A police bomb squad robot on display. Note the pair muzzles. Image by Boch.

Police remote-controlled robots have been around for years now. In addition to cameras, most police robots have tools used to disable explosive devices, improvised or otherwise, from a safe distance away. And some have more lethal features that go boom.

San Francisco Police Department has provoked a hysterical reaction (go figure) in recent days. They’ve sought formal approval for the use of 12 gauge shotgun shells in one of those “disruption” tools used against barricaded violent bad guys.

Never mind that these police robots could use ballistic “disruptors” for, uh, disrupting two-legged threats in addition to actual bombs if exigent circumstances demanded it. The SFPD proposal outraged those in the media who have generated some breathless reporting (weapons of war!) to sell clicks and some dead tree pulp.

In this case, it’s the UK Daily Mail . . .

The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) is proposing to use robots to kill suspects in ‘rare’ circumstances – with the force’s 12 bots set to assist officers with deadly force and ‘ground support’.

The new policy proposal is to be debated next week by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors Rules Committee and will define how the SFPD is allowed to use its military-style weapons.

One way the machines can cause deadly harm is by attaching a PAN disruptor device – which uses shotgun shells – to the robot. This can then fire bullets at the suspect. 

Of course, the woke social justice warriors who run the city’s government about soiled themselves at the very idea. Because guns are icky. And so are “guns” mounted on robots.

The draft policy has been scrutinized over the past several weeks by supervisor’s (sic) Aaron Peskin, Rafael Mandelman and Connie Chan, who make up the committee.

Peskin, the chair of the committee, initially attempted to limit the SFPD’s authority over the robot’s (sic).

‘Robots shall not be used as a Use of Force against any person,’ Peskin wrote.

The robot is only a tool, Mr. Peskin. There’s a person using that tool. In the same way, it’s not the gun that kills, it’s the person who pulls the trigger.

A number of years ago, the local bomb squad came to a Guns Save Life meeting and showed off their (at the time) fairly new robot. As gun people, we immediately noticed a pair of what looked like 12 gauge barrels mounted on the robot.

Sure enough, those two devices were one of the tools onboard for rendering explosive devices inert. And yes, the bomb squad explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) guys could load them with buckshot or whatever other loads they desired if circumstances warranted it.

Image by Boch.

For bomb disposal, they preferred the “mineral water bottle” tool which uses an explosive charge in a bottle of water to create a shockwave that forms a “blade” of water that, believe it or not, will slice through steel. That’s how a water bottle wrecks an IED.

Image by Boch.

For the skeptics out there, here’s an example of the “MWB” in action.

As for the PAN disruptor, which is what lay-people might identify as a remote-control shotgun of sorts, EOD people like to use water or other “projectiles” to minimize risk and limit collateral damage around the suspicious device they’re deactivating.

But it wouldn’t be hard at all to slip a round of 00-buckshot or a rifled slug into their robot for two-legged threats. While firing those projectiles might damage their PAN disruptor from the recoil, it surely beats risking additional lives to take out a determined bad guy.

But allowing their local police to safely take out a violent criminal predator might be more than the San Francisco Board of Supervisors can stomach.

The author in an EOD suit.  Image courtesy Boch.

 

 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

80 COMMENTS

    • Time to put your money where your mouth is. Or more correctly you body where the police are. Step up and show them how to take down a heavily armed suspect barricaded in a building yourself! You can have your body armor if you want. The standard AR-15 and sidearm. But you have to do it by yourself! Until then, robots will have a place and time when they can be used to save lives of civilians and officers alike! We now have automated weapons for the battlefield that can detect and neutralize enemy troops saving lives of our soldiers. I support 100%

    • These bots of war have no place in our streets.

      You’re right. Don’t put them in our streets, put them in the air. Quad-copter drones with grenades are more effective. Just look at Ukraine.

