Israeli Company Creates Nano-Armor

Izeickl writes "According to IsraCast, an Israeli company has created materials made of inorganic fullerene-like nanostructures (IFs) which have amazing shock absorbing properties. During preliminary tests, these materials, which are five times stronger than steel, have successfully resisted to steel projectiles generating pressures as high as 250 tons per square centimeter. These materials could be incorporated in "nanoarmors" able to protect soldiers or police forces within three years."

Comments

Getting your point across.

[Anonymous Coward]

"During preliminary tests, these materials, which are five times stronger than steel, have successfully resisted to steel projectiles generating pressures as high as 250 tons per square centimeter."

How about teflon-coated bullets? Or armor-piercing shells?

Re:Getting your point across.

[damian cosmas]

...or bullets made of the same ultra-strong material?

Re:Getting your point across.

[Sensible Clod]

Well, bullets made of the same stuff wouldn't be very heavy, so maybe you mean bullets coated with it...still, an interesting question.

Re:Getting your point across.

[ls -la]

more muzzle velocity, yes. better armor piercing ability, not likely.

As a physics major, let me explain my understanding of firearms:
I believe the bullets would (all else being equal) receive the same kinetic energy (1/2*m*v^2), so if the bullet was half the mass, it would go sqrt(2) times as fast. At least at the end of the muzzle. After that (and to a lesser extent, before) air resistance affects the bullet proportional to v^2. Since v^2 is twice as large for the smaller bullett, the force would be twice as large, and due to the lower mass, the lighter bullet would decelerate much quicker (starting at 4x). This is a rather complex differential equation (because of the square), but what's likely to happen is that at any large distance, the lighter bullett will probably hit the target moving slower.

Now, when the bullet impacts the target I believe it's the pressure that actually does the damage. Pressure is force per unit area, and the areas would be the same (although here the analysis could possibly fail, if the lighter bullet held a pointier shape for longer). At point-blank range (or ignoring air resistance) and treating the force the target exerts as spring-like (probably good approximation for armor), the force needed to stop the bullets would be the same on each bullet (because the energy is the same so they would deform the target the same amount). Factoring air resistance back in, the lighter bullet will reach the target with less energy, and so exert less pressure. If the lighter bullet doesn't deform, it's possible that the pressure would be greater, dealing more damage.

Conclusions:
1. A lighter bullet will hit the target at a slower velocity.
2. Assuming the same deformation upon impact, the lighter bullet will deal less damage.
3. If the heavy bullet deforms and the light doesn't, the light one *might* do more damage.

This is my best guess, but it's possible I made a mistake somewhere.

Re:Getting your point across.

[MoralHazard]

Your point about velocity is taken, though, since delivering the same number of Joules in less time can make a difference in how well the impactee material holds up.

An often-overlooked point about ballistics. How quickly and efficiently the projectile's energy is transferred into the target is a huge determining factor in how damaging it is. If you shoot someone with a .44 magnum and the lead bullet flies through the torso and out the other side, you're not getting the most efficient impact possible, because the slug hasn't transferred all of its energy into the target (it still has enough KE left to fly out the exit wound). If the bullet were aluminum, for instance, it would have less mass and more velocity, AND it would probably stop in the target, thereby causing more trauma.

Re:Getting your point across.

[MBraynard]

You are smarter than me on this subject, but doesn't the shape of the bullet also come into play? I have a 10mm. When I go to the range I use cheap standard bullets, but when I load it for home defense, it's hollow point. Goes in with a centimeter, comes out with a decimeter.

Re:Getting your point across.

[Rangsk]

I could be wrong, but here are my thoughts.

At the same velocity, two bullets of the same size/shape have the same drag on them due to air regardless of mass. Drag increases by the square of the velocity.

No matter what the mass of the bullet, the gun is going to impart the same force onto it. As you stated, a = f/m and so the lighter bullet will end up experiencing more drag than a heavier bullet (due to drag increasing as v^2).

