I question the militarys of the world

instead of making nuclear weapons and bombs and stronger guns...why not just make a full body armor that can resist all of the above? wouldnt that prevent war?

That's easier said than done...

That's easier said than done...

bangell99

Because full body armor is for girly men.

Because full body armor is for girly men.

gatorteen

instead of making nuclear weapons and bombs and stronger guns...why not just make a full body armor that can resist all of the above? wouldnt that prevent war?

cee1gee

>_>

Try that all you want, but its just a ridiculous undertaking in the end. The materials are out there to create body armor that is technically impenetrable, but will fail to protect the user inside. The KE transfer will mean that the guys innards will be paste while the armor itself will in all likelyhood be intact. Theres also that niggling fact if that said armor was to be made, then whatever enemy wants to penetrate it will naturally create some form of new weapon that will penetrate said armor in the first place. Theres also the issue of technological disparity between nations that will mean that a good lot of the world will not be privileged to such technology in the first place. Sorry, but you don't end wars by giving your soldiers a fancy new vest.

[QUOTE="cee1gee"]

instead of making nuclear weapons and bombs and stronger guns...why not just make a full body armor that can resist all of the above? wouldnt that prevent war?

doanm

>_>

Try that all you want, but its just a ridiculous undertaking in the end. The materials are out there to create body armor that is technically impenetrable, but will fail to protect the user inside. The KE transfer will mean that the guys innards will be paste while the armor itself will in all likelyhood be intact. Theres also that niggling fact if that said armor was to be made, then whatever enemy wants to penetrate it will naturally create some form of new weapon that will penetrate said armor in the first place. Theres also the issue of technological disparity between nations that will mean that a good lot of the world will not be privileged to such technology in the first place. Sorry, but you don't end wars by giving your soldiers a fancy new vest.

huge tankscee1gee

ok lets say the U.S had these "fancy new vests" and you were another country..would you start a war with them? or completely avoid them?cee1gee

... Also a vest dosn't protect you from having your legs blown off, being poisened by chemicals, being burnt by incenedries or being infected by bio-warfare

[QUOTE="cee1gee"] ok lets say the U.S had these "fancy new vests" and you were another country..would you start a war with them? or completely avoid them?markop2003

... Also a vest dosn't protect you from having your legs blown off, being poisened by chemicals, being burnt by incenedries or being infected by bio-warfare

ok lets say the U.S had these "fancy new vests" and you were another country..would you start a war with them? or completely avoid them?cee1gee

[laywers answer] It depends [/lawyers answer] Were I to start a war with them, its highly dependent on the circumstances that I would want to start the war in the first place. And which country I will engage with to incite US involvement in any given war. You see, this part is really, really important because if I do engage one of the US allies in war, then those guys are still going to be receiving casualties since they don't have this "impenetrable armor", which would already disprove the claims that a fancy new vest is going to prevent wars. Oh yeah, and for all I care I could already have new technology that could actually penetrate said armor so I could be more then technology prepared to face my adversary.

But I will want to bring this up first.Taliban forces who are already engaged with war against the US in Afghanistan already do whatever they can to avoid the most direct confrontation possible when ever they engage with said forces. Already there are instances of forces who are very smart in choosing the right kind of terrain to engage the enemy in, in order to deprive the use of armored vehicles in certain combat areas. In some cases, the enemy is never even encountered(I.E. IEDs) or they just end up blowing themselves up.

Look, wars are not going to be stopped because one nation is going to wear something that stops shrapnels or bullets for as long as the enemy doesn't make a counter. What really stops war is a sufficiently competent amount of Diplomacy that if your lucky enough, will stop a war from taking place.

well i would think having full protective armor that withstands anything is sorta like "dont mess with us" just like how some countries use the "we have nukes dont mess with us" mentalitycee1gee

The KE transfer will mean that the guys innards will be paste while the armor itself will in all likelyhood be intact.

That is of course, assuming that the armor even does technically "protect" the user fully in the first place.

[QUOTE="markop2003"]

[QUOTE="cee1gee"] ok lets say the U.S had these "fancy new vests" and you were another country..would you start a war with them? or completely avoid them?cee1gee

... Also a vest dosn't protect you from having your legs blown off, being poisened by chemicals, being burnt by incenedries or being infected by bio-warfare

The strongest full body armor that can be developed could probably get destroyed by a two liter bottle with dry ice in it.

instead of making nuclear weapons and bombs and stronger guns...why not just make a full body armor that can resist all of the above? wouldnt that prevent war?

cee1gee

money my good man. it is not cost effective for any military to outfit their soldiers with state of the art body armor. also, like others have stated already. some weapons would still kill the soldier regardless of what kind of body armor they are wearing. back to the old drawing board tc:P

[QUOTE="cee1gee"] well i would think having full protective armor that withstands anything is sorta like "dont mess with us" just like how some countries use the "we have nukes dont mess with us" mentalitydoanm

The KE transfer will mean that the guys innards will be paste while the armor itself will in all likelyhood be intact.

That is of course, assuming that the armor even does technically "protect" the user fully in the first place.