  2. Or, they could send a robot into your home. Like, the wrong home (or, if you happen to be one of the un-cooperatives). Then, with no imminent danger to the operator justifying lethal force, could kill the homeowner.

    Does this mean I get to rig a shotgun up to my ring doorbell for porch pirates?

    We talk slippery slope for other things, no different here IMO.

    • It’s not Robocop, it’s a remote controlled car with a shotgun on it. How is the scenario you’re describing any more likely than the flesh-and-blood LEO entering your house and killing you himself?

      There’s a leap in logic here.

      • SWAT was a great idea 50 years ago. Now they’re used for everyday warrants and are so many that their training has suffered. Flashbangs in baby cribs, anybody?

        How long before CPS gets killer robots?

        • Or the mad rush to push AI driven into everything? And you can bet it will end up in these robots too.

          There’s good reasons why top physicists across all fields are very worried and duly cautious. I use ML (machine learning) programs, but with heavy restrictions in a secure VM backed up by a hardware firewall which remains in paranoid mode, requiring manual auth rules for anything inbound or out to pass. No trust, at all.

          Yeah, I remember Bou Bou too…

      • You don’t see the writing on the wall? It’s zero stretch, as a matter of fact one step for someone with the wrong motivation to put face recognition software on an autonomous weapons platform.

        We may not be “there” yet(?), but the ability is coming.

        And once again, how does a LEO kill someone without physically being present? You don’t see a moral problem killing someone that poses no threat to you? It’s ok for police for “safety”, but not you or I?

        So a remote control car drives into your house with a gun on it. It shoots you because you are armed. Again, no THREAT exists to anyone but you in your house in this situation. Flesh and blood officer, at least has to think about what is happening in that moment, in that location. We might as well be dropping precision munitions on houses if you think robot death machines are appropriate.

      • Am I the only one who remembers Dallas PD blowing up the BLM shooter some years back?

        I was shocked that a liberal (now former) friend supported it! My response: “The cops are NOT Judge phucking Dredd! They are not judge, jury, and executioner! They do not get to decide who lives and who dies unless under the same circumstances that the rest of us do! Their job is to apprehend a suspect who is innocent until proven guilty so that he can be tried in a court of law before a jury of his peers. If we lose that then we have lost civilization. If they are going to wet themselves over possibly being hurt or killed in the line of duty then they need to find a new career.”

        I am a Respiratory Therapist. I have spent the last 27 years walking into rooms and treating patients with all kinds of severe infectious diseases. I worked the front lines all through covid. If you pick a career that involves danger or risk, well, you knew that fairly early on. You don’t get to puss out when the going gets tough. Man up and do your phucking job.

        I didn’t think my disdain for law enforcement and badge lickers could get any worse, but this has definitely increased it.

    • These babies will be perfect for door to door gun confiscation. The antigunners will be enabled to hunt down and exterminate us without ever putting their own lives in danger.

      • the real anti’s setting the policies will be perfectly safe either way, robots or real cops, because they are still home in bed at 05:30 when the raids happen

  5. I’ve seen this movie before. Or rather, these movies.
    One of them was called “Terminator” (1, 2, and 3), and it does not end well for the humans!
    This is how Skynet got started, remember? T-1000 Terminators, Hunter-Killers, etc.
    Ditto for the movie “I, Robot.”
    Ditto for “The Matrix.”
    Ditto for “2001, a Space Odyssey,” with killer robot Hal (“What are you doing, Dave?”)
    Here’s what always happens: first we arm the robots,
    then robots inevitably rise up and decide that humans are “a cancer on the face of the planet,” to quote Agent Smith from “The Matrix,”
    then the robots decide to “Exterminate all humans,” to quote Bender from “Futurama.”

