hardened criminals, but even then you have humanitarian's to contend with. [I'll allow that it can be difficult to get accurate results from people who are already psychotic murders and otherwise already sick]

So we test on monkeys, PETA people are easier to write off as wingnuts but still get heard enough to stop the "worst" of it...sometimes...

So we test on rats, and fields like psychology are severely limited.

10 Dec 2012 10:25 AM
ChipNASA    [TotalFark]  
Unh huh...:

In December 1951, a Reuters's news dispatch reported that the U.S. commander of troops in Korea, Gen. Matthew Ridgeway, secretly brought Ishii to Korea as a biological warfare consultant to the U.S. military. Subsequent news reports stated that Ishii made two trips to Korea as a consultant for the Army.

In early 1952, the North Korean and Chinese governments accused the U.S. of employing biological weapons. North Korea's foreign affairs minister alleged that the U.S. had dropped hundreds of bombs filled with anthrax, plague and cholera on his country. The Pentagon scoffed at the notion and flatly denied any and all accusations.

To further bolster their charges against the U.S., the Chinese released the "confessions" of 25 captured American airmen. Along with the confessions, China also released a batch of photographs that they claimed were of "American germ bombs" dropped on North Korea.

The United States categorically denied the charges and maintained that the POW pilots and airman had been "brainwashed" into making any confessions. The U.S. demanded that the World Health Organization and the Red Cross be called to investigate the allegations, but the Chinese refused to officially recognize either organization as impartial.

Historians Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman write convincingly in their book, "The United States and Biological Warfare," that the U.S. extensively experimented with and deployed biological weapons, including anthrax, during the Korean War. They offer "hard evidence" that the Pentagon lied to Congress and to the American public about wartime activities in Korea and paint a vivid portrait of the U.S. Army and Camp Detrick researchers methodically exploiting captured data on Japanese experiments.

10 Dec 2012 10:25 AM
d23    [TotalFark]  

This text is now purple: But we want to entrust more of our services to the government, right?


Government is one big monolithic entity that is the same from bow to stern, right?

This is just another bullshiat partisan attack. Government can do both bad and good simultaneously just like any other organization.

10 Dec 2012 10:27 AM
Onkel Buck     
My uncle, who was a retired E-8 in the Air Force told me this tip before I went in the Army. He said when you join up they give you 9 marbles and every time you make a rank they take one marble away. So get out before you lose all your marbles.

/I have 5 marbles left
//csb

10 Dec 2012 10:27 AM
SkunkWerks     
3.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size

10 Dec 2012 10:29 AM
groppet     
Couldnt find any death row inmates to use it on?

10 Dec 2012 10:29 AM
swahnhennessy     
KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation had to start somewhere.

10 Dec 2012 10:29 AM
Jon iz teh kewl     
they should make an MDMA bomb. turning army people into gheys

10 Dec 2012 10:31 AM
joonyer     

omeganuepsilon: I can't say as I blame someone who wants to do such experiments. It's a frustrating thing to have your science hampered so greatly by morality.

Actually doing them on innocent people, however, is too much.


What makes those people innocent? They joined the military, that means there's a good chance they are guinea pigs for something. Not saying it's right, just sayin'.

So we test on rats, and fields like psychology are severely limited.

What do you think soldiers are to the military?

10 Dec 2012 10:35 AM
FTDA     

Ebbelwoi: I didn't even RTFA. No more Chili-Mac!


The veal parmesan is just a breaded hockey puck with melted cheese!

10 Dec 2012 10:35 AM
FTDA     

Billy Bathsalt: This is the reason I've been hardening my brain cells for an eventual psychedelic gas attack.


Awesome band name!

10 Dec 2012 10:36 AM
Jon iz teh kewl     

FTDA: Billy Bathsalt: This is the reason I've been hardening my brain cells for an eventual psychedelic gas attack.

Awesome band name!


ITS THE BAND THAT WILL MAKE U PASS OUT (AND POTENTIALLY DIEEEEE). CARRRRRRR FENTANYL!!

10 Dec 2012 10:39 AM
dittybopper    [TotalFark]  
Old news is so tangerine.

10 Dec 2012 10:44 AM
huntercr     
Man, that article is actually pretty fascinating. I don't know if I should be surprised at some of this but I am.

10 Dec 2012 10:45 AM
omeganuepsilon     

joonyer: omeganuepsilon: I can't say as I blame someone who wants to do such experiments. It's a frustrating thing to have your science hampered so greatly by morality.

Actually doing them on innocent people, however, is too much.

What makes those people innocent? They joined the military, that means there's a good chance they are guinea pigs for something. Not saying it's right, just sayin'.

So we test on rats, and fields like psychology are severely limited.

What do you think soldiers are to the military?


What makes people innocent is... that they're not criminals...

And soldiers =/= rats.

Go be anti-military derptastic somewhere else.

10 Dec 2012 10:45 AM
Sandusky Knows Best     
Dnrtfa. However the "hurry up and wait" mentality combined with the near impossible inefficiency is what made me want to tear my scalp off.

10 Dec 2012 10:47 AM
JackieRabbit     
So, dude, are you saying that he, like, grew some bodacious refer?

10 Dec 2012 10:49 AM
Evil Twin Skippy     

SkunkWerks: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 450x248]


I was thinking more along the lines of:

collider.comView Full Size

10 Dec 2012 10:50 AM
megarian    [TotalFark]  

FTDA: Billy Bathsalt: This is the reason I've been hardening my brain cells for an eventual psychedelic gas attack.

Awesome band name!


Can I play bass? I can yell, too.

10 Dec 2012 10:55 AM
inner ted     

omeganuepsilon: I can't say as I blame someone who wants to do such experiments. It's a frustrating thing to have your science hampered so greatly by morality.

Actually doing them on innocent people, however, is too much.

I advocate testing(drugs and psychology) on hardened criminals, but even then you have humanitarian's to contend with. [I'll allow that it can be difficult to get accurate results from people who are already psychotic murders and otherwise already sick]

So we test on monkeys, PETA people are easier to write off as wingnuts but still get heard enough to stop the "worst" of it...sometimes...

So we test on rats, and fields like psychology are severely limited.


hell, couldn't you just get volunteers or just pay subjects?

i don't think folks are too scared of side effects, just look at all the commercials for boner pills and such - the side effects take more air time than the pitch for the actual product. and i think those companies are selling plenty of product.

10 Dec 2012 11:04 AM
delsydsoftware    [TotalFark]  
If you read Ketchum's book, he makes a good argument for non-lethal chemical weapons. A lot of the substances they worked on were deliriants, which would make soldiers ineffective but not kill them. The idea was to just disrupt command and control to the point where a unit was ineffective and could be captured easily. His argument is well laid out, but I don't think you can ever separate that type of chemical warfare from deadly weapons like Sarin, especially since the research was carried out in the same facility where deadly chemical weapons had been created. There is just too much fear post-WW1 and WW2.

Regardless of your views, the book is really interesting. He includes a lot of testing information around BZ gas( Agent Buzz), which is a fascinating agent.

10 Dec 2012 11:07 AM
delsydsoftware    [TotalFark]  

inner ted: omeganuepsilon: I can't say as I blame someone who wants to do such experiments. It's a frustrating thing to have your science hampered so greatly by morality.

Actually doing them on innocent people, however, is too much.

I advocate testing(drugs and psychology) on hardened criminals, but even then you have humanitarian's to contend with. [I'll allow that it can be difficult to get accurate results from people who are already psychotic murders and otherwise already sick]

So we test on monkeys, PETA people are easier to write off as wingnuts but still get heard enough to stop the "worst" of it...sometimes...

So we test on rats, and fields like psychology are severely limited.

hell, couldn't you just get volunteers or just pay subjects?

i don't think folks are too scared of side effects, just look at all the commercials for boner pills and such - the side effects take more air time than the pitch for the actual product. and i think those companies are selling plenty of product.


Actually, Ketchum says in his book that the soldiers that participated with volunteers, who received doctor's care and monetary compensation for each experiment.

10 Dec 2012 11:09 AM
SkunkWerks     

delsydsoftware: but I don't think you can ever separate that type of chemical warfare from deadly weapons like Sarin, especially since the research was carried out in the same facility where deadly chemical weapons had been created. There is just too much fear post-WW1 and WW2.


Just because it's causes delirium instead of melting faces doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't have horrific, often lifelong residual effects, you know...

10 Dec 2012 11:10 AM
delsydsoftware    [TotalFark]  

SkunkWerks: delsydsoftware: but I don't think you can ever separate that type of chemical warfare from deadly weapons like Sarin, especially since the research was carried out in the same facility where deadly chemical weapons had been created. There is just too much fear post-WW1 and WW2.

Just because it's causes delirium instead of melting faces doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't have horrific, often lifelong residual effects, you know...


Yes, I realize that. But, I think the idea is not necessarily a bad one. The idea was to save the lives of soldiers rather than ending them.

10 Dec 2012 11:13 AM
StoPPeRmobile     

delsydsoftware: inner ted: omeganuepsilon: I can't say as I blame someone who wants to do such experiments. It's a frustrating thing to have your science hampered so greatly by morality.

Actually doing them on innocent people, however, is too much.

I advocate testing(drugs and psychology) on hardened criminals, but even then you have humanitarian's to contend with. [I'll allow that it can be difficult to get accurate results from people who are already psychotic murders and otherwise already sick]

So we test on monkeys, PETA people are easier to write off as wingnuts but still get heard enough to stop the "worst" of it...sometimes...

So we test on rats, and fields like psychology are severely limited.

hell, couldn't you just get volunteers or just pay subjects?

i don't think folks are too scared of side effects, just look at all the commercials for boner pills and such - the side effects take more air time than the pitch for the actual product. and i think those companies are selling plenty of product.

Actually, Ketchum says in his book that the soldiers that participated with volunteers, who received doctor's care and monetary compensation for each experiment.


I rmember being volunteered in the service.

10 Dec 2012 11:15 AM
SkunkWerks     

delsydsoftware: The idea was to save the lives of soldiers rather than ending them.


I get that, I was merely responding to the notion that the post-WWI/WWII aversion to ALL chemical weaponry is the only valid cautionary here.

There's a lot of great moments in non-lethal weapons research, and just about as many moments in which the non-lethal option is almost as bad if not worse than the lethal option.

10 Dec 2012 11:16 AM
DjangoStonereaver    [TotalFark]  
From TFA:

Operation Delirium
Decades after a risky Cold War experiment, a scientist lives with secrets.
by Raffi Khatchadourian December 17, 2012


This explains the odd picture I found of the writer on another website:

4.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size

10 Dec 2012 11:18 AM
omeganuepsilon     

inner ted: hell, couldn't you just get volunteers or just pay subjects?

i don't think folks are too scared of side effects, just look at all the commercials for boner pills and such


No, but you're equivocating relatively low risk boner pills to things like Pavlov did with babies, or the possibly permanent effects of things like LSD.

Not all drugs and psychology are created equal.

Experimental psychology, for example, could leave you a drooling vegetable, or thinking you're a dog, or conditioned to crap your pants when you hear the word " it ". People will not volunteer for that. Psychology does not come with any sort of guarantee or odds, it's simply too young of a science.

It's relative to exploratory surgery...500 years ago. Not something most of the public would go for, or even condone at the time.

10 Dec 2012 11:20 AM
delsydsoftware    [TotalFark]  

SkunkWerks: delsydsoftware: The idea was to save the lives of soldiers rather than ending them.

