The controversy over which bullet-resistant system is better has died down in recent years. Up until 2009, the battle over which armor system was better – Pinnacle Armor, Inc.’s Dragon Skin or the US Military’s standard issue Interceptor Body Armor (IBA) – was raging on and sparked huge debates over the idea that the military was not supplying American forces with the best equipment available.

    The IBA system is comprised of an outer tactical vest (OTV) that is made out of Kevlar, which holds two enhanced small arms protective inserts (E-SAPIs). The SAPIs are made of ballistics grade ceramics that are capable of stopping a .30cal M2 AP (a .30-06 armor piercing round). The OTV itself is rated as capable of stopping 9mm rounds fired from a submachine gun.  This armor system meets the requirements outlined by the military, and has been in use since 1999. It has also been upgraded over the years to tackle changes in the way war has been fought.

    Whereas, the Dragon Skin system is made of small, circular titanium-ceramic composite disks that are interlocked much like medieval chain armor. The armor is much more flexible than the standard IBA. It also offers 140 percent more ballistic coverage than the Interceptor. The Dragon Skin system is capable of taking 40 or more armor piercing rounds fired from an AK-47 (7.62x39mm). On the Discovery Channel TV Show Future Weapons, the armor was tested against an M67 fragmentation grenade; in fact, the dummy wearing the armor was placed directly on top of the grenade. Upon detonation, there was no penetration of the armor by the shrapnel of the grenade; just the carrier vest was damaged.  In other words, a person would have survived a point blank detonation of a grenade with Dragon Skin on.

    The proponents of the IBA, as well as the Army’s scientists, say Dragon Skin is not good enough, and it failed tests that the Army says it puts every potential piece through. Soldiers were known to have personally paid for, and used Dragon Skin while deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq; most soldiers who wore it felt the added weight was well worth the additional protection. There have been several accounts of private contractors, who are currently deployed, equipped with Dragon Skin that have survived firefights because of the armor’s phenomenal capabilities. These individuals cited that they had taken several rounds, in one case an operator took eight rounds to the back, and didn’t even realize they had been hit until they took the vest off.

    Due to the debate sparked by the Dragon Skin armor system, the army banned the use of all commercially available gear by soldiers. However, it is worth noting that at times throughout the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, eight generals were in those countries wearing Dragon Skin – not the IBA system. Dragon Skin is also worn by members of the Secret Service who are in charge of protecting the president. CIA field operatives have also been known to use Dragon Skin instead of the Interceptor system. This begs the question of whether or not the results from the Army’s tests were doctored to reflect negatively for the Dragon Skin system – it does cost more than the IBA, after all.

    The debate appears as though it may heat up once again.  As of March 2013, Pinnacle Armor was able to renew arguments against the National Institute of Justice in court. Pinnacle may also be granted the ability to have their system retested – despite its proven combat effectiveness as witnessed by private operators.

    It stands to reason though, that the job of the military, and government, is to supply American soldiers with the best gear available, even if it is more costly. Therefore, why has the adaption of the Dragon Skin system been bogged down in bureaucracy?

Gun control is one of those topics that we have had a big spotlight on it lately. Most individuals have thoughts on this topic. Some people feel that we need to tighten up our belts on this issue; these are often people that believe in seeing fewer guns in others’ homes. On the other hand, there are those that feel every American should have a gun to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their country. Each argument brings up good points to support their beliefs.

    Those who want more gun control (anti-gunners) would like to see a harsher background check, a magazine cap of no more than ten rounds in a clip, and they would also like less people to carry guns. Most citizens would say that for people buying a firearm from a Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder. Every anti-gunner has been screaming for more background checks. I would say that what we have on paper is fine but the problem is that the rules are not being enforced. In 2012, 80,000 background checks that were called into the FBI were denied; out of those, 44 of them were followed up and looked into. That is 0.00055% of people denied that tried to buy a gun with a case number assigned to them.

    High-cap magazines are a big thing in the news today. Most anti-gunners don’t feel that there is a reason for a private citizen to need more than ten rounds loaded in a gun at a time. One of the most famous guns people know about is the AR style rifle. First off, AR does not stand for “assault rifle.” ArmorLite is actually the gun manufacturer that came up with the design of the AR rifle.  These rifles, along with AK’s and other rifles that hold more than 10 rounds, were used by shop keepers in the LA riots to protect their life, their loved ones, and their shops, which they considered their livelihood. They used these rifles against angry mobs that wanted to hurt them and take their belongings. Only 21 years ago (in 1992) did shop keepers have to defend themselves from other Americans.

