SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: sea_biscuit who wrote (80560)5/24/2007 3:10:50 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284
 
Because "good" or even "best" doesn't equal perfect. And lack of perfection, means things can be better.

And "better" in this case doesn't mean getting armor. Enough armor was available. Better in this case means getting armor that was perceived to be better then the standard issue armor. It might not in fact be better, as some recent tests have shown. But it may be better at least in some ways, and if it isn't then some other new armor could be. Technology keeps marching forward, you can't equip a whole army with something thats just out of the prototype stage. Very few deployed weapons or armor, will ever really be state of the art, because no matter how good the weapon or armor is, it takes time to develop, test, manufacture, and deploy, and in the mean time the state of the art has gotten better. In fact many of our weapons and weapon systems are very old, the most extreme example probably being the B-52. (The first prototype flight was in 1952!) But that doesn't mean our level of equipment and support is not excellent overall, probably even the best of any military ever.

It is possible to get small numbers of the best new state of the art armor in to the hands of soldiers, and if the families of the soldiers think that getting this new armor will reduce the chance of their loved one dying by even the tiniest amount, then I'm not going to try and stop them.