Slashdot Mirror
Military Develops Liquid Body Armor
kai5263499 writes "Military.com has an article about a new liquid body armor the U.S. Army Research Laboratory has developed. According to Dr. Eric Wetzel, the project coordinator: 'The key component of liquid armor is a shear thickening fluid. STF is composed of hard particles suspended in a liquid. The liquid, polyethylene glycol, is non-toxic, and can withstand a wide range of temperatures. Hard, nano-particles of silica are the other components of STF. This combination of flowable and hard components results in a material with unusual properties'."
Thanks, but we gods cannot be bothered with karma :-P
:(
And please, stop calling them "Americans". I am as American as any Usan, and we (Ibero)Americans really hate the Usans taking over our name and covering it with shame and blood. And since we outnumber them 2 to 1, in any case, it is *us* and not Usans who are the true "Americans".
On the rest of your post, how much must I agree, I lament! The USA is high on self-destruction mode, and we better take cover
As-salaam aleikum, Paz, Peace.
``L'imagination au povoir.''
"the same principal for the genitals "
Wow, who is this principal and why do you use the same guy for all the genitals?
Oh, did you mean PRINCIPLE?
You can be sure there's something in their arsenal (and if not in theirs, the UK will have something) to blow a carrier battle group operating near your shore away. You don't really have all that much experience with carriers vs. modern weapons.
Actually, wrong. The US Navy has EXCELLENT defenses against high tech weaponery. Feel free to read up on The Aegis Combat System. It's low tech that we continue to have a problem with, as men in row boats and boobytrapped bikes have proved and continue to prove. It's easier to fight a civilized country; they use civilized weapons. Weapons we largely know exactly how to counteract because we were crucial to the design of most of them.
If we were to engage France, we'd probably blow the hell out of them with a First Strike policy. The only sane way to fight a first world country is with inhumane weapons. In Iraq the battle was possible without having to play defense, if we fought France clearly they are able to reach us, so we would have to be sure our first strike was devastating. Translation: Nuclear wasteland.
In my admittedly biased American oppinion, the people who have arrogance problems are the rest of the world. If you aren't being targetted for attacks, if you aren't providing money, and if you aren't powerful enough to have an effect with your own sanctions against us, what gives you the right to dictate policy on how the United States should defend itself. Spain wants to withdraw their armed forces because they had a train bombed? Fine. I don't see them giving the destroyers back that we subsidized so they could afford them. Spain will most likely learn a painful lesson; they've just demonstrated that it only takes a couple bombs on a train track to derail the entire government. Our government was hit directly, the difference is we hit back.
Never confuse volume with power.
Hmm... the US destroyed damn near every military target (sometimes repeatedly). US soldiers were able to take nearly any land they wanted (although it was often abandoned within days). The numbers are sketchy, but it appears that 10 to 20 vietnamese were killed per american loss. Sounds like the US was pretty dominant, when it wanted to be. And when it didn't, the soldiers left and the country fell. This is losing?
Just because it's too easy: the 9/11 analogy is flawed. For example: An Abrahms tank is a hell of a fighting vehicle. But it won't stop a car from veering onto the sidewalk and killing people any more than a F-16 can stop a jet verring toward a building, IF WE DON'T KNOW IT's GOING TO HAPPEN. Once the US realized what was going on, F-16s were dispatched to shoot down one of the planes, but it crashed before they got there.
Out of curiousity, are we trying to decide something here? Because if we're just comparing dick size, I'd be happy to let you win, if you'll just shut up.
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.