Armor Issued Despite Warnings

[Steel City Slim]

The Marine Corps issued to nearly 10,000 troops body armor that military ballistic experts had urged the Marines to reject after tests revealed life-threatening flaws in the vests, an eight-month investigation by Marine Corps Times has found.

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/?Page=Article&ID=3209

[slackmaster]

1. Defective armor is a lot better than no armor

:shrug:

[Steel City Slim]

3. You Think So?

They should have been given the proper armor to begin with. A simple minded justification like yours is totally fucked up!

[slackmaster]

4. We can't go back in time and make it didn't happen

What "justification" are you referring to? I never said the situation was right.

An unrealistic attitude like yours is totally fucked up!

:D

[Steel City Slim]

5. Justification

I'm talking about you justifying that people were given defective armor by saying that defective armor is better than no armor at all. In fact no armor is better than defective armor. At least with no armor the soldier is aware that s/he does not have adequate protection.

[slackmaster]

6. You have misunderstood me

I did NOT justify anyone handing out defective armor. I said only that giving them defective armor is better than giving them no armor at all. The armor isn't completely non-functional. It works, it's just not up to specs.

In fact no armor is better than defective armor. At least with no armor the soldier is aware that s/he does not have adequate protection.

That's bullshit. No soldier believes his or her body armor is going to necessarily protect against all harm. Even when a soldier has good body armor he or she does everything possible to avoid getting shot or hit with shrapnel.

[Steel City Slim]

7. If I Misinterpreted What You Wrote, I Apologize

But I stand by my statement about no armor. I did not say "all harm". And of course, even with good body armor a soldier avoid getting shot. But a soldier with body armor might be inclined to take actions that entail more risk than they would without body armor. And if that body armor is defective, then they would be better off not taking those risky actions.

[slackmaster]

8. Our soldiers would be better off if they weren't in Iraq

I don't know you but I'll stick my neck out and say we'd probably agree on that.

But a soldier with body armor might be inclined to take actions that entail more risk than they would without body armor.

Soldiers are trained not to trust the safeties on their firearms and not to point them at things they are not willing to destroy. I don't believe that a soldier feels emboldened while wearing body armor. It's the same concept.

[knowbody0]

2. they can just pretend they're safe