    In my experience, the robots in the checkout aisle at supermarkets and drugstores can’t even ring up a single order correctly without having to buzz for a human cashier’s assistance.
    Robot: “PLEASE PLACE YOUR ITEM IN THE BAGGING AREA.”
    Human: “My item is already in the f**king bagging area, you stupid robot!”
    Robot: “PLEASE WAIT FOR ASSISTANCE… PLEASE WAIT FOR ASSISTANCE… PLEASE WAIT FOR ASSISTANCE…”

    LOL

    • “PLEASE PLACE YOUR ITEM IN THE BAGGING AREA.”
      Yeah, that robot. Where I shop it has a female voice. I call her “Patience” because she’s so damn impatient.

  6. The MSM must get a really bad cramp simping for the federal police state while decrying the actions of municipal forces.

    Barring a global EMP event sending us back to the 17th century armed robots are here to stay.
    Home defense Roombas will be thing sooner or later. Newsies already stroked out over a hobbiest kid firing a handgun from a drone in CT. Similar articles must have informed the public of the terror water-wheels would wreak across the prairie back in the day.

    Next time one of these people gets the vapors over burgeoning Terminator tech just suggest it will be used to stop the next January 6th and they’ll drop to their knees shouting hallelujah!!

  8. Wouldn’t lazer pens fck up the robots camera eyes?
    I mean just in case a tyrannical.gov got any ideas it would be nice to know some weaknesses.
    I think in the near future our gunms are going to be kinda like, ” Your puny weapons are useless, resistance is futile, prepare to be inseminated.

    • Any high powered light source will blind ccd’s. Even the 550 lumen on my peest0L in my waistband.

      Since you relo4d, you might be interested to know that the ought6 AayP bull3ts, which tend to run around 2800 natively or so. Those are best pulled and placed into tree00hunnert WiM, and @ 3300+ fps. That combo will pen a lot of IV ceramic/HMWPP hybrid plate models, and if not outright penetrate, will provide enough back face deformation to possibly incapacitate, or more.

      Bonus, no h3lm3ts have a chance against. Wonder why 22″ AayR in WiM? There you go.

  9. I have zero problem with blowing away bad guys. But I think arming robots poses moral and ethical questions.

    Of course, it’s par for the course that police don’t want to risk their necks. Uvalde anyone?

    Cops are supposed to have access to the same weaponry that citizens have access to. So, that means my local gun shop will soon have one of these robots on display, that I can purchase?

      • In Dallas. Police captain had C4 strapped to the go-kart then drove it up to the concrete wall the sniper was hiding behind. BOOM. Problem solved. It was a great day.

    • Why sure you can by one or two or three or twelve, I’d suppose itd take more jingle then I have tho.
      I’m kinda holding my money back for a Blackhawk helicopter tho, I figure the Taliban will have some surplus sometime soon.

  10. The paranoids among us forget the “remote-controlled” part in this proposal. These robots are run manually from a remote control with absolutely no decision-making assigned to the robot. It’s no different than putting an explosive charge on a remote-controlled car, running it under the bad guy’s vehicle, and detonating it. Is somebody going to tell me (really?) that the remote-controlled car was “thinking”? If they sent this into a home (which could be where a bad guy was hiding out), the officer running it would still be responsible for whatever he/she commanded it to do, just as if they were there in person. The legal bar would actually be higher for lethal force justification because the officer operating a remote-controlled robot would NOT be able to claim they were in imminent danger themselves if the robot was fired upon.

    • Until someone throws some popcorn in the microwave and the RF backwash sends the shoot signal.

      As a dude named Ben I will never trust a computer.

    • Legal bar my ass.

      The entire purpose of these remote controlled weapons platforms is to enable the authorities to employ deadly force without ever having to put a police officer’s life in jeapordy much less the life of the politicians that will issue the kill orders. This is why everyone needs to stock up on AP ammo.

  11. I’m convinced 95% of the people arguing against this think it’s some sort of autonomous kill-bot, able to be programed to target anyone The Man deems “undesirable” this week. I partially blame confusion over the word “robot,” but mostly I just think a lot of us are idiots.

