Weaponized Agents

[specialspack]

It's certainly a very interesting topic, and I won't deny I find this thread quite fascinating.

It's just that a discussion of the weaponization drugs, and what would make the best agents and vectors makes me somewhat uncomfortable. I don't believe in value-neutral science

 

[nuke]

I had a problem with it -- if anything we don't want any more heat from the government for discussing chemical and biological warfare. However, none of the other mods seemed opposed so I left it open.

 

[Ham-milton]

It's certainly a very interesting topic, and I won't deny I find this thread quite fascinating.

It's just that a discussion of the weaponization drugs, and what would make the best agents and vectors makes me somewhat uncomfortable. I don't believe in value-neutral science

all science is value neutral. it's what you do with it that gives it a value.

 

[mad_scientist]

This thread is quite morally dubious, and I agree its not the kind of thing we normally discuss here.

However I would draw a distinction between the "non-lethal incapacitating agents" we have been discussing here and the true chemical weapons like nerve agents etc.

I think these non-lethal agents are worthy of discussion seeing as they're the kind of things that governments use against their citizens involuntarily (e.g. as riot control agents, that Moscow theatre siege), but I agree with Specialspack that this is not the place to be discussing anything more deadly.

 

[theWorldWithin]

I think the fact that we are even discussing the ethics of the thread speaks volumes about the intention, IE it is strictly academic. No one here is trying to justify the use of psychotomimetics on unsuspecting victims. And it is a rather interesting topic because of the unique pharmacology at hand.

Although these drugs have been used in very unethical ways in the past they do also poses the potential for a more "humane" warfare. Suppose that a given location needs to be taken, is it not better to send the enemy out of his gourd and to the POW barracks than simply firebombing acres of land and bodies?

I see no reason why the technical aspect of these drugs cant be discussed. And the more research that goes into them the more awareness the public gains of their existence and possible antidotes. All education is valuable in the interest of public welfare, even education about taboo subjects.

 

[specialspack]

I think the fact that we are even discussing the ethics of the thread speaks volumes about the intention, IE it is strictly academic. No one here is trying to justify the use of psychotomimetics on unsuspecting victims. And it is a rather interesting topic because of the unique pharmacology at hand.

The intention appears to discuss what agents would be most useful, i.e. cause the desired "weapon" effect. What is the point in this discussion if the end result is not to come up with some ideas of what would be the best drugs to use on unsuspecting victims?

Although these drugs have been used in very unethical ways in the past they do also poses the potential for a more "humane" warfare. Suppose that a given location needs to be taken, is it not better to send the enemy out of his gourd and to the POW barracks than simply firebombing acres of land and bodies?

Precisely because it is this kind of slight of hand that encourages people to look away. Firebombing land and bodies shows the consequences of warfare - burying that as psychological damage, unseen by the rest of the world is a license for power to inflict its will. "Non-lethal" weapons of any kind encourage their use, and allow repressive regimes to control their populations with greater ease. They also end up as torture devices the world over - mace, stun batons, tazers...

I see no reason why the technical aspect of these drugs cant be discussed. And the more research that goes into them the more awareness the public gains of their existence and possible antidotes. All education is valuable in the interest of public welfare, even education about taboo subjects.

The more research that goes into them the more the public gains? With all due respect, what kind of fantasy world would that be? Just like the years and years of r & d into, oh, say cluster bombs, gave the public loads of great information on how to avoid being injured by them?

Anyway, this thread doesn't seemed aimed at asking what weaponized agents are there, and what antidotes might be available, but rather what would make better weapons. It seems much more likely that the people who would gain out of such a discussion would not be "the public" but some enterprising security services agent who stumbles across an idea he'd not thought of before...

 

[specialspack]

all science is value neutral. it's what you do with it that gives it a value.

Science does not exist in an objective neo-Platonian realm and then somehow gain value when brought into the real world - it is constructed within the real world, and thus takes value at it's very inception. You don't have to believe in the radical social construction of knowledge to acknowledge that political and social factors direct areas of enquiry.

Anyone who works in military science of any kind who holds up their hand to their science being value neutral is guilty of the worst kind of ethical hand washing, IMO.

 

[vecktor]

there is no danger of this thread turning up something that the military haven't already thought of and investigated, the materials discussed are at least a decade old and all the information posted in this thread is public domain. There is a lot more useful information out there if you look beyond wikipedia.

that said this thread is not something I will contribute to.

 

[Holy_cow]

Would TCDD (dioxin) fall into the scope of this thread, or is it only about psychopharmacologically active agents?

 

[haribo1]

The tread is 'weaponised agent'... says nothing of non-fatal. I proposed 3MF and nobody objected even though 312 Russians died of it's effects.

 

[Ham-milton]

Science does not exist in an objective neo-Platonian realm and then somehow gain value when brought into the real world - it is constructed within the real world, and thus takes value at it's very inception. You don't have to believe in the radical social construction of knowledge to acknowledge that political and social factors direct areas of enquiry.

Anyone who works in military science of any kind who holds up their hand to their science being value neutral is guilty of the worst kind of ethical hand washing, IMO.

this is nonsense. So because something might have a negative use it's wrong?

Everything we're discussing here- some of which could be absolutely horrendous when applied to an unknowing public- do a hell of a lot more than help people do horrible things.

If you can't see how all of this information can be used to help the very people attacked, you're not trying very hard.

 

[specialspack]

this is nonsense. So because something might have a negative use it's wrong?

You're putting words in my mouth here - I never said that, nor would I advocate it. I was merely pointing out the other extreme position (all science is value neutral) is equally unthinking as dismissing topics of enquiry because of their potential negative consequences. A balance should be struck, which requires ethical judgements by those working within the field.

Everything we're discussing here- some of which could be absolutely horrendous when applied to an unknowing public- do a hell of a lot more than help people do horrible things.
If you can't see how all of this information can be used to help the very people attacked, you're not trying very hard.

Of course the chemicals under discussion can do a lot more useful things, when discussed in abstract. We could talk all day about the chemistry and pharmacology of BZ, fentanyl derivatives, etc. It's the weaponization of such drugs that I object to - as soon as you start talking about delivery mechanisms, and suitabillity of agents for different targets, what makes each substance good or bad as a weapon - that makes me uncomfortable. This step from (relatively) neutral discussions of chemistry, to how best to use these agents, means making the moral judgment that it's alright to use them this way.

I mean, the discussion has already leaned towards what might be the most psychologically incapacitating/damaging (and therefore better). If there was a thread on "how best can I spike someone, and what would be the most unpleasant experience I could give them?" I would hope it would be locked sharpish. Abstracting it to a large scale, impersonal use doesn't make it any less ethically dubious - quite the opposite.

But no, in answer to your last point, no I can't really think how this information could be used to help the very people attacked, short of discussing antidotes, which this thread doesn't seem to be about. What other things do you have in mind?

 

[haribo1]

Fentanyl is easy to make safe... but the Russian military didn't tell anyone. I see this thread as a 'thank god the smart people arn't murderers'. Look at the fiasco the Ohm Sect caused....

 

[<pyridinyl_30>]

Well, regarding non-lethal weaponized chemical agents, there's always high-dose aerosolized lsd-025 I reckon.

 

[indelibleface]

LSD comes on too slow to be an effective agent, and furthermore the effects would vary too much.

This is why no psychedelics ever got past the testing stage in military chemical warfare.