However, E = mv^2 / 2, and a heavier bullet will gain less velocity in general and so less energy.

It's basically a balance between the drag equation and the energy equation. For a given force of a gun, shape of a bullet, and distance of the target, you could probably calculate the exact desired mass of the bullet for the biggest impact. Speaking of impact, the density of the bullet would also change impact time, which could change the behavior of the bullet as well (less impact time = more damage). It's an interesting problem, but I'm sure it's been solved already by smarter people than I :)

Re:Getting your point across.

[PakProtector]

When I go to the range I use cheap standard bullets, but when I load it for home defense, it's hollow point. Goes in with a centimeter, comes out with a decimeter.

Sir, I suggest you Trademark that phrase and enter Bullet Manufacturing.

Re:Getting your point across.

[DigiShaman]

A few quotes to back you up.

"There is a myth of "cop killer bullets" that can penetrate body armour and then expand to kill the officer wearing it. This is pure fantasy. A bullet can be designed to penetrate armour or it can be designed to expand in soft tissue. It CANNOT do both. The "teflon" coating on the much maligned Black Talon ammunition is simply an aid to reducing barrel fouling in the handgun. It does nothing to enhance the bullet's ability to penetrate body armour. Many hunting bullets are coated with different compounds these days." http://www.nfa.ca/for-journalists/ammunition-and-i ts-components.html

"Armour piercing bullets are a specific design which incorporates a hard steel or tungsten carbide penetrator inside the bullet's core. Only ammunition with this hard penetrator design is considered to be armour piercing. When the bullet impacts armour, it begins to flatten. As the nose flattens, the hard penetrator continues forward into the armoured surface while being supported by the bullet as it continues to flatten.

Armour Piercing bullets do not explode, fragment or do any of the things you might see in a Hollywood movie. They are a simple kinetic energy penetrator. AP bullets are mainly found in military ammunition." http://www.nfa.ca/content/view/162/76/

And yes, I feel like being a Karma Whore today.

Re:Getting your point across.

[Ringthane]

"How about teflon-coated bullets?"

FWIW:

      The teflon coating found on many armor-piercing rounds for small arms has no effect on the armor-piercing ability of the ammunition. The teflon coat is to protect the barrel from excess wear caused by the hard materials of the projectile. Armor-piercing properties come from the composition of the projectile or from a insert of a harder substance incorporated into the projectile.

Re:Getting your point across.

[todd10k]

How about teflon-coated bullets?

Ya see, alot of people watched "V" back in the 80's and think teflon will help a slug penetrate high grade armor. Its like how people think they understand blackhole physics because they seen "event horizon"

People are idiots.

Re:Getting your point across.

[penguin121]

You are correct for the most part, but you are ignoring one important factor. The amount of powder used is scaled for the size, or mass, of the bullet so it reaches the desired muzzle velocity (which should be on the upper end of what drag makes practical). The heavier bullet will have more energy (and momentum) and therefore be more effective for armor penetration. Its a similiar to the reason uranium (twice the density of lead) is used in anti-tank rounds. Your target velocity can always be achieved by tossing enough explosive behind your round (or bullet) so the real driving factor is density, the heavier it is, the more effective it will be.

Re:Getting your point across.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The primary determinant for how much energy the bullet receives is how long the bullet stays in the barrel, giving the powder time to burn; this is why, for instance, a carbine has a much higher muzzle velocity than a pistol firing the same round. (On the other side of the coin, you could make a pistol chambered for rifle rounds, but it wouldn't be terribly useful; most of the powder would escape from the muzzle and burn up in the air, creating a hell of a muzzle flash but no extra velocity.) So a lighter bullet will have a higher muzzle velocity, but it probably won't be enough higher (increasing as the square root of 1/mass) to give it equivalent energy to a heavier bullet. Barrel length and powder burn speed are the most important factors. Typical rifle rounds are in the 22 to 30 caliber range, while typical handgun rounds are in the 38 to 45 caliber range, and while the rifle bullets are longer, they still run a bit lighter on average than the handgun bullets -- but they have much, much higher muzzle velocity and energy.