    This is simply SFPD looking at the hard-earned lessons of 2016 in downtown Dallas, and getting out in front of any potential legal hurdles should the need arise.

    • Yeah, nothing EVER went wrong when the government is involved. I don’t have issues arming anything, including suicide bombers, but its the control I and others should worry about.

  12. I repaired one of these robots. I’ve also done a submersible RPV. Just tools at the end of a TV camera hose.
    BTW, the guys called this a “Disarmer” not a Schottgun. Maybe Officer Skywalker could use it as in Mos Eisley as a Dis-Armer?

  14. DUH, most bomb disposal robots always had a shotgun, well I guess that’s a new concept for Kommiefornia.

  16. Fox news ran a piece on this inferring (what I understood) that it might be autonomous. They also showed the video of the Boston Dynamics “dog bot” firing an AR style weapon with the barrel rising after each shot probably sending rounds into the nearby retirement village. Good times.

  17. We all know what kind of people are drawn to law enforcement like flies are draw to shit. Cops in Capitalvania are not properly vetted nor thoroughly trained when hired so every thug and sadist that wants power over people gets hired literally off the street to be a killer cop.

    The use of killer robots pose many problems.

    1. The killer robots will be overused rather than trying to defuse a situation or talk a man into surrendering because the robot makes danger to the cop no longer a problem.

    2. When killer cops are acting remotely, they don’t have live, 360-degree, multi-sensory, intuitive situational awareness, and their perception of a situation is more likely to be flawed or confused, and force used inappropriately and/or on the wrong targets. Signals may also be degraded due to communications and control problems with the robot.

    3. These remote control killer robots can be set off by hackers and probably will be and that could kill civilians and police officers both.

    4. Although there will be some rare scenarios where killer robots may be necessary the protentional for abuse and overuse is a certainty considering the brutality and sadism of most cops. There should be an independent citizen oversight committees to monitor the use of such monstrous machines of destruction before their use gets totally out of control by the average mad dog killer cop salivating everytime he has the flimsiest excuse to slaughter people with the killer robots. The last thing we need to see on the news is a modern day Dirty Harry Cop looking into the news camera and foaming at the mouth while saying “This makes my day”. We do not need any more Dereck Chauvin type cops running loose on the streets with killer robots and murder in their eyes.

  18. The FBI used a robot like this at Ruby Ridge. They drove it up to the steps of the Weaver cabin. They told Randy Weaver to come out and pick up the phone on the robot, so they could “talk.” Except that, like the SF robots, the Ruby Ridge robot also had a shotgun barrel mounted on it, facing the cabin steps. The FBI later called the inclusion of the shotgun barrel an “oversight.” Needless to say, Weaver did not go to the robot to pick up the phone.

    • “…..Ruby Ridge robot also had a shotgun barrel mounted on it……”🤔

      Perhaps they wanted Randy to cut that one down too.

    • Given the charges against Mr. Weaver, it was rather optimistic of the feds to think he wouldn’t recognize a SBS.

  21. Interesting that there is all this uproar about SFPD _proposing_ the possibility of using bomb disposal robots in a lethal manner, but there was a lot less uproar (almost none) when a bomb disposal robot was actually used by police to deliver an explosive charge to kill a barricaded criminal about a year ago. Off the top of my head I don’t recall the city where this was done, but it certainly has been done before in the US.

    Many bomb disposal robots are already armed with a 12 gauge shotgun and any bomb disposal robot could easily be used to deliver an explosive charge. Personally I don’t see a problem with using a robot that way per se.

    The problem that I do see is that it is a further deterioration of the standard ROE for police use of lethal force. I the last 50 years of so, we have generally come to recognize that police use of deadly force is supposed to be limited to “self defense or the defense of others” against an “immediate threat” — police are certainly given far more “benefit of the doubt” than any civilian, but the underlying standard is either the same or very similar (minus the nonsense “duty to retreat” that exists for civilians in a few states).

