[Social_Critic]

Think about the lack of casualties if Congress had voted to impeach Bush for believing Iraq was full of WMDs.

[eon]

Honestly, I don't really care to discuss the policy behind the Iraq war. I am just saying that your idea that any break through in technology which could help create exoskeletons to help soldiers on the battlefield as pointless because someone could find a way to beat it eventually is flawed. I would also argue that while the U.S. military has taken serious casualties, how many do you think they inflict upon insurgents. I would estimate its far greater.

[Godstud]

Even if the exoskeleton turns out to be not viable for military application, it's civilian applications are endless.

[Wolfman]

Unless it's not viable because it is nonfunctional.

[Godstud]

If it doesn't work, then it isn't an issue, is it?

[Wolfman]

If it doesn't work, then we probably found that out shortly after someone was killed in testing

[eon]

I don't think that this technology will turn out to be totally non functional. Perhaps in regards to military action yes, but as stated above it would have many commercial applications. Even if in the future, exoskeleton technology moves away from this thinking of metal frames powered by conventional power sources, this would still be the first step towards that goal.

As with many things in science, that first step is the most important. Now other scientists in the future can take this idea and apply in ways the original developer never thought of.

[Thunderhawk]

Whether these suits/power armour will ever be useful in the military or not, they spur R&D on technologies which can have useful spin-offs and cut a path for further development that can lead to cybernetics (such as artificial muscle fibre, cyber-jacks, etc) which I believe will have a huge affect on us.

[Wolfman]

Personally here's how I see the most likely scenarios for this going:

Scenario 1:
The development company that put this forward takes the cash, and does nothing else about development, no one remembers about it, and they resubmit again in 10-15 years.

Scenario 2:
The development company that put this forward actually gets a working model on the ground and it fails horribly, killing someone, is retooled, and forced on the Marines, where it goes on to kill some more Americans, and it is eventually forced out of production.

Scenario 3:
The development company that put this forward actually gets a working model on the ground and it fails horribly, killing someone. Then, some time down the line some of the technology that went into the development of the suit will be adapted into something useful.

Scenario 4: (As highly unlikely as it is)
It actually works well, and revolutionizes how our military works.

But, their is a problem with all of these scenarios, no matter how great they may be: Who the hell cares? This is being developed for the military, but if you were to do a poll in the military about whether or not they actually think this is going to be useful, I'll wager that all of 0% will say it is. Now, ask them what they want to be developed, and I can pretty much guarantee that they'll ask for stronger, lighter, more flexible body armor, followed shortly by rifles that cause the target's head to explode upon impact. See the problem with dropping money into this? Odds are, it wont work, and no actual development will ever actually be done. And during this time the possibility of better body armor is going to be left on the way side

[U184]

There are many projects and many companies doing them, most have working models. Some units are being used in the field as well. The next generation suits are now entering the filed testing stage.

The Exo has already had spin offs seen in the public sector. Cyberdyne has HAL (Hybrid Assistive Limb) in use in the public sector and there are a few others as well.

[MB.]

Can't believe that company is getting away with its enormous copyright infringements of MGM and Lightstorm.

[U184]

It does remind one of robocop or tron. However a working model overrides a visual concept.

[Godstud]

It'll die due to loss of revenue, after the lawsuits.

[Zerogouki]

They are FABRIC capable of stopping an anti-tank round from 50'. And they carry railguns that fire projectiles that travel at 50,000 feet per second.

Because inertia doesn't mean shit, right?

we never found the WMDs

But we sure did give Saddam enough advance warning and sit around with our thumbs up our butts long enough for him to ship his NBC weapons to Syria...

When someone decided they were gonna strap plate armor to a guy and put him on a horse, people figured out you could just give any random farmer a musket and he would be able to kill this well trained and expensively armed warrior.

Do you know where the term "bulletproof" comes from? It comes from the fact that the quality of plate armor was "proofed" by firing a musket at it. If it stopped the bullet, it was "bulletproof". So no, random farmers killing armored cavalry with muskets was not a common sight.

Think about the lack of casualties if Congress had voted to impeach Bush for believing Iraq was full of WMDs.

[youtube]N5p-qIq32m8[/youtube]

[youtube]FCVZlLBchVE[/youtube]

I love GOP propaganda... not because the GOP is so often right, but because the Democrats are such fucking douchebags.

artificial muscle fibre

Have you ever seen the German film Anatomie 2? Artificial muscle is great as long as it's not being remotely controlled by someone else sitting at a computer...

Now, ask them what they want to be developed, and I can pretty much guarantee that they'll ask for stronger, lighter, more flexible body armor

Yup. I strongly support buying Dragonskin armor for all of our troops.

followed shortly by rifles that don't jam if you so much as cough on them

Fixed.

[Smilin' Dave]

But we sure did give Saddam enough advance warning and sit around with our thumbs up our butts long enough for him to ship his NBC weapons to Syria...

There isn't any hard evidence that Iraqi WMDs ended up in Syria. The whole theory was all based on hearsay. There's the whole issue of why Saddam would have hidden his WMDs there in the first place rather than use them or trade them for something.

Do you know where the term "bulletproof" comes from? It comes from the fact that the quality of plate armor was "proofed" by firing a musket at it. If it stopped the bullet, it was "bulletproof". So no, random farmers killing armored cavalry with muskets was not a common sight.

