Why not make better protective gear in war and less killing equipements?

Question

Im not sure if its just me but people just keep on trying to improve weapons and weapons only. Why dont they improve protective gear for the soldiers? 1 Soldier is more important then a advanced weapon. For an example they should make like metal suits for infantry and very bullet proof protective which give more chance of survival. why wont they work on that instead of killing machines for war...

Answer 1

Lets jump ahead and say instead of producing better protection for the troops, we just make it possible so that the troops aren't under any threat instead! Don't place them in harms way and then you don't have to have better protection in the first place! Besides they think of the troops the same as another piece of toilet tissue to be used and disposed of when your done!

Answer 2

The only problem with making metal suits is mobility. Second thing....Cost. Most of everything is made by the lowest bidder, so quality has always been sort of an issue. The debate is going on right now with a better protective vest that the Army didn't purchase due to costs. Americans already think that the military spends way too much, more money poured into protection seems good right? Not so much. Guns are cheaper and we would rather kill at a distance then worry with bulkier protection. Sides' I carry enough stuff as it is

Answer 3

Better protective gear IS being designed all the time. However, you might want to consider that better protective gear worn by an enemy means you will need better weapons to kill those better protected soldiers.

By the way, metal bullet proof suits would be too heavy to be effective.

Answer 4

The best defense is a good offense. The French tried the whole defensive thing when they built the Maginot Line. Didn't work out so well for them. Arms development is always a game of cat and mouse, counter-measures and counter-counter measures. If you just concentrate on defensive weapons, eventually someone will come at you from a direction you never expected and if you don't have the offensive capability to take them out then you are toast.

Answer 5

Offensive needs weapon, if you're in defence then i think it's better to improve your defence like your protective gear but eventually you need stronger weapon too to push them back rite? If you don't build more effective weapon then you can't fight back, if they only make protective gears there'll be no war.

Answer 6

*sigh* clearly someone that knows NOTHING about the military. My husband already carried 100 lbs of gear, if not more. The thing your propose is unattainable. At any rate, I would rather my husband have the weapon to defend himself, rather then just be a walking target.

Answer 7

Because the goal of combat in war is to "kill or be killed." The purpose for going to war isn't to create conflict and then attempt to barricade. It's to establish influence over as much territory as possible. If you're not on the offense you obviously didn't start the war. If you didn't start the war, you'd best be prepared to retaliate and regain territory.

Answer 8

Killing equipment IS protective gear, for you. It's kill or be killed in many situations. That's what war is, and it's not going to change.

Answer 9

Force field and laser guns we are way over due for these things..

were is my damn force field and laser gun

--Everyone else already made the intellegent remarks so i went the other way. Mobility and ranged attack is the best defence becouse dead guys cant fight.

Answer 10

LOL well they did but most importantly they have to kill kill kill!!! when the opponent's dead, it'll be far more than useful to wear lots of protective gears because you don't have to fight no more