    Now let’s talk about carrying a firearm. The anti-gunners feel that no one needs to walk around with a firearm on. Those who have a concealed weapons permit are 5% less likely to commit a violent crime. Also, the average response time of a police officer is 14 minutes across the nation. That is a long time to wait in a small area with a person who wants to harm or kill you or a loved one. The FBI reports that when a mass shooting happens, it takes on average 4 minutes for the first officer to get on scene from when the call goes out. Even with that fast of a response time, they report that 85% of the officers show up too late. Also, the average number of people hurt by a shooter stopped by the police is an average of 14.3 but the police can stop the shooter. The number of people harmed by a shooting that is stopped by a private citizen is 2.7. Looking over these numbers, I hope you will better understand your views and respect those who are different than yours.

For some time now there has been an almost canned message from the White House to Syria that has stated the usage of chemical weapons will have crossed a ‘red line.’ Well, to anyone who has paid any sort of attention to the news within the last week or so, that line has been crossed. President Bashar al-Assad’s regime has used a deadly weapon known as sarin on rebel forces. Sarin is a deadly nerve agent that was deemed a weapon of mass destruction in UN Resolution 687, and was outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993. Despite the facts at hand, al-Assad facilitated the substance to wipe out any sort of opposition to his tyrannical regime. Evidence of such actions was confirmed in a letter sent to lawmakers before reaching the hands of Defense Secretary Hagel that read:

“…with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin.”

Despite vehement opposition from the United States, the Russian government is in odd defense of Syria’s actions. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov takes the stance that, “It is unacceptable for countries to use the weapons of mass destruction issue in Syria to topple al-Assad’s government.” In an almost rebuttal to the United States’ response to the sarin gas, RIA Novosti (Russian International News Agency), went further to add:

“Perhaps there are some states that believe any methods are good as long as they can help overthrow the Syrian regime. However, the subject of the use of weapons of mass destruction is far too serious… it is unacceptable to use it, to speculate on it for geopolitical purposes.”

Lavrov previously warned against another “Iraqi scenario,” condemning the U.S. led invasion of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in the pursuit of “weapons of mass destruction.” The minister also deemed it “too much” that international investigators want full access to all Syrian facilities and full interviews with random Syrian people.

Not only has the United States been up in arms over the crossing of a “red line,” but so has British Prime Minister David Cameron. It has been reported that Cameron has been in full-fledged support of Obama’s “red line” threat. Though, like Obama, Cameron has made the threat, but he was muddied on what entails crossing the red line. Syria, of course, denies the usage, and even the possession of such chemical weaponry. The Syrians claim that the U.S. and British governments are lying to “…pressure the embattled Damascus government.”

If the reports that have reached the desks of higher-up officials are correct, and sarin gas has been used on the people under al-Assad’s rule, there is only one question that remains; where does the government go from here? Yes, the Obama administration has issued a “red line” threat, and the administration has stuck to those guns since the beginning, but how much farther can that go? The only other time the “red line” may work is with a problematic child; the threat is issued, and when he/she misbehaves, corrective actions ensue. So I guess to answer the question at hand, one has to pose another question, sort of as food for thought. If they have crossed the “red line,” what sort of actions should be taken to correct the situation? Only time will tell.

If anyone has turned on any news medium, or picked up any newspaper in the past couple of months they will notice a common trend: the persistent sabre rattling of the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea. Kim Jong-Un and his general staff in Pyongyang have been creative these days with their combination usage of propaganda and military advancements to strike a chord of fear into several parts of the world, including our own. Threats have come from Pyongyang of ballistic missile strikes and nuclear fallout to the U.S., South Korea, and even Japan. But do such threats hold water?

It is obvious that North Korea’s neighbors to the south have cause for fear; they are just a border apart. Any type of strike with their missile systems is definitely capable to make a touchdown within its borders. Pyongyang has forced the evacuation of joint North/South Korean factories on the border, forcing South Koreans to flee back to their own country, after he has closed down the border. Japan has also been on their toes over the current situation; Japan has released statements along the lines of, “If any sort of projectile comes, we will shoot it down.”

