Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Department of Defense Gadget Show

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the bells-whistles-and-fingerprint-scanners dept.

blackp writes "DefenseLINK has an article about Force Protection Equipment Demonstration IV. This year they had over 2,600 gadget and equipment for defense and government agencies. The list includes kevlar suits, body heat camo, a RoBoCop Suit, even biometric identification. Some pictures are available, although somewhat limited. This show seems perfect for the geek with a big budget." Or the government with a big budget. Still, some neat things on display.

17 of 183 comments (clear)

  1. Well... by cageyjames · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Got to spend money to make it. Go to the moon or expensive toilet seats... All the same... Generates jobs.

    1. Re:Well... by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Insightful
      expensive toilet seats

      Every time someone wants to get a news-op, they drag out how much it costs for something that you could buy at the local hardware store for much less.

      Guess what? Your local hardware stores probably aren't ISO-900x compliant. Their suppliers probably aren't. If some unauthorized cheap toilet seat pinches a general's butt, no one will be able to track back the supply and manufacturing trail to 2002/03/01, the 3rd shift, line 2 of PlastiButtCo, employee Al Kali.

      The price is expensive, but that's $5 for the toilet seat, $5,000+ for the time and paperwork. (Not that soft, triple-ply padding doesn't happen from time to time.) It's stupid, butt^h that's the system.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  2. not quite robo cop by killthiskid · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Eugene Hudson, chairman of DoD's physical security equipment action group, said because of continuing concern of terrorism, the focus of the demonstration was to give government and civilian officials a firsthand look at readily available technology to meet their force protection needs.

    Damn, I thought, a RoboCop suit already! Wow! Then I read:

    For example, one company, Med-Eng Systems, Inc., showed off its "RoBoCop"-like suit made of thick layers of Kevlar for protection against heat, flames, blast fragmentation and impact. It weighs about 40 pounds and comes with a special undergarment, boots and gloves to protect wearers against chemical, biological and radiological exposure.

    Ugh... yeah. That's cool. Damn impressive even... but ROBOCOP?!? These guys obviously didn't watch the movie... :-)

  3. New? by jade42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is it just me or does it seem like the same technology year after year. It gets refined a bit but I don't think that we get the fruits of any new ideas.

    --

    Brought to you by the Artificial Idea Factory.
    1. Re:New? by qortra · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you're right; every one of the technologies that I've seen mentioned already exists (and is even in use today). However, I think we are pretty close to a breakthrough in many of these areas; as a few fringe technologies mature, I think we'll begin to see totaly new gadgets. The thing is, law enforcement agents, soldiers, etc. can't be counting on untried, untested technology, so I'm sure that manufacturers cater to a far more conversative crowd.

      If you want new exciting technologies, this is probably not the place to look.

  4. Isn't it sad? by spoco2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That so many technological improvements are pushed by the 'defence' industry to come up with new and exciting ways to kill people...
    Oh to live in a world where the prime driving force for innovation is a desire to improve living conditions, feed more people, educate the masses rather than killing them.

    *sigh*

    1. Re:Isn't it sad? by dvk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, yeah... a perfect world with no weapons... and then the first wacko who enjoys destroying and hurting people (and those always get born, it's human nature) goes around and due to total defenselessness of the rest of the environment, at best hurts a LOT of people, or at worst, if he's power hungry, takes over. Oh, and since you can't ban sticks and stones, then if he is physically stronger, he would have the sme advantage over the rest of the people as any armed human over less armed one. GREAT. Scratch that attempt at utopia.

      See, humans come in all forms and shapes. Some are born power hungry. Some evil. Some both. Unless you are protected from them, you are the next victim.
      The only difference between "pacifists" and "peace-loving people", and those who are "warmongering" and "hawkish", is that the latter are ready to protect themselves and their society from those who would attack it.
      The former come in two categories - those who simply don't get the real world and think everyone else is 100% peaceful and harmless as a daisy, and those who aren't that naive, but are cynical enough to let the "hawkish" to protect them and their family while acting all nice and dovish and "better than the warmongers".

