Put simply, if the military is working with civilians while wearing these, the civilians will likely be dead or dying already. Riot police can use something less restrictive because the worst they're dealing with is CS gas - though even in that case, they're dealing with an unruly mob who likely won't care if the people arresting them are wearing scary masks. The full suit is uncomfortable enough that you would never wear it unless there was an immediate threat that would necessitate it. These are meant for emergency defense from widespread chemical or biological weapons attacks in a warzone. These aren't really meant for riot control situations. "Darth Vader mask" isn't exactly going to look friendly if you're operating with civilians or in riot control. These are the people who won't have the option to evacuate like civilians.Īt some point it seems like we should start caring about the optics of these solutions. Yet at a fundamental level yeah you do want your military to have CBR gear, and the better the gear the better. Nor is this particular option nessecarily an effective one, much less as well as its proponents will claim in trying to get this adopted. How much they buy is a different question still, we very probably won't be seeing the entire military in this stuff anytime soon even if adopted tomorrow. And there's any number of circumstances that could require soldier to operate where the air quality isn't acceptable, imagine say a burning chemical plant. Any nation with access to toxic materials can't be counted upon to not use them in a war, especially one they are loosing. Its kinda the job description for the military to be ready for anything that can happen. ![]() Oh the government will be overpaying for what you sooner or later would be able to get commercially at a fraction of the cost do not fear. I don't think it's worth spending $? per soldier to ensure the troops are a little more comfortable in a WWIII that might never come. How much is this going to cost? How likely is it for the US to be engaged in a war against an opponent using nuclear, biological or chemical weapons in the near future? How much of a benefit in comfort would this really be? How much of an increase in weight and logistical effort would these systems be? It will be in a hip carrier when it's not being worn. Anyone not wearing a mask when the missiles disperse their payload will be too dead to care how they look. Even with slight improvements for comfort on the mask, I cannot stress enough how restrictive the full chem warfare suit is - you will not wear the suit unless the threat is already there and you won't have the mask on unless missiles are already flying. I thought the multi page argument was about semantics rather than aesthetics.Īgain, we don't wear these to win over hearts and minds, we only put these on when chemical warheads are in the air, flying toward our position. ![]() ![]() I guess you missed the multipage flamewar on that topic, haha. Like this French soldier wearing a skull-mask in Mali last year. On the flip side if you aren't worried about winning hearts and minds, a bad-ass looking mask can strike fear into the military. If I recall correctly the US military ended up banning most face-masks for soldiers in Iraq, since that was a point of criticism against the initial invading forces. If only because looking like an army of evil villains can be counter-productive in missions where you need to win hearts and minds. I know style typically comes second to utility in the military world, but they might want to redesign it to be a bit less vader-esque.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |