Full Version: Psychopharmacological Warfare
In October of 2000 the Pennsylvania State University released a report documenting the findings of a study that was done for the Marine Corps involving non-lethal, mind-altering drugs for use in warfare and civil situations. The report included drugs such as valium, SSRIs, opiates, ecstasy, and Ketamine to name a few, and it discussed delivery methods and potential situations that the drugs could be used in. The full report is available here: The Advantages and Limitations of Calmatives for Use as a Non-Lethal Technique
There is also a critical evaluation of the report here: Pentagon Program Promotes Psychopharmacological Warfare
The initial report, and it states as much, does not cover the question of ethics. That is what I want to discuss in this thread. Is psychopharmacological warfare ethical? In what instances should and shouldn't it be used?
There is also a critical evaluation of the report here: Pentagon Program Promotes Psychopharmacological Warfare
The initial report, and it states as much, does not cover the question of ethics. That is what I want to discuss in this thread. Is psychopharmacological warfare ethical? In what instances should and shouldn't it be used?
I would say the use of these weapons would be unethical. I haven't as yet looked up any rules of engagement or medical ethics, but I'd be surprised if they doesn't violate a number of them both as written, as well. Heck, if nothing else, it sounds like they're already illegal to produce or use. 
I can't imagine any instance in which their use should be approved. If memory serves, this is the same type of weaponry that was demonstrated by the Russian government during the theatre house hostage situation last year. Over 100 people died as a result.
These are dangerous drugs. A bullet may have higher mortality statistics, but these certainly aren't without their own. There's no telling how each person exposed to these drugs would react in any given situation. It goes along with how one person may take three ecstasy pills, and have the time of her life, while her friend dies from taking only a single pill. Even this aside, the reported considerations for their use is appalling in some instances:
I can't imagine any instance in which their use should be approved. If memory serves, this is the same type of weaponry that was demonstrated by the Russian government during the theatre house hostage situation last year. Over 100 people died as a result.
These are dangerous drugs. A bullet may have higher mortality statistics, but these certainly aren't without their own. There's no telling how each person exposed to these drugs would react in any given situation. It goes along with how one person may take three ecstasy pills, and have the time of her life, while her friend dies from taking only a single pill. Even this aside, the reported considerations for their use is appalling in some instances:
QUOTE
Torture: Precedex is a sedative approved for use in the US on patients hospitalized in intensive care units. The report draws attention to an "interesting phenomenon" related to Precedex use - the drug increases patients' reaction to electrical shock. The researchers suggest sensitizing people by using Precedex on them, followed by use of electromagnetic weapons to "address effects on the few individuals where an average dose of the pharmacological agent did not have the desired effect." Obviously, such a technique might be considered torture, and certainly could be used to torture. To add to hypnotic and delusional properties, the researchers suggest that psychopharmaceutical agents could be designed to have physical effects including headache and nausea, adding to their torture potential.
just spray an army with prozac, wow that seems simple. 
I also dont agree with this. I think that it should be a violation of the treatys in which our men shared their life for (i forget the name, but it is what happenes when a POW becomes a POW)
I could see some simple applications of this.
I could see police shooting rioters with tranquilizers, etc etc.
What I can't see, is spiking drinking water with anything. When used on such a large scale, you never know what could happen (Russian hostage situation a few months back)
--cheers
I could see police shooting rioters with tranquilizers, etc etc.
What I can't see, is spiking drinking water with anything. When used on such a large scale, you never know what could happen (Russian hostage situation a few months back)
--cheers
The question of ethics and war strike me as so utterly absurd that my existential side is ROTFLMAO.
We can't use drugs as weapons because somebody might get hurt or die?
But bombs, tanks, guns, etc. are okay. Why? Because killing with bullets, shrapenal, and concussion is what we are accustomed to?
Hey, maybe it's because the enemy might have too good of a time. We seem to really dislike euphoria.
Or is it, as one of our military leaders said recently, that war is a test of wills. If you take away an enemy's will to fight, NO FAIR! But shock and awe--that's okay. Um, and bombing the begezzes out of the enemy to destroy its will to fight--yep, okay.
I say drop kilos of killer weed along with MREs of pizza and boom boxes loaded with Hendrix, Stones, Sabbath, Zeppelin etc., then invade with Woodstock III and the crew from Alice's Restaurant!
Drop bongs, not bombs.
This issue would make a great Cheech and Chong movie.
We can't use drugs as weapons because somebody might get hurt or die?