The fact that armourers used that piece of marketing shows that buyers were aware that not all plate was bulletproof. I've seem them run these tests on TV etc. but they always neglect to point out plate made today use better quality materials (we smelt ore better than medieval guys...) and the test armours are usually of a grade that probably wasn't the commonly used type (eg. not all knights could afford Milanese plate). The Hussites did pretty well against armoured cavalry with black powder weapons and by the Napoleonic era Cuirassier were hardly indestructible for line infantry.

Yup. I strongly support buying Dragonskin armor for all of our troops.

US government tests have shown that claims made by Pinnacle Armour about Dragonskin were exaggerated. None of the tests which support their claims have been properly documented (eg. fail basic scientific practice).

[Zerogouki]

There isn't any hard evidence that Iraqi WMDs ended up in Syria. The whole theory was all based on hearsay. There's the whole issue of why Saddam would have hidden his WMDs there in the first place rather than use them or trade them for something.

The point is that we gave him enough time to do whatever he wanted with whatever weapons he had.

I've seem them run these tests on TV etc. but they always neglect to point out plate made today use better quality materials (we smelt ore better than medieval guys...) and the test armours are usually of a grade that probably wasn't the commonly used type (eg. not all knights could afford Milanese plate).

Those same tests might also be using more finely crafted guns and better powder.

Damn, this conversation is giving me a hankering for some Civilization IV...

US government tests have shown that claims made by Pinnacle Armour about Dragonskin were exaggerated.

But is it better than what we're currently using?

[Smilin' Dave]

The point is that we gave him enough time to do whatever he wanted with whatever weapons he had.

So in other words you don't have a shred of evidence for your claim. You don't even have a good explanation as to why he would conceal or destroy his weapons rather than use them or do nothing at all. This would be like my asserting you murdered someone, and then saying all I had to prove was you may have in the time allowed. I apparently don't even have to prove you were anywhere near the crime scene.

Given the few past shelf life chemical weapons found in Iraq after the invasion, it seems more likely that Saddam didn't have any functional WMDs by 2003.

But is it better than what we're currently using?

Is it sufficiently superiour to justify the increased cost? Would you trust someone who is trying to sell you something when you've already caught them in a lie once?

[Social_Critic]

Eon, let me quote you first

I don't really care to discuss the policy behind the Iraq war. I am just saying that your idea that any break through in technology which could help create exoskeletons to help soldiers on the battlefield as pointless because someone could find a way to beat it eventually is flawed. I would also argue that while the U.S. military has taken serious casualties, how many do you think they inflict upon insurgents. I would estimate its far greater.

I didn't say any break through in technology is pointless. What is pointless is to develop technology then use it in worthless causes which in turn allows others to work on countermeasures. This particular gadget is pathetic, it seems to be something you can strap on a soldier to help him lift weights. I don't see the big deal because it also seems to be quite energy consuming and it has lots of gears and crap I know will break down in a hurry.

The damage they inflict on insurgents is just a figure you can use in an equation. The way it works, the more insurgents they kill, the more they are hated. Which means eventually more insurgents show up. This is why Iraq is a worthless cause, why Afghanistan is a worthless cause, why Vietnam was a worthless cause, and why most of what the war party in the US dreams up is worthless. The US military, right now, because it takes up so much of the federal budget, and is delivering nothing worthwhile in return, is the American people's worst enemy. To make them more client friendly, we need to bring them home, and if they do develop gadgets, they had better keep their goddam mouths shut and keep the gear out of sight. Unfortunately, the Pentagon seems to be full of morons who are being run by bigger morons in Congress and the White House.

[Zerogouki]

So in other words you don't have a shred of evidence for your claim.

Here ya go.

You don't even have a good explanation as to why he would conceal or destroy his weapons rather than use them or do nothing at all.

He knew that he was totally boned. Using his WMDs wouldn't have made a difference. By hiding his WMDs, he got in a final "fuck you!" before he died.

Is it sufficiently superiour to justify the increased cost?

Yes, considering that the lives of our soldiers are at stake.

Would you trust someone who is trying to sell you something when you've already caught them in a lie once?

Would I care if my own testing proved that the product was still pretty damn good, even if it's not as awesome as they claimed?

[Smilin' Dave]

Here ya go.

Majority of the references to Syria in that article are about Iraq receiving shipments via Syria. The one reference to weapons being hidden in Syria dated back to 1997-1999, and was based on some intel documents somebody says he saw. Given the amount of WMD related tip offs that turned out to be bogus, colour me unimpressed.

He knew that he was totally boned. Using his WMDs wouldn't have made a difference. By hiding his WMDs, he got in a final "fuck you!" before he died.

He could have gotten just a big 'fuck you' by handing over some or all of his weapons. Much as foreign policy analysts back in 1990 feared Saddam would just withdraw from Kuwait, taking away any casus belli for war and leaving the Coalition looking foolish.

Saddam made the effort to hide himself after the invasion in the delusional belief he could make a come back. You don't think he ever wanted to see his WMDs again however, despite this delusion? Because once they were in Syria, the Iraqis were never going to see them again. Case in point was the previous loss of Iraqi aircraft flown into Iran at the start of Desert Storm.

Yes, considering that the lives of our soldiers are at stake.

Unless of course the savings were to go into other areas that might save soldiers... like investing in a program that might actually have a future, unlike the DragonSkin 'slighty better maybe depending on who you ask and when'.

Would I care if my own testing proved that the product was still pretty damn good, even if it's not as awesome as they claimed?

They've already misled you once, how do you know they haven't also mislead you with their testing materials?

A "Libertarian" making no logical sense, with poor business acumen and willing to waste taxpayers money on dubious products. Wow.