Slashdot Mirror


Military Tech for Daily Life

PreacherTom writes "It is nothing new to see technology from military and governmental endeavors change daily life profoundly. One only has to look at the fruits of the space program (from computers to microwave ovens to Tang). New military gear is on the horizon that promises to do the same, including biosensors, bandages that clot blood using soundwaves, and the ubiquitous Swiss Army Pen."

6 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. Bullet-Resistant vests: by Upaut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Man, I hope this trickles down (Affordably) to the masses. Anything that hardens on impact would be great for those of us that attend protests. Its not so much the bullets and stabbing that worries me, but the savage beatings that we recieve. Though having protection is good when some rookie decides to fire rubber bullets into the crowd. Hasn't happened to me yet, but with how peacful protesters are being treated, its only a matter of time.

    --
    3 degrees of separation from Vladimir Putin
  2. Re:which raises the question... by Guinness+Pig · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Okay, let's not get carried away with paranoia about what the military is capable of. Do you really think they need to create something to send concentrated ultrasonic waves to cause a lethal blood clot? What, are you expecting Corollas with big ass woofers blaring Ludacris to make an appearance on the battlefield? They don't need to make blood clots to kill people. Perfectly mundane things like bullets, missiles and various projectile explosives work perfectly fine to mess up someone's day. I spent six years in the military, and you give them far too much credit. They ain't that clever.

  3. the good side of military spending by 2ms · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The good side of military spending is that, other than during times of war, the fraction of the money that goes to the military for having troops around and building few hundred tanks every once in a while is tiny compared to the amount of money that goes toward science, research, technology. For every troop that is getting paid to be on base, the military is probably putting food on the tables of 30 researchers or engineers to develop new technologies. For example, lets say the military gets a new model of tank. Well, the cost of actual steel, plastic, computer chips, etc that constitute the tanks that are produced themselves are really nothing compared to the amount of money that went into advancing technologies and employing engineers. A B2 bomber costs a couple billion because incredible science and technology had to be realized in order to make the plane possible. Like 20 of them or something were ever to be actually made. That price doesn't reflect the sum of the physical components and labor of assembling them, but rather, the price tag reflects the amount of engineering and science work that had to be done to realize the level of technology necessary for the existence of such a plane.

    The bright side of military spending is that most of that money basically goes to putting food on the tables of tens of thousands of engineers in our country. With labor costs so high and manufacturing going to everywhere in the world other than our own country, technology is our stock-in-trade. As it turns out, the structure of the govt sponsoring military technology programs with a long-term and unified approach in contrast to the much more duplicative and reactive, smaller investments for shorter-term results, approach seen in the development of technology only in the hands of individual companies reacting to market pressures method, has been very fruitful indeed.

  4. Re:which raises the question... by KillerBob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I draw your attention to the big yellow arrow on rocket launchers that you point at the enemy?

    We get some pretty cool toys in the army, but it's all designed so that you can use it when you're being shot at after having had 15 minutes of sleep in the last week. Just because it's designed for idiots doesn't mean that the folks designing it are idiots. Actually, they're pretty brilliant, IMO... why bother developing a super-expensive way to kill somebody that centralizes your killing power in one spot when a 5.56x45 FMJ round costs less than $0.30 and kills them just as dead? When the bad guys develop armour that can safely protect them from everything we use on the battlefield, you'll start seeing new ways of killing people being developed. Until then, it's a waste of money.

    --
    If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
  5. Re:But wouldn't it be nice by Dun+Malg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...if they could do the same thing without the whole "killing" part?

    I read something about how wonderful the advancements in prosthetics the past few years have been. I even saw a kid of 20 or 22 at the airport carrying a big green duffle bag unassisted, though he had artificial legs and a prosthetic arm and the unmistakable look of a soldier.

    Just spend the money. Declare it to be a National Technological Development Something-or-other and so and spend the money on research that doesn't come at such a high cost.

    Honestly, that shit is heartbreaking.
    The money gets spent on research whether there's a war on or not. The difference is that war provides real-life test cases to advance and refine things beyond the theoretical. War is the dark cloud, advancements in prosthetics and lifesaving technology are the silver lining. Progress in handling unpleasant things like dismemberment comes from experience handling unpleasant things like dismemberment. Like it or not, humans are vicious. We always have been. You don't get to the top of the food chain by being a a bunch of happy fluffy bunnies.
    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  6. Re:which raises the question... by networkBoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    you are obviously not an acoustical engineer...
    not even an advanced amateur.

    Example:
    Take an untrasound of a pregnant woman, pretty cool. move the transducer 1mm away from her abdomen, nothing.
    This cuff works basically the same way. A weapon would have to work in a predominately similar way.
    -nB

    Oh, and even if it would work all cool like you speculate, you'd still need to aim it, else the freindly fire aspect will *suck*.

    --
    whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump