Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!daisy!david
From: david@daisy.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: Future Police Speculations Needed
Message-ID: <586@daisy.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 2-Nov-87 12:51:53 EST
Article-I.D.: daisy.586
Posted: Mon Nov  2 12:51:53 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Nov-87 02:19:59 EST
References: <1463@haddock.ISC.COM> <1824@trex.rutgers.edu> <23473AE4@PSUVMA> <7731@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP>
Reply-To: david@daisy.UUCP (David Schachter)
Organization: Daisy Systems Corp. Mountain View, CA
Lines: 28


Mr. Davidsen does not believe major advances in body armor are possible
because the energy of the bullet has to go somewhere.  He claims the
result will be the incapacitation of the wearer for a few seconds.  I
disagree.  If body armor is merely a passive device which dissipates
energy, Mr. Davidsen would be right.  However, what about non-passive
armor?  A gizmo which "sees" the incoming round and reacts, either to
knock it down or to provide a counter-force, in between the bullet and
the armor wearer?

The U.S. Navy currently has a system called Phoenix which is supposed
to shoot down incoming fire.  (If you have been following the news, you
know Phoenix works best when someone bothers to turn it on!)  Is it
conceivable that in ten or twenty or thirty years, Phoenix will be
wearable?  Not to shoot down incoming cruise missles, but perhaps to
obliterate handgun and rifle fire...  (Use a photon or neutral particle
beam to burn up the bullet; Phoenix's "wall of steel" approach would
throw you back on your butt with the reaction.)
  
Silicon is cheaper than iron... or ceramic/kevlar armor, perhaps.

					-- David Schachter

Cross-posting to rec.art.sf-lovers removed.

#include disclaimer.std
#include quote
Return address: well!davids or daisy!david