Department of Defense Gadget Show

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.

Comments

not quite robo cop

[killthiskid]

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... :-)

New?

[jade42]

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.

Re:New?

[qortra]

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.

Re:Unfair?

[GMontag]

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 . . .

Re:Isn't it sad?

[dvk]

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

And only a peace creep could be so smug.

[nurightshu]

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.

Re:That's not what I said...

[DNS-and-BIND]

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.

You mean well, but are naive ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

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).