      -DVK

      --
      "The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
    2. Re:Isn't it sad? by GlassHeart · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The only difference between "pacifists" and "peace-loving people", and those who are "warmongering" and "hawkish", is that the latter are ready to protect themselves and their society from those who would attack it.

      There are also "doves" who are willing and able to use force if sufficiently threatened. Likewise, there are "hawks" who will back down and run away if you stand up to them.

      [Pacifists] come in two categories - those who simply don't get the real world and think everyone else is 100% peaceful and harmless as a daisy, and those who aren't that naive, but are cynical enough to let the "hawkish" to protect them and their family while acting all nice and dovish and "better than the warmongers".

      Some "hawks" are much more willing to send somebody else's sons to fight and die, than to send his own. There are also "hawks" who start unprovoked and unjustified wars.

      See, humans come in all forms and shapes.

      So why put them in just two buckets, hawks and doves? Realize, instead, that people resort to force at different thresholds of patience or pain. The spectrum runs all the way from Jesus Christ's turning the other cheek through Israel's various wars for survival, through George W. Bush's someday-they-might-threaten-us war, to Hitler's hopes of world domination.

  5. Re:Unfair? by GMontag · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You have apparently missed Rule 1 of warfare:

    There is no such thing as a fair fight.

    Well, you missed Rule 2 also:

    Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

    Well, maybe Rule 3 also:

    If the enemy is in shooting range you are too.
    (modified by asymetric Artillery advantages and close air support)

    Well, Rule 4 too . . .

    --
    Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
  6. And only a peace creep could be so smug. by nurightshu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If ridiculous platitudes were all it took to keep the peace, we wouldn't have anything to worry about, I guess.

    Are Murphy's Laws of Combat trite aphorisms? Sure. But that doesn't mean that they don't contain some important nuggets of truth.

    For example, the statement that "there's no such thing as a fair fight" is paramount in U.S. warfighting doctrine and has been for some time. The only thing that a soldier, sailor, or airman cares about as much as accomplishing the mission is bringing himself and his unit home as intact as possible. War is by nature a risky business, but the fewer casualties that our soldiers and allied forces incur, the better.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't think any sane individual wants to see civilians hurt, but soldiers in the opposing military knew what they were getting into when they decided to mess with Uncle. Besides, the faster and more efficiently we can decimate a country's military command-and-control structure, the faster we can restore peace and stability.

    --
    They that would sacrifice their .sig space for that cliched Franklin quote deserve neither.
  7. That's not what I said... by spoco2 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Ahhh, but I didn't say completely get rid of defence did I? Nup. What saddens me is that so much money is spent on it... Now what are the main reasons for the need for defence? Leaders deciding they should invade other countries, impoverished nations being taken advantage of by the rich and violent, Holy crusades against those not of the same beliefs...

    How about, let's say... 1/2 of their current budget is spent on some worthwhile things, like... feeding those who are starving, educating those who have no schools, giving people the information and the ability to stand up to these types of things...

    Now if you're thinking "That money won't make a difference", think about this...

    The current US defence budget is $US359 billion, with it possible reaching $US480 billion in the next decade (source). Now, the World Food Programme fed 77 million people in 82 countries at a cost of $1.74 billion in 2001 (source) ... so... let's see... if we have HALF of the current US defence budget to spend on feeding people... we could feed... let's see... 4.056 BILLION people... and seeing as though the entire world population is around 6.3 Billion (source)... and not all of them are starving.

    So, we could feed 2/3rds of the world's population using just HALF of the current US defence budget.

    Now, surely, that's got to make a difference to the amount of anger and suffering in the world, and conversly reduce the amount of violence? Surely.

    1. Re:That's not what I said... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The U.S. spends a fraction of its budget on defense. The U.S. spends more than half the budget on Social Security and Medicare, which are "feeding people" by your definition.

