Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!

> Welcome to the America's Debate Archive!

Topics that have had no new replies in the last 180 days are moved to the archive.

New replies are not accepted once a topic is moved to the archive, and new topics cannot be started in the archive.

> Should body armor be mandatory?
post Mar 27 2006, 01:55 AM
Post #1

Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 794
Member No.: 5,233
Joined: July-7-05

From: Maryland
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None


According to this news article, some soldiers are opting not to wear additional body armor because of the heavy loads that they are carrying. I'm no military man but can certainly say that too much armor can be as dangerous as having no armor. After all, you have to be able to move in order to fight. The Battleships at Pearl Harbor are a good example.


Should the politicians be able to mandate the use of extra body armor?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 20)
post May 1 2006, 02:15 PM
Post #21

Ten Thousand Club

February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent

This is absolute nonsense. What amazes me is how unwilling people were to hold Bush accountable, particularly before his poll numbers started going south in July, 2005.

Note the following from a Department of Defense webpage:

The Department of Defense (DoD) (DoD Directive 5100.1) is responsible for providing the military forces needed to deter war and protect the security of the United States. The major elements of these forces are the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. Under the President, who is also Commander-in-Chief, t

And your point is???? How long does it take to deliver a vehicle upgrade or new weapons system to the field?? To you know? Try 4-10 years. I don’t care if god was president the reality is you go to war with what you have and work on improving it. This was true in every war ever fought. The “re-armored” HUMVEE is a pig to drive and overall a bad solution to the problem but one that has saved lives. Real “systems” to defeat RPGs are in the works but will take years to fully field.

The Trophy technology penetrates the housing of RPGs and enemy rockets and disables them--often without detonation.
The system is said to be ready for deployment on coalition vehicles and ships to defend against high explosive antitank-type threats, with the idea to provide more options to deal with the chaos of urban combat.
Rumsfeld's Office of Force Transformation is working with with the U.S. Army's Futures Center to develop, test and integrate the new system and deploy it quickly.


So do we “blame” someone because it was not available in 2003? A stupid idea in general. Our military had numerous new systems in 2003 that saved lives in Iraq. Instead of giving credit to the good work we concentrate on any shortcoming. This may be human nature but that does not make it right.

This post has been edited by Ted: May 1 2006, 02:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: December 4th, 2021 - 06:47 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.