But bombs, tanks, guns, etc. are okay. Why? Because killing with bullets, shrapenal, and concussion is what we are accustomed to?
Hey, maybe it's because the enemy might have too good of a time. We seem to really dislike euphoria.
Or is it, as one of our military leaders said recently, that war is a test of wills. If you take away an enemy's will to fight, NO FAIR! But shock and awe--that's okay. Um, and bombing the begezzes out of the enemy to destroy its will to fight--yep, okay.
I say drop kilos of killer weed along with MREs of pizza and boom boxes loaded with Hendrix, Stones, Sabbath, Zeppelin etc., then invade with Woodstock III and the crew from Alice's Restaurant!
Drop bongs, not bombs.
This issue would make a great Cheech and Chong movie.
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Apr 23 2003, 10:36 AM)
The question of ethics and war strike me as so utterly absurd that my existential side is ROTFLMAO.
We can't use drugs as weapons because somebody might get hurt or die?
But bombs, tanks, guns, etc. are okay. Why? Because killing with bullets, shrapenal, and concussion is what we are accustomed to?
Hey, maybe it's because the enemy might have too good of a time. We seem to really dislike euphoria.
Or is it, as one of our military leaders said recently, that war is a test of wills. If you take away an enemy's will to fight, NO FAIR! But shock and awe--that's okay. Um, and bombing the begezzes out of the enemy to destroy its will to fight--yep, okay.
I say drop kilos of killer weed along with MREs of pizza and boom boxes loaded with Hendrix, Stones, Sabbath, Zeppelin etc., then invade with Woodstock III and the crew from Alice's Restaurant!
Drop bongs, not bombs.
This issue would make a great Cheech and Chong movie.
We can't use drugs as weapons because somebody might get hurt or die?
But bombs, tanks, guns, etc. are okay. Why? Because killing with bullets, shrapenal, and concussion is what we are accustomed to?
Hey, maybe it's because the enemy might have too good of a time. We seem to really dislike euphoria.
Or is it, as one of our military leaders said recently, that war is a test of wills. If you take away an enemy's will to fight, NO FAIR! But shock and awe--that's okay. Um, and bombing the begezzes out of the enemy to destroy its will to fight--yep, okay.
I say drop kilos of killer weed along with MREs of pizza and boom boxes loaded with Hendrix, Stones, Sabbath, Zeppelin etc., then invade with Woodstock III and the crew from Alice's Restaurant!
Drop bongs, not bombs.
This issue would make a great Cheech and Chong movie.
LOL!
A tanker pilot friend of mine (who was involved in the Afganistan operation) once suggested that instead of bombing we dump massive care packages with alcohol, cigarettes, and porn. I thought that was a fairly revolutionary idea.
As far as war goes, I'm not sure about the application of drugs. It is too indiscriminate, in my way of thinking. Using them to subdue crowds is a slippery slope too. Scary new world we're entering.
I can definitely see the potential applications of these types of drugs for use in warfare and civil disorder, but I'm not sure how I feel about the ethical side of this. Yeah, I know....ethical warfare is a huge oxymoron, but in reality, we make these choices about warfare every time that we sign a treaty banning some sort of weapon.
My concern is that a lot of these drugs take an extended period of use to become effective which means that they would have to be administered either forcefully or via the water supply. I don't think that anyone should be tampering with the water supply.
Also, I find it very scary to think that the police force could use mood-altering substances on dissenters. "Down with the government....oh, wait...we love you man. Do you have any cheetos?" I mean, technically it's less violent than pepper-spray or tear gas, and it might be a better alternative, but just like anything, there is the potential to abuse it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use it, but it does warrant some analysis, particularly because there are so many side-effects and potential allergies to these drugs.
Additionally, Abs pointed out the role of medical ethics. Is it okay for drug companies to be producing these drugs for the purpose of warfare?
My concern is that a lot of these drugs take an extended period of use to become effective which means that they would have to be administered either forcefully or via the water supply. I don't think that anyone should be tampering with the water supply.
Also, I find it very scary to think that the police force could use mood-altering substances on dissenters. "Down with the government....oh, wait...we love you man. Do you have any cheetos?" I mean, technically it's less violent than pepper-spray or tear gas, and it might be a better alternative, but just like anything, there is the potential to abuse it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use it, but it does warrant some analysis, particularly because there are so many side-effects and potential allergies to these drugs.
Additionally, Abs pointed out the role of medical ethics. Is it okay for drug companies to be producing these drugs for the purpose of warfare?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.