      Funny how nobody ever brings up China or the Soviet Union in these discussions. Or Cuba, which doesn't even need a defense force. These nations routinely spent 40% or more of their entire economies on defense spending, and let their people starve as a result. Oh, but the U.S. spends 4%, and we need to cut it in order to nourish people who hate us. That's just peachy.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  8. You mean well, but are naive ... by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 3, Insightful

    so... let's see... if we have HALF of the current US defence budget to spend on feeding people... we could feed... let's see... 4.056 BILLION people...

    You mean well, but are naive. We can feed them now, but what about in the decades to come when these 'saved' people have children and so on. Or will the food come with strings attached that require population control and cultural changes? Or will it just be laced with contraceptives? Your proposed solution merely delays things; it sets the stage for an even greater human catastrophe in the not-so-distant future.

    Get over the idea that throwing money at a problem will solve it. That's failed many times. Hunger will be with us until people's behaviors and attitudes change (zero or negative population growth in some 'western' nations). Or until people live under repressive regimes that force change (China).

  9. Always bring the knife ... by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't bring a knife to a gunfight

    Always, always, bring the knife! You are not limitted to one weapon. Check out modern grunts. Lightweight assault weapons with hundreds of rounds of ammo, body armor, night vision, etc. and they still carry a knife. Why? As explained to many a grunt: "it is the most reliable weapon you will carry, zero moving parts, zero electronics". :-)

  10. Am I the only one... by Mr.+White · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... who's annoyed that we hear about this a month after the event, and not a week before so that we could actually make plans to attend?

    Witold
    www.witold.org

    --
    witold.org
  11. Believing the propaganda by spoco2 · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Afghanistan and Iraq are results of 9/11.

    Sorry, I'm not trying to lash back at you or anything... but watching the US government try and say that Iraq is due to 9/11 is laughable to say the least... It's purely in the interest of the government trying to deflect important local social issue by focussing everyone's attention on an external war effort.

    Afghanistan? Ok... directly because of 9/11, yes... but what did they go in there to do? Get Bin Laden... did they get him? Well... umm... maybe... or maybe not... could've, but not sure... let's divert attention elsewhere... how about... hey, Saddam's a pretty nasty guy, let's go and bomb him.
    First they said "We're going in there because there's direct links to Al-Qida(spelling off, but I pay little attention to the 'terrorist' news articles now). Saddam is directly linked to them, so this is to stop further 9/11s." Then, when they couldn't adequately show logical links there, they said... "He's... um... got weapons of mass destruction and is a threat to the world... so we, um, are going to do the right thing and get rid of him before he does."
    So in went the US, and the UK, and us silly Australians, and killed thousands of civilians with 'collatoral damage', thousands more than 9/11 ever did... then they hunted around for anything to suggest 'weapons of mass destruction'(tm) and found a couple of barrels of what was probably hair dye or something, and someone's campervan which they said was a 'mobile chemical weapon's lab' and that's all we've seen.

    So after all of that they're still in there, there's still firefights going on (But they've done their best to say it's all over now, cause a long war is a bad war publicity wise) and what have they really done? Not a great deal besides great a whole lot of money for American contractors who got the jobs to give the Iraqis things like mobile phones... weeee.

    OK, yes, Saddam was(is? Who knows) a bad man, he ruled the country in a truely dictatorial way... I don't think anyone can say he isn't a cruel man who has killed thousands. BUT, what were the motives for the American/Allied attack? A non-UN sanctioned attack on a country in that way really does open up the gates for rogue countries to attack others and say "Well, we thought it was the right thing to do... you Americans did it... everyone said don't, but you did... so we can do"

    Oh, and do you really believe that your safety and freedom are greatly enhanced by having an enormous military force? What about looking at the reasons why America thinks (Rightly or Wrongly) why everyone else wants to attack it... maybe if some of those things were changed there wouldn't be the need for such a HUGE force of armed men/women.

  12. Re:They still call it that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If we destroy all our enemies, there's no need for defense at all.

    Not if we keep making them.