49 comments

[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 106 ms ] thread
And of the past. In WWI the germans had a new secret weapon that would make them invincible, called amphetamines.

They did not work as well as initially hoped.

Certainly of the past. Without the brain, there would be no war.
They worked well enough to fend off Russian invasion for my people.
World war two. The Allies used them too.
not just soldiers.. everybody had a good time with amphies for a while there. I don't know if the problem got as big as oxycontin but it was severe.
Amphetamine and Methamphetamine still commonly prescribed in USA, mainly for folks in the HN demographic. You'd be surprised.
Not just in USA. For folks with AD(H)D it's being prescribed to it is, however, barely useful for "having a good time" (unless you count having some kind of predictability on how you focus on tasks to be "a good time", which I guess works for its literal meaning).
(comment deleted)
Be nice if it didn't ball and chain you to a particular state...
I'm one, and I wish they worked as well for me as people in this comment chain are making them seem.
How do you think Google got built?
My mistake, you are right.

During World War One, the government provided cigarettes to soldiers to help ease boredom and reduce stress. Prior to the war, less than 0.5% of American people regularly consumed cigarettes. By the war’s end, approximately 14 million cigarettes were distributed daily.

According to Lukasz Kamienski, a political science professor at the Institute of American Studies and Polish Diaspora, and author of Shooting Up: A Short History of Drugs and War, cocaine also became a drug of abuse on the frontlines. People turned to the drug to boost energy, combat fatigue, and reduce wartime anxiety. It gained popularity when the British army created a drug known as “Forced March,” a combination of cocaine and a cola nut extract. People then began to self-prescribe the drug as a wartime aid.

Many of the soldiers’ wives and girlfriends sent packages of cocaine and heroin purchased from London pharmacists labeled as “useful presents for friends at the front” or sometimes “welcome presents for friends at the front.”

https://recovery.org/addiction/wartime/

It's the battlefield of the present. We're smack dab in the middle of the third world war right now and most people don't even realize it.
Unless there is hot war with mass death, it's not "world war", despite fantasies to the contrary. It's game theory and diplomacy and sanctions and propaganda and other psychological operations.
They did say you don’t realize.
There's no world wide hot war that most people are unaware of.
Some wars are fought with pens and scripts.
Not worthy of being called WWIII
Russians call it War War Z, and the same tactics: with enormous number of soldiers they are trying to bring to Ukraine now.
There have been dozens of wars on a single front since WWII. This is not WWIII. Why is everyone so insistent on calling it WWIII?
It'd be WWIV by the same logic anyway. After 9/11, people similarly said we were in a WWIII.
Couldn't be further from the truth. War today is fought with currency devaluations (currency wars), financial warfare, cyberwarfare, psychological warfare (propaganda, see the Western media reports on the well-funded Ukrainan and Russian propaganda operations), and more. Most people see war as purely kinetic war, i.e. bombs, but that is far too expensive politically and in terms of lives, and has become a small percentage of wars fought.

Governments today are explicitly endorsing what I'm saying above. The U.S. Los Alamos lab has been wargaming financial warfare for decades, for example.

That's why I said "hot" war.

Countries have "fought" each other using various non-kinetic means for millennia. We are not in WWIII.

Oops, I did miss that word. I agree with you then, we're indeed only in WW3 in a colloquial sense, not in any real sense.
Yes, that's a/the Cold War. I don't think anyone would deny that the Cold War is continuing, it's just that no one has ever called it WW III, since the terms "WW I" & "WW II" have always explicitly referred to hot wars
(comment deleted)
It’s an economic war. People die, it’s just that they die of other reasons instead of bullets, and the military isn’t involved much.

It’s much more cost effective to spend some money in helping an incompetent populist become president of a country than it is to invade said country. If you play your cards right, he’ll polarize the civilians so much that they will attack each other (Brazil has an election this week, let’s see how that goes)

It’s also a class war. When your infant mortality rate is increasing but your “too big to fail” companies are getting billions in bailouts, that is an act of war from the rich. It’s just undercover.

There's nothing wrong with anything you are saying but it still doesn't make it WWIII. The tactics you describe have been continuously used for centuries.
That is debatable.

Colonialism has been done for millennia, although Europeans "mainstreamed" it in the 18th century.

Neocolonialism (where you don't physically invade a country by using the military, but economic means like forcing them to agree to disadvantageous deals) is a more recent development. This video goes into more detail about that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35Ax-psPZ1g

The difference in compensation for supervisory and non-supervisory workers (related with their productivity) is huge today, but it was not that big in the 1970s. That is a recent event.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/25/race-sha...

The present is the only thing we ever have. And I agree, which ever way you look at it, it’s a battle for supremacy
Hah, this reminds me of cogitohazards and weaponized memetics from SCP lore
Not just SCP lore, cognito hazards exist within this world too, but it's heretical to label them as such (it doesn't take much thought to reason why). I'm writing this with There Is No Antimemetics Division on my desk.
Wow, this guy is proposing the use of neurotoxins and biological weapons in warfare. Not to affect populations but to alter the thinking of specific individuals (for enhancing soldiers or degrading enemy soldiers, diplomats, and politicians). A lot of what he talks about is vague and no where near realization (nanorobots to alter biology as a weapon, an FMRI helmet worn by soldiers). This seems like an incredible provocation to Russia and China to develop new chemical and biologic weapons. He also seems to think that crypto millionaires are financing this kind of biohacking and chemhacking for terrorism purposes. He suggests that some of these things should not be used, but that some should be assessed for use as weapons. He names a few DARPA programs along these lines that might be considered "dual use".
Seems like we need more checks and balances. I mean, we do anyway, but it would be a good counter.
We had a good one called the geneva protocol that covers stuff like chemical and biological toxins [0]. I vaguely remember Saddam Hussein being accused of using a nerve agent called VX years back and it being a big deal.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol

No! Wake up sheeple! When the government comes for us all, you need a garage full of semi-automatic drugs! Take this, haha!
I'm hoping we weaponize MDMA and psychedelics against enemy politicians (or perhaps our own?).
I wonder if we'd really notice a difference?
Reminds me of:

> Blitzed: Drugs in Nazi Germany - Norman Ohler

> [The book shows] how the entire Nazi regime was permeated with drugs - cocaine, heroin, morphine and methamphetamines, the last of these crucial to troops' resilience and partly explaining German victory in 1940.

> [The author] is explicit that drugs cannot explain Third Reich ideology, but their promiscuous use impaired and confused decision-making, with drastic effects on Hitler and his entourage, who, as the war turned against Germany, took refuge in ever more poorly understood cocktails of stimulants.

Yeah, why bother with propaganda, let's just use nanorobots that spread in the air instead...