You're right about lighter bullets losing velocity faster, of course, but it's not as much a determinant as you might think -- consider the difference between a 7mm rifle round, which is a mid-sized hunting round, and a .45 pistol round, about the biggest practical pistol caliber for most people, which will usually be about half again its weight. Guess which one hits the target harder?

Now, all that being said, deformation on hitting the target is a good thing. (Er, good from the shooter's POV, not the target's ...) One problem with small, fast bullets is that they can go right through the target, leaving a hole almost exactly the size of the bullet*, and not actually doing that much damage. Bullets which deform inside the target dump all their energy right there, and therefore have much more "stopping power." This is one reason, perhaps the primary reason, why the M16, despite having evolved into a pretty reliable weapon over the years since its disastrous first iteration in Vietnam, remains controversial. Many infantrymen, whose lives depend on "one shot, one kill," and medics, who see the results up close and personal (I've been both) believe that our troops would be better served by the older, heavier style of military rifle round. Not necessarily the 7.62 x 51 mm (NATO), which is overkill for anything but a sniper rifle or a machine gun, but say the 7.62 x 39 mm (Warsaw Pact) used in the AK. There's some benefit in being able to carry more ammunition with the smaller rounds ... but more benefit in being sure that the guy on the other end of your sights is going to go down when you hit him.

* Forget all that crap you hear about "cavitation" and "small hole going in, big hole coming out." It's a myth, based on studies of firing bullets into blocks of gelatin which do not behave, in the least, like human (or animal) bodies. If you're looking for a weapon for self-defense, you will always be better off with a bigger bullet, as long as you can handle the weapon. Period. And big slow bullets (e.g., .45 ACP) are about the best single-round choice for self-defense there is, because not only will they take down the target, if you miss they're much less likely to go through three walls and kill your neighbor's toddler. Even better is a short-barreled 16-ga. shotgun.

Re:Getting your point across.

[M0b1u5]

I suggest you move to a safer town, or country.

Hollow Point bullets for home defence? I'd have no problem convicting you of manslaughter.

Re:Getting your point across.

[Fordiman]

Also great for naval engine rooms. A lack of penetrating power means it's not going to penetrate your pipes. Meanwhile, it will still wipe the smirk off any stowaway's face.

Just me?

[blank89]

I think I would rather it go to the police than the army. Does anyone else agree?

Re:Just me?

[blank89]

It's true that both parties could use protection, but the defense budget is large enough as it is. Most likely, it would go to soldiers first, and police 5 years from now. Police often lack the basic equipment they need to take care of the better prepared criminals as it is, and it has been that way for a long time.

Re:Just me?

[Rolo Tomasi]

who are the frontline defenders of our freedom

Alright, I've heard this sentence a lot ... how in the hell are soldiers occupying a foreign country protecting your freedom? I mean, if the soldiers were stationed in your homeland and a foreign invasion was imminent, that I could understand, but while they're occupying some third world country halfway across the globe? Nope, does not follow.

At least be honest about it and say they're helping you capture and control key resources or keep others from challenging your dominance or something, that sounds a bit more plausible.

Re:Just me?

[h4rm0ny]

I don't much care if it goes to the police or the military, so long as they're still seperate. But have you seen the medieval armour illustration that goes with this? If the material is as light as they say, and as strong as they say, then what's the most logical styling for this stuff? I can see a renaissance in medieval style armours. :) Imagine the police walking along in ultra-light bullet-proof plate-mail. Adds a certain romance, doesn't it?

Of course, escalation means people quickly resort to gas / spray / sonic / blinding weapons. But personally, as soon as the Chinese start knocking off cheap versions of this (it sounds like most of the cost of this stuff will be patent monopoly), I'm going to look so good in my impact-resistant plate-mail.

Re:Just me?