    The proposed SFPD policy for lethal use of robots would weaken that standard by allowing the use of lethal force against a subject who is believed to be armed even in the absence of any immediate threat. THAT is a slippery slope.

    • Unless there was another, more recent example, you’re thinking of 2016 in Dallas. The “suspect” had already killed 4 officers, then barricaded himself down a hallway on the 2nd floor of a building and shot and killed another officer on the street. They communicated with him for a couple hours, and he made it clear he wanted them to come and get him so he could take as many officers with him as he could. Rather than oblige him, they delivered a C-4 charge to him with the robot.

      • So the standard of “immediate threat” expires after a couple of hours? I’m trying to figure out why it wasn’t an option to wait him out, other than that cops had been killed and their friends wanted blood.

  22. Hey, as long as we peon civilians are allowed to purchase them as well, I’m not sure I see a problem.

    however, since, I’M 100,000,000 percent sure we will not be allowed to purchase them, I say nope.

    • “I did train in Exposives disposal and demolition as a Royal Air Force Armourer ”

      yet another false ‘qualification’ from you Albert.

    • you can purchase them as a “peon civilian”, they are just in a different form broadly called “industrial grade robots”

      • You just need to modify them a little to make them application specific, for example; attach a firearm, add some application specific sensors and cameras, some remote control method, a method to fire the firearm (which at its most simple is a standard OTS industrial grade remote control servo attached to the trigger, about $50.00, or a heavy duty model remote control servo used for large hobby models for even less). You end up with basically the same thing.

        For example, this > https://reliabotics.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/2-Kuka-KMR-Mobile-Robotics-1.jpg > through > https://reliabotics.com/buy-now/mobile-industrial-robots/

        You can find mobile industrial robot platforms used for less than 1/4 the price of new, sometimes if the technology used is very outdated you can find them in surplus scrap sales for a few hundred bucks.

        That’s what this police ‘robot’ is …. basically a mobile industrial robot platform ‘modified by re-design’ to be application specific.

  24. AS far as I know the UK has been using 12 gauge shells in Bomb Disposls robots for decades. I have no idea what the loads would be though but I would suppose some kind of disruptor . I did train in Exposives disposal and demolition as a Royal Air Force Armourer but that was way back when ‘BD ROBOTS wu oould have been considered a s Science Fiction
    But the idea that they could be used as some kind of armed defence method is quite frankly idiot -though I can see a possible use as a forced entry tool. Suggestions like this only go to show how far down the ladder of any kind of technical knowledge Administrators can fall

    • “I did train in Exposives disposal and demolition as a Royal Air Force Armourer ”

      yet another false ‘qualification’ from you Albert.

    • “I did train in Exposives disposal and demolition as a Royal Air Force Armourer ”

      Always the self aggrandizing Brit peon. Shut up Albert. I don’t think you’ve ever made a post on TTAG that was true.

    • Are the words ” I was a Royal Air Force Armourer” tattooed on your face or something? If not, they should be. You love to tell everyone about your so called time in the service…not that any reasonable person believes you, troll.

      • I went back once before and looked at all his posts, especially one a few months back where he said he was in his 80’s, and the ones where he pontificates on various firearms he claims to be expert with and taking into account when they were actually used in the British military. Here is what it turns out to be according to his own posts…

        He was in the Army Cadet corp before he was 14 years of age and then served as a Royal Air Force Armorer and then was a small arms instructor, and then possibly served in the Royal Navy, and then served as part of a special operations anti-terrorist unit.

        While in the military he was issued and trained on and trained others in a military small arms instructor capacity on various firearms including the the Lee-Enfield Mk.I that was discontinued in British military issue in 1907. If he is in his 80’s now, lets just use age 80, it means he was born in ~1942 but lets give a little latitude here and say hes 85 which means he was born in ~1937. If he was born in 1937 the Lee-Enfield Mk.I rifle was discontinued from British military use, including the Army Cadet Corp, 30 years before he was born. If he was born in 1942 the Lee-Enfield Mk.I rifle was discontinued from British military use, including in the Army Cadet Corp, 35 years before he was born.

