- Acres 057
- |
- Fabled Mythic Member
I'm an Anarchist. I don't need a government to be a good person, but I'm glad it's here because some of you clearly do.
We have the technology, but we don't want to spend a lot of money.
The biggest opposing factor to any kind of implementation of full-coverage body armor, in my opinion, would be how incredibly conservative many of the worlds leading governments tend to be.
I'm sure that we're all aware that the M16 is the US's primary service rifle, and I'm willing to be that most of us are also aware that the US recently (last 20 years or so) has been seriously considering replacing it.
What I'm sure a lot of us don't know is that the US government refused to change over to a new rifle unless that new rifle was statistically twice as good as the M16.
I don't want to push my opinion on anybody, but isn't that a little ridiculous? Standards a little too high?
Also consider that none of the modern rifle designs that even made it into public view were bullpup rifles. Now why's that? Who knows? I'm putting my money on the idea that it's because it's too new or something.
How does this relate to full-coverage body armor? Because I believe reasonably practical full-coverage helmets do already exist, but that they will not be contracted by governments like the US in part because governments tend to be conservative, and in part because they're not mind-blowingly better than what we're currently using, which, I admit does justify not investing in such a contract, especially in the economical condition of the modern world.
[Edited on 01.15.2011 1:25 AM PST]