[AHumbleOpinion]

I mean, if the soldiers were stationed in your homeland and a foreign invasion was imminent, that I could understand, but while they're occupying some third world country halfway across the globe? Nope, does not follow.

You should avoid a career in strategy. A defensive posture as you suggest is inferior to an offensive strategy that takes the fight to the enemy, denies the enemy the initiative, dictates the terrain to the enemy, ... While there may have been only one or two terrorist training camps in Iraq prior to the invasion Al Queda and other jihadists are certainly there now. Where would they be if Iraq were not such a magnet? They were displaced from Afganistan, we gave them a place to go, we gave their potential recruits a place to go. In the long run we may be better off by drawing them to Iraq for battle than by letting them disperse around the globe and choose the time and place of their attacks (New York, Pennsyvania, Washington DC, Spain, London). Is this fair to the Iraqi's that we use their country as a battlefield in the global war on terror? No. Are all the attacks in Iraq conducted by foreigners and jihadists? No.

It is premature to draw conclusions about Iraq. It will be decades before we can tell if the US invasion made things better or worse. For now, just keep in mind that the political left distorts events to favor their politics just as the political right does.

Re:Just me?

[AHumbleOpinion]

Generally the one who first occupies the battlefield awaiting the enemy is at ease; the one who comes later and rushes into battle is fatigued. Therefore those skilled in warfare move the enemy, and are not moved by the enemy. - Sun Tzu

We occupied Iraq, jihadists are coming to us there. We seem to be in agreement with the Tao in this case.

Vietnam was lost because the US fought an enemy on their own ground, where they could defend and hide as a native force.

Perhaps you have a poor translation of Sun Tzu but it is the virtuous force, not the native force that has the advantage. Or perhaps you know little of Sun Tzu's teachings beyond out of context quotes. We virtually wiped out the Viet Cong. The Viet Cong were not a virtuous force, as their failure to spark revolution in the Thet offensive demonstrated. When you have a native force that relies on brutality and fear, as in the Viet Cong case, an external force will find natives willing to provide them with intelligence and guides so that the external force will understand the terrain, tactical, and stragic situations. Sun Tzu provides ample lessons regarding defeating a native force on their home ground.

Your understanding of US history is a bit superficial, pop culture like again. The Vietnam war was not lost in Vietnam. It was lost in the US. North Vietnamese general Giap failed in his seige of Khe San, Giap failed in his Thet offensive in that it failed to spark the popular uprising, the Pentagon failed in that through its conduct it lost credibility and the Thet Offensive was erroneously received as a defeat by the US public. Giap's victories occured in the US, not in Vietnam. The US was able to eventually force North Vietnam to accept terms where they recognized the existence of South Vietnam's government and the US left. Later North Vietnam violated this treaty and invaded the South, ironically this was a very conventional invation, heavy armor and all, and would have been defeated had the US provided assistance to South Vietnam. However the political climate in the US prevented such assistance.

Revised Headline:

[king-manic]

"Small company invents something that is vaguely like something we read in a sci-fi book and posted it on slashdot to recieve free press!"

Re:Revised Headline:

[wesley96]

Small company

No wonder they're developing 'nano' stuff.

Good news

[Anonymous Coward]

This nanoarmor will vastly improve the protection available for nanosoldiers.

Right now we cannot deploy nanosoldiers due to the high risk of being trodden upon. This brings us one step closer to a solution.

Re:Good news

[msbsod]

Federation nanites equiped with nanoarmor fighting Borg nanites

Bashing Soak

[Wingie]

Now, if you're not in to White Wolf RPGs: armor has two soak values, a bashing soak for bashing damage like from punches and wooden clubs, and lethal soak to protect from swords and bullets and such. So maybe these armors won't protect against bullets... but anyone wearing them will be invulnerable against fists! Imagine: Chuck Norris wearing a suit of nano-armor, kicking his way through Texas in the name of justice. Or, even better, Vin Diesel in nano-armor plowing through gang headquarters with his bare hands!

Call me a skeptic...