I get that, I was merely responding to the notion that the post-WWI/WWII aversion to ALL chemical weaponry is the only valid cautionary here.

There's a lot of great moments in non-lethal weapons research, and just about as many moments in which the non-lethal option is almost as bad if not worse than the lethal option.


Ah, gotcha.

10 Dec 2012 11:21 AM
BolshyGreatYarblocks     

omeganuepsilon: joonyer: omeganuepsilon: I can't say as I blame someone who wants to do such experiments. It's a frustrating thing to have your science hampered so greatly by morality.

Actually doing them on innocent people, however, is too much.

What makes those people innocent? They joined the military, that means there's a good chance they are guinea pigs for something. Not saying it's right, just sayin'.

So we test on rats, and fields like psychology are severely limited.

What do you think soldiers are to the military?

What makes people innocent is... that they're not criminals...

And soldiers =/= rats.

Go be anti-military derptastic somewhere else.


Plus, a lot of the "volunteers" were draftees, so the initial argument is invalid.

Plus the way suggestions can seem like orders in the military, plus Vietnam hanging over heads, plus the way people tend to follow authority figures in general........

10 Dec 2012 11:25 AM
SkunkWerks     

delsydsoftware: SkunkWerks: delsydsoftware: The idea was to save the lives of soldiers rather than ending them.

I get that, I was merely responding to the notion that the post-WWI/WWII aversion to ALL chemical weaponry is the only valid cautionary here.

There's a lot of great moments in non-lethal weapons research, and just about as many moments in which the non-lethal option is almost as bad if not worse than the lethal option.

Ah, gotcha.


Keep in mind that- even in the "lethal" weapons category- most military grade firearms and artillery isn't really designed to outright "kill" people and this is entirely intentional. Because even the most heartless warmonger recognizes the strategic value of forcing the enemy to deal with swaths of maimed or horrifically disabled wounded as a distraction to coordinating armed resistance. You can just bury the dead. Carting around a few dozen shrapnel-ridden bodies costs considerable resources.

If you want to actually kill people, grab a hunting rifle, honestly.

10 Dec 2012 11:30 AM
RugNug     

Onkel Buck: My uncle, who was a retired E-8 in the Air Force told me this tip before I went in the Army. He said when you join up they give you 9 marbles and every time you make a rank they take one marble away. So get out before you lose all your marbles.

/I have 5 marbles left
//csb


Do they give one back if you get busted?

10 Dec 2012 11:33 AM
inner ted     

delsydsoftware: inner ted: omeganuepsilon: I can't say as I blame someone who wants to do such experiments. It's a frustrating thing to have your science hampered so greatly by morality.

Actually doing them on innocent people, however, is too much.

I advocate testing(drugs and psychology) on hardened criminals, but even then you have humanitarian's to contend with. [I'll allow that it can be difficult to get accurate results from people who are already psychotic murders and otherwise already sick]

So we test on monkeys, PETA people are easier to write off as wingnuts but still get heard enough to stop the "worst" of it...sometimes...

So we test on rats, and fields like psychology are severely limited.

hell, couldn't you just get volunteers or just pay subjects?

i don't think folks are too scared of side effects, just look at all the commercials for boner pills and such - the side effects take more air time than the pitch for the actual product. and i think those companies are selling plenty of product.

Actually, Ketchum says in his book that the soldiers that participated with volunteers, who received doctor's care and monetary compensation for each experiment.


hey, as long as they are being up front with what the are being given & its related side effects (kinda doubt this) then have at it.

but it's our government, so i assume that they offer it as 'increased metabolism' or some other horseshiat when troops sign up & then hammer them with whatever magic sauce they've been dreaming up.

/adjusts tin foil hat - cause, you know, uncle sam has our best interests at heart.

