JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
If the first 1000 Chrysler mini-vans went up in flames when the
windshield wipers were turned on, do you think Lee Iacocca would
have been aware of it?
Sorry, but that is hardly the same thing. This goes back to your
wrongly held analogy of the president as the CEO. The chairman of
the Senate Armed Services committee would be aware, was aware, and
held hearings on the matter.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com
Let's flip this around. What sorts of things DO YOU think the
president should be aware of, and maybe even able to discuss
intelligently if asked about them without any warning at a press
conference?
And this has to do with helmet padding systems, how? What I think the
president should be able to discuss at a press conference is not the
issue. The issue was: is the president responsible for equipment
development projects, R&D, evaluation and implementation?
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com
Of course he's not. But he *should* be aware of the broad issue.
And I have no objective evidence to support the notion that he doesn't.
My
intuition says he's not.
But intuition is not the same as actual knowledge. In any event, it has no
bearing on your original contention.
And frankly, I don't care about the research
excuse.
It's not an excuse. Any system that is proposed, be it uniforms, armor, or
weapons, needs to be carefully looked at to determine if it increases
performance capabilitites and safety of the soldier. That takes time. There
have been, and can still be, horrible outcomes when improperly tested
equipment is rushed into deployment.
We're heading into year #4 of this nonsense. I understand the
types of injuries to be prevented are similar to those suffered by
race car drivers during crashes.
Not exactly. Explosive concussive forces are not the same as flailing
concussive forces. The only concern with car crashes is impact from flailing
force. Helmets are primarily concerned with stopping bullets, shrapnel, and
falling debris; that is probably 98% of the combat risk of injury to the
head. The current helmet systems are superb at this. They also would,
ideally, be able to lessen concussion from both explosive and flailing
forces, which make up probably less than 2% of trauma risks in combat.
Did the research begin with this
war, or is the government ignoring what's already known because some
bean counter needs to make the project appear to be new, novel and
HIS?
The research has been ongoing since WWI, when the first theater-wide use of
helmets occured. And improvements have constantly occured as knowledge has
increased and research has continued.
Did you even know that the main concern with the padding systems, especially
voiced by the marines, are that the pads:
-- Limit air circulation inside the helmet. This makes the interior
temperature in the helmet uncomfortable.
-- Increases sweat absorption of the pads, which creates problems with staph
infections, ringworm, and sores.
-- Captures sand and dirt and keeps it against the skin, creating abrasions
and rashes.
As a result of the above, soldiers with the pads take off their helmets much
more frequently, and put off wearing them during routine daily routines and
when riding in vehicles. This means that soldiers are increasing the risk of
head trauma and death, or head, facial and brain injuries. None of this is
near the problem with the standard web padding system. This means that the
pads which can help reduce 2% of injury risk overall, create a risk that the
soldier may make himself vulnerable to 98% of the injury and death risk by
having his helmet off because it is tremendously uncomfortable.
It ain't a bean-counter issue, it is an issue of what is best for the
soldier. How is this something that Bush is responsible for?
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com