Unless you've discovered some alien technology based on unknown science. There is NO body armor that will ever protect you from a close range (less than half mile) nuclear blast radius

I'd like to see any substance that can repel high amounts of radiaton caused by a nuclear blast.Treflis

[QUOTE="Treflis"]I'd like to see any substance that can repel high amounts of radiaton caused by a nuclear blast.munu9

It wouldn't be cost effective.

Riiiiight? Make a suit that cant be blown up or shot through. Good luck with that. Sci Fi stands or science fiction you know.

[QUOTE="munu9"][QUOTE="Treflis"]I'd like to see any substance that can repel high amounts of radiaton caused by a nuclear blast.cee1gee

some guy built a suit of armor with lead in it...i believe he also got attacked by a bear and it did nothing to him..also got hit by a car and was finecee1gee

A car and a bear.... Those don't quite match the power of high velocity lead.

[QUOTE="bangell99"]

That's easier said than done...

cee1gee

Full body armor that fully resists bullets and nukes?

That's quite hard to pull off.

I mean I don't even think we have the technology to even build armor that resists nukes.

If we do then they probably can't mass distribute it because it will probably be very difficult to make

And if we actually do make them, then other milataries will make bullets that penetrate that armor.

someone has been playing too much crysis.GazaAli

Naw

More like someone who really didn't think this through..

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]someone has been playing too much crysis.knight0151

Naw

More like someone who really didn't think this through..

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]someone has been playing too much crysis.knight0151

Naw

More like someone who really didn't think this through..

I question the militarys of the world ??????:shock:

I KNEW THE OT IS FBI'S !!!!!

They are getting there. Dragonskin minimizes force from stopped bullets, so when that tech is further developed it would probably reach the point of explosives.. nuclear weapons on the other hand.. lol. Another thing to factor in is cost.

I'm sorry to say this, but it is a fact that there is no perfect protective armor that can be made, and even more sadly, no one can be made bulletproof by any means. Even if they were, there are many more issues that come into play. What would be the cost of equiping thousands upon thousands of soldiers with these devices? Why would the enemy not just switch to bombs, rockets, or mortars instead of bullets? Why not just take out the helicopter or AFV that the soldiers are coming in on? Why not directly attack their base, when some of them might not have their armor on? What if the enemy gets ahold of this armor and you find the tables turning against you in battle? The best and most potent enemy will always adapt. I'm sorry, but it just wouldn't work. I believe very strongly in military deterence myself, but having just protective armor that can theoretically protect the user from anything does not exist and even if it did, it would not be practical, feasible, or advisable.

[QUOTE="knight0151"]

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]someone has been playing too much crysis.cee1gee

Naw

More like someone who really didn't think this through..

Absolutely not.

yea or just spend the defense budget on peaceful means of avoiding war and confrontation

[QUOTE="cee1gee"][QUOTE="knight0151"]

Naw

More like someone who really didn't think this through..

knight0151

Absolutely not.

yea or just spend the defense budget on peaceful means of avoiding war and confrontation

doggy47perfecto

Is this a serious post?lettuceman44

[QUOTE="cee1gee"]

ok lets say the U.S had these "fancy new vests" and you were another country..would you start a war with them? or completely avoid them?doanm

[laywers answer] It depends [/lawyers answer] Were I to start a war with them, its highly dependent on the circumstances that I would want to start the war in the first place. And which country I will engage with to incite US involvement in any given war. You see, this part is really, really important because if I do engage one of the US allies in war, then those guys are still going to be receiving casualties since they don't have this "impenetrable armor", which would already disprove the claims that a fancy new vest is going to prevent wars. Oh yeah, and for all I care I could already have new technology that could actually penetrate said armor so I could be more then technology prepared to face my adversary.

But I will want to bring this up first.Taliban forces who are already engaged with war against the US in Afghanistan already do whatever they can to avoid the most direct confrontation possible when ever they engage with said forces. Already there are instances of forces who are very smart in choosing the right kind of terrain to engage the enemy in, in order to deprive the use of armored vehicles in certain combat areas. In some cases, the enemy is never even encountered(I.E. IEDs) or they just end up blowing themselves up.

Look, wars are not going to be stopped because one nation is going to wear something that stops shrapnels or bullets for as long as the enemy doesn't make a counter. What really stops war is a sufficiently competent amount of Diplomacy that if your lucky enough, will stop a war from taking place.

Yeah, this.

An arms race for some kind of super-armour is no different to an arms race for some kind of super-weapon. They tend to happen simultaneously anyhow. You develop weapons to counter your enemy's defences, so they develop better defences, and so on. But they also build weapons, so your defences have to improve.

Also, nations don't actually make weapons tech. Companies do, then countries buy them. So whatever is being developed by these private entities is all that can be bought. And they aren't going to make fancy armour at the expense of really cool shooty things, because shooty things are far more exciting, and easier to sell.

why dont say stop making weapons and make bunkers that can withstand anything...... it will be more efficient.....

Why not focus on something more realistic?

Like sharks with laser beams attached to their frickin heads.