[Anonymous Coward]

But I've seen other "incredible" technologies on this website and it seems they're slightly too good to be true. I'm not saying it's entirely vaporware, but they definately highlight only the strengths. Why? At the bottom, they're looking for external funding, complete with company details.

Invest now! 500% returns in the first year! BUY BUY BUY!

Re:Sometimes seems

[Namronorman]

Selling them to governments sounds scary, selling them to private citizens sounds scary. It's a shame we live in a world where such wonderful technology (there are other GOOD should be obvious uses for things such as this) seems scary no matter who you give it to unless it's Batman.

Maybe we should just all get a pair and beat on each other until we get bored and move on to something better, or resort to bio/chem/nuclear warfare!

Re:The problem is...

[tomstdenis]

useless metric.

Carbon fibre is also "stronger than steel" but pull it in the wrong way and it'll break like glass [which admitedly is usually the point]. What size/weight/type of projectile at what velocity will be stopped. That's useful.

Nice to know your vest will stop a handgun but if a .223 can go right through it, it won't be to useful against a properly armed adversary.

Tom

Finally...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll be able to keep my ipod scratch free.

Is it Chemical proof?

[Keith McClary]

What if the bad guys start using White Phosphorous or Depleted Uranium?

Re:The problem is...

[Supurcell]

The armor may survive, but will the wearer be, too?

No. As soon as the wearer of such armor is struck, he will instantaneously be transformed into absolute nothingness*. Thus he will no longer be.

*Whether "nothingness" is Void, Null, Cipher, Zero, Nothing, or Jersey is still under debate.

No, I Don't Agree

[BigDork1001]

I'm in the military so I defintely do not agree. I know several people in the Army and would like to see them have the best protection possible. Why shouldn't they?

Due to the nature of their job who is going to get shot at more, the Army or police? Obviously it's the Army. So why shouldn't they get this armor?

Re:No, I Don't Agree

[canadian_right]

The army does not get to decide which countries it invades. The civilian government decided to invade, the army then does as the lawfully elected government orders it to do.

You should be mad at the government that decided to start an ill advised war that was justified by frabricated evidence, has cost many, many more lives than 911, and made the USA LESS safe.

All this assumes you are speaking about the USA army.

Re:I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

[Melfina]

If the material is as solid as they claim it is it should reduce the impact of the bullet hitting. Reducing the impact is all well and good, but it's only so effective. To truly protect someone from a shot you need to be able to disperse the impact force throughout the entire vest.

In The Cross Hairs

[Criliric]

What affect would said armour have on a head shot....

I mean IF a helmet was made... would the user suffer a concussion? Or just feel nothing...?

Re:In The Cross Hairs

[Nimey]

That would depend on how dense this stuff is.

In the Society for Creative Anachronism, people can fight in various amounts of steel armor and wield rattan swords. This always includes a helm and some other mandatory armor.

One man got the idea to make his mandatory helmet out of titanium. Titanium is stronger than steel, but less dense. When he went into combat that day with his new helmet, he took one good whack to the head that someone wearing a steel helm would have shrugged off. With his lighter titanium model, he was knocked unconscious and got a concussion. The helmet was undamaged, however.

It all goes back to physics: action, reaction, momentum.

It is only you!

[Anonymous Coward]

Policemen need armor a lot less than soldiers do, especially Israeli soldiers.
I disagree with your statement because it implies that you would prefer more of our soldiers to die.
I don't want our soldiers to die.

"The Armor Of The Future"?

[Chaffar]

Bah, that won't hold against my Carsomyr +6.

Not perfect, just better

[ZorgonTheMeek]

The thing that I am noticing about all of the replies on this subject is that that they are stating this armour is not perfect. Sure, the wearer will still feal the kinetic energy of projectile or whatever...but the wearer will be more protected with this than probably any other armour available measured by hardness. Maybe next they should think how to reduce the amount of energy that is transferred from one plate to the next.

Re:Shock Absorbing

[Rank_Tyro]

Do a bit of math here. Newton's third law says for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So, if a projectile were to deliver enough energy to break a persons neck after hitting an impregnable helmet, the soldier that made that shot would suffer from a broken shoulder.

As an aside, necks are tougher than most people think. In movies, the hero grabs the villian by the head and makes a severe twisting motion accompanied by a loud "CRACK". In real life, the amount of force needed to break a neck seems to exceed the amoount of force that a SUV traveling at 35 mph imparts to a stopped vehicle at a stoplight. Whiplash is the usual outcome of a multi ton vehicle traveling at 35 mph. A 5 gram bullet moving at approximately 900 m/s has no where near the same energy delivered.

  Of course, if a howitzer round lands on the helmet, the odds of a broken neck are pretty slim compared to the odds of being blown into a thousand little red bits....

Re:Shock Absorbing !=Survivability?

[Lisandro]

IIRC, the AK-47 is a gas operated gun - the reciever is made to work using the energy of the gas from the firing. There's also a recoil spring system which absorbs energy from the shot round and helps reducing recoil. The person firing the rifle doesn't absorb all of the kinetic energy of the round; and even then, those guns can kickback strong.

And you've made a critical point...

[Khyber]

... as I was thinking that "Gee, I wonder when the next war breaks out for the technology to create this material?" I'll admit that's a paranoid thought, but jeeze, oil ain't gonna last forever. Producing technology with a good aplication most likely will last "forever" in our market. (Forever being the lifespan of the entire human race.)

The first obvious application of this technology is war or oppression of one's own citizens. This bothers me probably as much as anyone else here, but the question I pose is somewhat involved, so think carefully. Can we find OTHER uses for this technology that far outweigh the application for combat and war? Can there be some potential way to divert attention from this application and (for fun and economy) make it more profitable for use in other industries?

Just my honest thought and idea. Nothing more, nothing less.

question is: is it better than ceramic armor?

[thorndt]

The US Army uses ceramic plates that slips into pockets in soldiers' jackets to stop projectiles. This is, I believe, called "hard body armor", as opposed to "soft body armor" (kevlar and such). The article states that this new stuff is five times stronger than steel...but how does it compare to the ceramic plates? FYI: The ceramic plates pretty much crumble and disintegrate when hit by incoming rounds; this stuff, I guess, would be so strong that the bullet would ricochet off?

Re:OMG THIS IS TOTALLY UT2004!

[DigiShaman]

Wait, so your saying we can rocket-jump with these?

Cocky Armor

[NCraig]

Alright, IsraCast, the material is strong. We get the point.

But did you really need to give the armor a six-pack?

Re:Shock Absorbing

[arkhan_jg]

Do a bit of math here. Newton's third law says for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So, if a projectile were to deliver enough energy to break a persons neck after hitting an impregnable helmet, the soldier that made that shot would suffer from a broken shoulder.

I was thinking about this the other day. Conservation of momentum only means that the force applied to the target by the bullet as it deccelerates will be equal to the force applied to the bullet, which is why it deforms. The force applied to the gun firer will be different. I think.

The kinetic energy the bullet has will do work on the target, which if the bullet is fully stopped, will be equal. That work, as newton meters, will result in a large force over a short distance (very short if it doesn't penetrate the armour). That force then follows the 3rd law, and is applied to the target and the bullet, which bruises or breaks bones and squashes the bullet.

The gun performed work on the bullet to give it that kinetic energy, but because of the barrel length, means that a smaller force must have been applied over a longer distance; that smaller force is then applied to the firer's hand and/or shoulder, due to the third law. (the 3rd law also dicates recoil; a bullet accelerates fast in the barrel, due to a small mass, while the heavy gun accelerates slower backwards due to a larger mass. If the soldier is tightly gripping the gun, then they both will accelerate backwards even slower; if he's got a solid stance, then the earth will rotate backwards with him a very very tiny bit)

So the energy applied to the bullet at firing will equal the energy applied to the target (or less a bit, if you include air friction); but the two people will experience different forces. That's why you can fire a high power rifle that will blow a hole right through body armour, but won't break your shoulder.

Of course, I've gone about this the wrong way; gun manufacturers work on creating a force on the bullet (amount of gunpowder) that will give a high muzzle veocity, without applying dangerous force to the firer. Air resistance will dictate the effective range of the weapon, and the muzzle velocity and range will determine the energy applied, and thus the eventual force applied to the target.

Anyway, back to the point. Stronger body armour doesn't mean less energy applied to the target, it just means that the force from the bullet is spread out over the surface of the armour, rather than going through it and applying force to the squishy bits in your body cavity directly as it slows down. Our bodies survive larger diffuse impacts at the surface better than small holes in organs, so stronger body armour means better survivability, even if the impact does hurt like hell.

Incidentally, I'm right there with you on necks. The ease with which a villain's neck snaps is right up there with the likelyhood of cars exploding because they rolled over when it comes to suspension of disbelief. Oh, and that getting stabbed once or twice in a random area kills you instantly. Human beings survive trauma a lot longer than films usually give them credit for - unless they're the hero, in which case they always shrug off wounds that would disable a normal person from shock.

Re:OMG THIS IS TOTALLY UT2004!

[ctishman]

I'm saying that when you're ready, you won't have to.

Re:The problem is...

[joib]

Nice to know your vest will stop a handgun but if a .223 can go right through it, it won't be to useful against a properly armed adversary.


Most modern armies use body armor and helmets even if they don't help against rifle bullets. Why? To protect against shrapnel (which iirc accounts for about 80 % of casualties in full scale warfare). So even if this doesn't protect against rifle bullets, it isn't exactly useless as long as it's an improvement over the standard kevlar stuff.

Re:bleh...

[spauldo]

In America, the military doesn't protect your civil rights, except in the sense that they ward off invasion (the exception being if you're a member of the military, in which case your civil rights are quite a different matter, and the ones you don't sign over are protected by the military directly). The military is more or less the strong arm of the government in international affairs. Domestically, the military gets used more often for peaceful ventures such as disaster recovery and parades than it does in any martial sense. They can be used against the people, of course, but it's very rare for that to happen in the U.S.

Most military members do care quite a bit about civil rights, but they're not in a position to protect them unless ordered to.

Police act much more individually, so it depends on the cop. Some will play by the rules, some won't. Like Bob Dyllan said, sometimes you just find yourself over the line - in that sort of situation, best hope you get some good ones. In the end, though, it's up to the courts to protect your civil liberties.

Micrometeorite protection

[Jonathan Burns]

And not just for spacesuits, but robotics, tether reels, beanstalk climbers and more. If this works, it will be invaluable.

Re:The problem is...

[Helish]

You are forgetting one thing when calculating the energy of the bullet and an arrow. The mass of the arrow is a lot greater then of a bullet, so even tough the bullet might be traveling faster, it has a lot less energy. Think of the difference between M16 and AK47 rounds. AK47 rounds are a lot bigger, they travel slower, but they have a lot more energy.

I'm Batman

[ulerich]

Wayne Enterprises has announced their intention to purchase the Israeli company...

and you thought mere radiation was bad..

[bombastinator]

I am not by any stretch of the imagination a good authority on this subject as my memory is vague and my sources third hand at best, but as memory serves, and it may not, so feel free to correct me, one of the big problems with fullerenes is that even if they are totally non reactive they still wind up being highly poisonous because of their size, shape and tendency not to bond with anything.

They tend to do unpleasant things like go through your skin, clog blood vessels, and never ever break down.

So the plan is to go spraying them around a war zone asp part of either bullets or armor, with much the same abandon as the U.S. did with depleted uranium in the gulf?

Considering the controversy currently surrounding that behavior this does not strike me as a particularly good idea from first glance.

Wouldn't work.

[raehl]

Americans don't know what a decimeter is.