Re: Tank vision systems

On  4-Feb-00 at 00:51, Popeyesays@aol.com (Popeyesays@aol.com) wrote:
> In a message dated 2/3/00 3:52:44 PM Central Standard Time, 
> books@mail.state.fl.us writes:
> 
> << 
>  horse drawn cannnons are more efficient killing machines therefore we
>  will never do away with the horse.
>   >>
> 
> Than a tank? and that hardly addresses the subject of the psychology
of 
> killing on the battlefield - I suggest you do some research, as I
have.,

Let me paraphrase for you.  Just because a way of doing things is done
because it is the best with our current technology doesn't mean it will
be best 100 years from now.
> 
> <We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.  Human sensors
> are trivially foxable by any number of things, hell, what is the 
> biblical story about the soldiers with the polished shields?	You
> aren't going to do this to multi-wavelength solid state sensors.>
Within 
> months of the unveiling of any EW device there will be a perfectly
useable 
> CEW device to fox it.

Horse hockey.  Does anyone "fox" night vision goggles?	Does anyone
"fox"
binoculars?  Remember, if you are going to answer with an affirmative
then it must also NOT block the mark I.

Roger