        He routinely doesn’t know common firearms parts or information for the firearms he claims to be a professional expert for. At one point he didn’t know the difference between full-auto, semi-auto, and single shot manual bolt action firearms and it had to be explained to him. He spent a whole word salad pontificating on how all anyone ever needs is five bullets and a single shot bolt action rifle then for an example of such a rifle he points out the British L85A2 which he supposedly trained with in the British military.

        And now we find out he trained in Exposives disposal and demolition as a Royal Air Force Armourer.

        Bang up job on the military career, real dedication …. began serving his country and carrying a rifle and teaching others how to shoot before he was even conceived.

  25. 1. This is not a ‘killer robot’

    2. These are controlled by hard line cable and manually operated control box by a human. They are not capable of independent actions nor can they be hacked nor are there ‘wireless type’ ‘signals’ that can be disrupted which would allow ‘uncontrolled’ activity nor is it going to wild by its self and bring about a ‘skynet terminator’ dooms day killing machine robot scenario like dacian farther back up seems to imagine in his delusion.

    3. The ‘robot’ being talked about is that in the picture in the article, its a ‘dumb’ machine remote extension of human motion and sight capability. It it not capable of ‘killing’ or autonomous thought or activity, it can only do what its human controller makes it do. It is called a ‘robot’ in a marketing, reference, general euphemistic sense because its used as a ‘threat’ close range substitute for a human because the idea and concept of a human being close to the threat is not acceptable and horrifying. It does not meet the true definition of ‘robot’.

    4. Basically, it is a more complicated big fancy version of something like this > https://www.amazon.com/Grabber-Reacher-Tool-Foldable-Lightweight/dp/B095CQ3TBY/ref=sr_1_5?keywords=grabber+tool&qid=1669806359&sr=8-5 but only more high tech, durable, and useful with audio/video capability.

    • There are modern day ‘wireless’ control options for these things.

      However, they are very short range ‘wireless’, encrypted key that can only be generated by the wireless controller. Its possible for any wireless device to be overcome by ‘hacking’ in some manner, however, ‘hacker’ control of this type of device to send it on a ‘killing rampage’ is not possible as the hacker would need to know what the encryption key was at any moment in time because its changed randomly and very quickly several times a second.

      Millions of vehicles/automated machines on the roads today or in industrial use manufactured after 2000 are a thousand times more capable of being ‘hacked’ and controlled in some aspect by a ‘hacker’ then these police ‘robot’ things are.

      Can malfunctions happen that could cause ‘harm’ or unintended actions? Yes, and humans can ‘malfunction’ too and cause ‘harm’ or unintended actions.

      “Media Horrified as San Francisco Board of Supervisors Considers Arming Bomb Disposal Robots”

      In short, its a lot of hysterical ‘hand wringing’ sensationalism by the media to intentionally provoke a horrified reaction from ignorant snowflakes.

      • Booger Brain this shows how ignorant you are once again.

        Currently the U.S. Armed forces as well as foreign armed forces are working on and may already have Robots that act on their own independently and make the decision to kill.

        As a matter of Fact Germany already has Park robots that walk up to people and ask them for their trash after they get done eating.

        Japan has robots that meet you at the door of a factory and give you a tour of the place and even serve you coffee. To think that the Military has not already gone far beyond this is to be quite naive.

        The next logical step is the killer robot that will act on its own. And that day is probably already here. Lets face facts the cops have had the right to buy all kinds of military armament from the Military so why would they not start screaming for killer robots as well. That is a given cerntainity.

        • @dacian

          “Currently the U.S. Armed forces as well as foreign armed forces ….”

