Pattonias said:The way modern military body armor works now is the kevlar layer, which is relatively thin prevents the bullet from penetrating. The ceramic "plate" absorbs the impact of the bullet. You still get knocked on your butt, and you still get bruised up, but you aren't dead. The plate can only take a couple hits before it is too cracked to prevent impact damage to the body. I would argue that there is a form of these portable protective curtains in the form of tanks. They have large guns to.
Pattonias said:I can tell you that your first priority to build this curtain would be materials. Using existing bulletproof "curtain" tech, anything large enough to be of use would weigh too much. You also have to figure that if your enemy has the means to destroy a tank, nothing you are carrying with you will be enough to keep you from harm. You'll have to find a way to get the shield to the front lines without reducing the amount of weaponry/ammo that the soldier is carrying. You'll also have to implement a method for setting it up in a reasonable amount of time while under fire in such a way that it would remain tactically advantageous to do so.
Pattonias said:You also have to figure that if your enemy has the means to destroy a tank, nothing you are carrying with you will be enough to keep you from harm.
bonker said:Military applications are an awful waste of a good education. Sorry if this sounds faggy.
jarednjames said:You do realize that we've developed more through military application than any other means?
bonker said:This argument reduces to the maxim: "necessity is the mother of invention"
While I would agree with your assertion, I would suggest that is not an optimal state of affairs.
One could also consider the inventions that conscientious scientists have not developed due to their military applications.
Guys, you've got to get over the "bombs are cool" thing.