Just in time for Christmas, the Army Science Expo.

[Spoony]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/12/22/army.technology/index.html

Here is what drives me nuts about these things, and I've heard the argument from other designers and R&D types who work on this. "The main goal is to develop technology to make soldiers safer and more effective." When they say "more effective," what they really mean and aren't saying is "better at killing other people."

I'm glad they're making jumps in replacing bone and tissue and it really is fascinating stuff, but when the goal is to get them back on the field and on patrol as quick as possible, it loses it's benevolent nature.

Bitch bitch bitch,
C

[Martin]

Will this cheer you up?

[Spoony]

Yes, yes, and yes.

[Josh]

When they say "more effective," what they really mean and aren't saying is "better at killing other people."

Isn't that a good thing? Would you rather soldiers be less efficient, in greater danger, more likely to kill civilians, etc.?

[Spoony]

They're not reducing the danger anyone is in, only the damage that's done to them. The same number of civilians get hurt, but aren't patched up quite as nicely. There's no Vet Center for "collateral damage."