          Once again learn what context means. The article and I are posting about this police ‘robot’, not about the “U.S. Armed forces as well as foreign armed forces…” and the rest of your delusional crap.

  26. “For bomb disposal, they preferred the “mineral water bottle” tool which uses an explosive charge in a bottle of water to create a shockwave that forms a “blade” of water that, believe it or not, will slice through steel. That’s how a water bottle wrecks an IED.”

    In case anyone is wondering how this is possible … the “mineral water bottle” (MWB) device takes advantage of the fact of physics that water is (mostly) entirely incompressible and mineral water even more resistant to being compressed.

    The energy physics involved, basically; The MWB device uses a small explosive charge (e.g. blasting cap intensity and sometimes a little more) placed in the tube in the center of the bottle (see the pic). When the charge is detonated Newton’s third law is placed in motion – To every action there is always an equal Reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts – when that energy from the charge explosion suddenly hits the water, since the water is incompressible it has no choice but to assume the energy source (the explosion) force (rather than absorb) and move away from the explosion with an equal sudden reaction and drive outward in a sort of ‘concentrated shaped charge’ manner that focuses the energy to drive the water through the ‘object’ its near.

    • We use this methodology in the lab sometimes to slice chunks of steel or titanium from a block of testing material to simulate the plasma energy effect of an explosive charge on armor. Except we use a couple ounces of water and an electrical device energy pulse to generate the energy force that drives the water.

  27. Just wait ’til the law is amended so putting a hand on one these robots is “assault and battery of a police officer” the same way it is for K9’s.

  29. Sorry. NO EFFING WAY.

    Do you trust your government to only use a 12 ga armed robot against bombs?? Or barricaded subjects?

    Or will this become the new way they serve no-knock warrants. No effing way. If Government wants to exterminate a citizen, there needs to be a hand on the grip and a finger on the trigger so there is at least some accountability.

  31. Albert, I finally found a kindred soul from Jolly Old England I can agree with!
    My history is, I was an Apprentice Baiter on the M/V RAFael, netting cod and talapia out in the Thames Estuary. As we sold our catch to Armour Meat Packing (who knew SPAM was 30% fish?). I considered myself an RAF Armourer.
    Whilst in college on the South Side of Chicago (USA dontcha know), I enlisted in their army, and became a Green Beret, reaching the rank of Modern Major General in only 3 years. Not satisfied with the humdrum assignments, I lateraled over to their Navy, and became an Admiral, and Ruler of the Queen’s Navy (by polishing up the handle on the Big Front Door).
    My last mission was truly harrowing: The North Vietnamese had commissioned a submarine to navigate up Ngo Chi Itt Creek (Without Paddles, totally silent) to attack the outpost on top of Nui Ba Den with a Nerve Agent. I was the only Green Beret/Navy Seal available at the time.
    Leaping out of the bomb bay of the B52, I was targeted by SextupleA (Accurately Aimed Automatic Anti Airplane Arrows), tearing AlGores from my chute. I guided my body into a flock of gulls, and grabbing four of them, made a fairly decent stand-up landing on the deck of the sub.
    I had been detected, and they began to submerge. Thinking quickly, I tripped the Torpedo Loading Hatch open with my fin. My primary weapon, three M-60’s welded together, would not go down the hatch. I discarded it and dove in.
    They were all in Anti-Bacterial Gucci Suits (the Faucci model had not come out yet) and started to deploy the Nerve Agent at me. Thinking quickly, I tore open my MEDPACK and swallowed 18 Midol tablets (we had female GB/NS’s too).
    As no weapons were available, I had to react with lightning speed. I withdrew my trusty P-38 and brandished it at them. They surrendered, and I took over the Sub as a Prize, sailing it back to Boston Harbor, loaded with some really potent tea that kinda makes you hallucinate. You can see it at Annapolis to this day on the green, next to the lady’s loo, er, bathroom.
    True Story!
    Pip Pip, Old Chap!

Comments are closed.