Although their neighbors have been in their scope of attack, it seems Kim Jong-Un has another target within their cross-hairs: the good old U.S. of A. In previous statements from Kim Jong-Un, he holds the United States responsible for “Violent acts all over Asia, as well as in the Philippines and Hawaii.” The U.S. government is callous to the garden variety threats from North Korea, especially since Kim Jong-Un’s father, the departed Kim Jong-Il, was known for his constant barrage of threats of nuclear attack. Yet today, Pyongyang’s threats seem to have a much more convincing quality.

Since North Korea has upped their testing of their nuclear arsenal, they have been producing a larger quantity of nuclear material. The last number that had surfaced was 7; the North is believed to have 7 kilotons of “weaponized” nuclear material. To put that into perspective, Hiroshima had 11 kilotons used upon it, and Nagasaki had 13 kilotons dropped. Granted 7 is not even the devastating 11 that was dropped on Hiroshima, but imagine the outcome of just one kiloton on the U.S. or even South Korea. One kiloton is roughly 2 million pounds worth of TNT. So even if Pyongyang does facilitate their full 7 kilotons, just the one would be ample to cause sufficient damage to a major city. Such weaponry, according to DIA analysts, can now be placed onto a missile and launched. There are two teeny-tiny problems with that, and those problems pertain to North Korea, not the people in the real world.

Yes, the North has the capability to launch their missiles and potentially wipe out their “enemies,” but they failed to take some things into consideration. One flaw with their plan is a matter of geography. Any missile from Pyongyang can only reach the outskirts of Alaska, far from their intended targets in the eastern part of our continent. Then problem number two is their big cousin west of them: China. Even if North Korea has the capability to launch missiles towards the U.S., or even South Korea for that matter, China would most certainly interject and administer a stern spanking to Pyongyang for their infantile tactics. China would intervene for one of two reasons: they could step in to prevent the destruction of markets, because China is a growing economy and depends upon imports and exports, therefore they would see nuclear war as bad for business; second, and an equally likely reason, China does not want any sort of nuclear fallout in their own backyard due to the infantile ramblings of an angry little boy named Kim.

Continuing with my themes of information and media, as with my recent article “Infotainment,” I want to take a look at what social networking has done for our lives. More specifically, I want to see show it has shaped many of our social systems including, sexual identity, religion, and politics. All of these themes in our society can stir up controversy and debate, but I am simply going to analyze some of the changes popular social networking sites have brought to these institutions.

Sexual identity is the most abstract and controversial among the three themes this article brings to light. Social networks offer a unique opportunity for people who may chose to live the life of the opposite sex, conduct a social experiment, or do some snooping on a significant other by allowing users to live vicariously through whatever profile persona they chose to use on a social network. The freedom to ones individual privacy allows people to “act” as a stage performer online possibly in a setting among other “actors” for a unique online recreational experience. The problem with this “no identification required” policy is it allows possible registered sex offenders access to new victims. The offenders can make profile that says anything they think can lure in an unsuspecting person without any knowledge until it is too late. Law enforcement also faces a challenge of being able to pursue these criminals because it is so easy to have a profile that reflect no true information about the person who made it.

With the massive expansion of the Internet in the last decade, many groups and organizations have embraced it as a means to promote events and involve more people in inner workings and plans. Religion is no exception. I’m sure that any Facebook user reading this article has been invited to at least one church block party. Religious organizations have been able to use social networks to enhance membership and quickly alert members of new events or important dates they need to be aware of. It has also allowed “fringe” or limited-member groups to find others out there they share similar beliefs and practices. The dark side of this that some of these small groups ( who could be religious) with malicious intent can find other groups with similar motives and make a larger group capable of a much greater deed such as small domestic terrorist cells under a religious banner collaborating for a greater task that could not be done with small numbers. I’m aware that the first question that will arise here is that “Why does the group doing wrong have to be religious?” The reality here is there are very few things that can rally mass groups into action besides religion and, my last topic, politics.

As with religion, social networks have allowed political groups to communicate more affectively and quickly. Another point to consider is that some one working under an anonymous identity, similar to the process in the sexual identity section, could possibly feel they can speak more freely about any political approvals or disdains they may have.  This could allow for unhindered opinions from people who would otherwise be scrutinized for what they have to say. The inverse here is how easy it would be to have an informant leak any private matters to their cohorts or even the masses. Information travels so quickly online and that is enhanced even further through the use of social networks. Anything that gets posted online is in the hands of millions of people worldwide, so it is now near impossible for someone such as a successful politician to live any kind of private life or do any private business. Regardless of whether or not someone would consider this good or bad, it goes to show how much social network have changed our social lives, but how our nation and world operate as well.