10 Dec 2012 11:38 AM
ciberido     
SkunkWerks: Just because it's causes delirium instead of melting faces doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't have horrific, often lifelong residual effects, you know...

delsydsoftware: Yes, I realize that. But, I think the idea is not necessarily a bad one. The idea was to save the lives of soldiers rather than ending them.


I seem to remember reading a story in which an army had the policy of trying to wound enemy soldiers without killing them. The reasoning was that if a soldier was wounded, his fellow soldiers would be occupied taking him away from the front lines to medical treatment, so their fighting strength was actually reduced more than if the soldier had died outright.

I'm pretty sure it was a science-fiction story, but I can't remember the title or author.

10 Dec 2012 11:38 AM
ciberido     

SkunkWerks: Keep in mind that- even in the "lethal" weapons category- most military grade firearms and artillery isn't really designed to outright "kill" people and this is entirely intentional. Because even the most heartless warmonger recognizes the strategic value of forcing the enemy to deal with swaths of maimed or horrifically disabled wounded as a distraction to coordinating armed resistance. You can just bury the dead. Carting around a few dozen shrapnel-ridden bodies costs considerable resources.


I liked that a lot better when it was just fiction.

10 Dec 2012 11:40 AM
corn-bread     
The government has performed all these tests on live subjects, yet somehow "contrails" and the CIA inventing crack to finance overseas covert ops is quickly dismissed as conspiracy foolishness. People say that the government wouldn't do such things to their own people or that the concept is so absurd at its core as to not merit any consideration.

I don't know whether some of those things did or didn't happen but, and I hate like hell to admit this, after reading articles like this one it makes it harder to dismiss those theories as crack pot conspiracies. If the U.S. government had no compunction about exposing its own troops (and prisoners) to all manner of toxic deadly chemicals, why would they suddenly grow a conscience when it came to the public-at-large? What makes chemical contrails or CIA sold crack any more ridiculous in theory than LSD at a weaponized agent?

10 Dec 2012 11:40 AM
SkunkWerks     

ciberido: I liked that a lot better when it was just fiction.


War stories are nearly always more fun than, yanno, actually living through one.

10 Dec 2012 11:42 AM
inner ted     

omeganuepsilon: inner ted: hell, couldn't you just get volunteers or just pay subjects?

i don't think folks are too scared of side effects, just look at all the commercials for boner pills and such

No, but you're equivocating relatively low risk boner pills to things like Pavlov did with babies, or the possibly permanent effects of things like LSD.

Not all drugs and psychology are created equal.

Experimental psychology, for example, could leave you a drooling vegetable, or thinking you're a dog, or conditioned to crap your pants when you hear the word " it ". People will not volunteer for that. Psychology does not come with any sort of guarantee or odds, it's simply too young of a science.

It's relative to exploratory surgery...500 years ago. Not something most of the public would go for, or even condone at the time.


i dunno - some of the side effects i hear on the tv are everything short of turning into a zombie and eating brains - daily show or colbert did a bit last week about it...funny / shocking.

that's my whole point about volunteers knowing what they are volunteering for & how honest the tester is being to the test - e? (sounds like balls)

10 Dec 2012 11:47 AM
kokomo61     

SkunkWerks: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 450x248]


Came for the 'Jacobs Ladder' pic, leaving satisfied. That was a hard movie to watch....but I was glad I did.

10 Dec 2012 11:58 AM
pdkl95     

SkunkWerks: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 450x248]


I love the smell of BZ in the morning! Smells like... a particularly nasty anticholinergic.

That crap in the same class of drug as atropine (the stuff the makes the deadly nightshades deadly; commonly found in belladonna, datura (jimson weed), mandrake, and the like). The hallucination-effects in that movie are tame by comparison. Bonus crazy: the bad-trip lasts 24-96 hours.

/don't ever mess with the anticholinergics

10 Dec 2012 11:59 AM
Showing 1-50 of 89 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined