US Army seeks nanotech suits.

[Aquarius]

Click (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992043).

Found it quite interesting, thought you guys might as well.

[TheBob]

Sweeeeeeeeettt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111

*Goes and joins the Army*

If they actually get those technologies to work, the US would have cypernetically enchanced soldiers, capable of do Matrix crap.

I hope one of them doesn't go AWOL.

[Rodimus]

yah, it's been on CNN all day

at first, when i saw the headline it said stealth suits, i thought they were going to use fiberoptics but it turns out that they're going in the direction of nanotech

[ÜberJumper]

There was a great article in popular science a few months back about stuff like this.

I remember back in the early '90s, when I was doing my Infantry course, rumors about the Brits testing armoured battle suits on a limited scale.

[sajuukar]

Wow... ridiculously cool. Next thing you know they will have tiny graviton generators that will wrap photons around the person so that they would be compleatly invisible! It will be what I have dreamed the future would be like! :crazy:

[Langy]

OMG.... I can't believe that they think they can get this stuff done anytime soon... I didn't expect nanotech to be really useful until, like, fifty years from now...

Anyways, I'm just happy my chosen carreer will probably have me working on the same side as these guys. That way, I'll be able to make some cool sh!t like invisible spysats:D

(note - I'm going into Aerospace Engineering. VERY cool stuff)

[molo]

Ceramic and piezoelectric "muscles" have been in development for some time - a while back a european helicopter was being worked on that was planned to use a ceramic muscle to adjust rotor pitch and such under high-speed, high-g operations at rotor tips.

Chances are that's what would be used to augment a soldier's strength when integrated into a suit, and ceramics have the added advantage of being used for armor as well.

[Skiewalker]

This stuff is a lot closer than you think-maybe 5 to 10 years for prototypes if things continue as they are (of course, Murphy could intervene). Take my word for it because I work at the Nanotech Institute on my campus (founded a year before MIT's with three of the field's leaders, thank you very much). Currently, they do research on many things, not limited to IR camoflage, supercapacitive suits for powering devices off of stored energy, and synthetic muscles. I personally work on 3D photonic crystals (possible IR camo) and electron emission (possible light sources and cheap emitters that could lead to flat CRTs) from carbon nanotubes (which is the hollow tubes they refer to).

Nanotubes are great. They're extremely light, like carbon fiber materials. They're at least 100 times stronger than piezoelectrics when it comes to using them for muscles. They can serve as rotational or linear actuators. They're great electron emitters. They can serve as supercapacitors. And unfortunately they're very hard to make with consistent properties. Since they're so small you end up with a pile of nanotubes with many having vastly different properties. Still, as a unit they've got potential as power generators. In another project I worked on, nanotube paper was used in nitric acid solution as electrodes. A temperature difference was induced in the solution (about 70 degrees C), and a large current was produced. Roughly 200 A/kg of nanotubes, if I remember correctly. Easy power generation from waste heat is a great potential application.

The only real bottleneck in some of the stuff is being able to produce the necessary materials on an industrial scale. Of course, no one thought they'd ever have enough material for an A-bomb in the early 1940's, so anything's possible if someone can figure out how.

[edit] Just a couple of corrections...sorry for the length

[TheBob]

:idea:

Maybe you could bioengineer E. Coli bacteria to produce them.

[Skiewalker]

Originally posted by TheBob


Maybe you could bioengineer E. Coli bacteria to produce them.

Maybe but unlikely. The only methods that have reliably produced nanotubes require putting huge amounts of energy into structures with high carbon content, either via lasers or electrical arcing.

[blackjack]

jesus god.

*cough* Deus Ex *cough*

[Vaarok]

Nanotech? Yet another example of the army throwing money at about four approaches, and seeing which one gets a functional prototype first.

Still, I think it's just going to be flexible liquid-crystal phototropics in smart camo, not nanotech.

[AlphaPrimate]

Woohoo antoher reason why the US army spends more money than all the other world armies combined.

....as far as the suit goes.....i already got one............


........and no you cant see it

[AcolyteOfDeath]

I don't see these being very practical in the near future. It's current high cost in development will only be greater in order to produce the things, exponentially so if it is to be mass-produced. It's all and good to have a nano-tech suit able to do all these great things, but the costs are simply not feasible in the near future. Perhaps 20-50 years from now, but not 10.

[Mac_Bug]

ahhh, if only Canadian army actually get to even order their DESERT camouflauge

[Liberator]

Cool, all you gotta do is make it fly, paint it red and metallic yellow and BANG! You got a whole army of "Iron Man".

If they'd only put Mobile Suits in development, ultimate replacement for tanks of ANY weight.

[Noir]

no they would not replace tanks they would supplement tanks but definately not replace them :smash:

[Bedford]

Am I reading this right, or have I missed something? Artificial nano muscles replacing human muscles? How does that work? (Great idea though...)

[Langy]

Liberator:

They already have mechs in development at DARPA.

Bedford: Nope, the muscles would suplement the normal ones. They would be in suits.

[Gen.Riken]

nanotubes
actually its not too difficult to understand, simply applying electrical current you cause the nantube to contract, get a whole bunch of them and set them to go off at different volts, and you can replicate how human muscles work.

They are actually going into NASA's next generation probes, bacasue they can't jam and are quite efficent.

I read something a little while back (about last month sometime) they are going to have there first demo power armour suit in 2005, and they are shooting for a full fledged working prototye in 2010. Amoung the qualifications, is that teh suit must be able to operate for 24 hours without recharge, and can't be nuclear.

with a power armour suit on our side, we just might be able to get our kill ratios up to 100 to 1 against a proffessional army....its good to be the US.

amazing what we can do with 3% of our GDP, imagine what we could do with a more tradtional 9%.

[zenogias]

with a power armour suit on our side, we just might be able to get our kill ratios up to 100 to 1 against a proffessional army....its good to be the US.
Until the other side gets 'em.

Frankly, I'm at the point in the cycle of cynicism where I can't wait to see the U.S. go up against a real army. A few tens of thousands of troops coming home in body bags might actually make the country stop and think about its place in the world.

No, wait. No it wouldn't. They brought down the World Trade Center and we still haven't done anything except our usual bitching, moaning, bombing, and half-asses measures, all while ignoring the long term.

[Gen.Riken]

hmm real enemy?

Now who in the world could that be? lets go down the list of "possible" advesaries.

Russia -- not a threat outside its own borders, can barely fight against poorly armed, poorly trained insurgants.

France -- HAHA yah right.

China -- they have a strong backbone, but if we stick to an air assault and wipe out food production mass starvation would force a surrender. Remeber 1.2 billion people is as much a liability as it is an asset.

Canada -- would be challenging if they stick to guerrila tactics, but considering how could the US is getting at fighting such wars, in the end they would lose.

Mexico -- the army would get whipped and refuse to fight like in the previouis Mexican-American war.

Germany -- unable to strike at anyone beyond its own border, we could beat them again, but they have an extremely adept infantry doctrine.

Italy -- Would fall without much of a fight. Military is hopelessly out of shape. 1 Battle group would be more than enough

UK -- Would pose a significant challenge. But a concentrated campaign to wip out thier Navy first, than invade the island would be sensible. However, a strong submarine force would be able to do significant damage. Thier Carrier based aircraft would be dealt with very quickly considering they can only deploy subsonic harrier jets, no match for F-14s or F-18s.

EU -- backwards uinintergrated outdated military systems and lack of political unaminty seals europe's fate. Several well placed emp missles delivered by B2 stealth bombers would take out the contients electronic infrastructure. Siimply by invading europe where the defenses are the weakest, a successful invasion will ensue. After a few moderete victories, Europe's intellectuals will decide the battle is unwinnable, and total surrender will follow. Europe wil be renamed "New America" just to rub it in. ;-)

India -- More challeneging than China or europe, the key to success will be the successful appeasement of the differnet factions. Once every faction aggrees that they hate each other more than they hate the US, they will descend into civil war, and fall apart. Just a few bilion dollars worth of arms shipments to militant minorties should do the trick.

Now as for power armour, this will put the US about 15-20 years ahead of everyone else. Continued develpoement will maintain this lead for an indefinite period. Only another advanced industrial power with a strong private sector could compete. Maybe in 50 years.

[Liberator]

Originally posted by Unknown<ID>
no they would not replace tanks they would supplement tanks but definately not replace them :smash:

Why?

The Benefits of Tanks

Fast
Big Guns(The largest I've ever heard of is a twin 120 mm cannon on an old Soviet Superheavy)
Rapidly Deployable


The Benefits of Mobile Suits

Can handle almost any terrain due to humanoid design(even underwater)
Big Guns(100 mm repeating rifle anyone?)
Rapid Deployable


I think I've shown that if MSs are developed and deployed that tanks would become second line weapons.

[Maverick_3058]

They also happen to be ficticious, not mention being developed from space equipment for building massive colonies, which we are nowhere close to approaching. Type 61s, Magella Attacks, and Zeonic amphibious MS dichotomy, oh my!

[AlphaPrimate]

no they would not replace tanks they would supplement tanks but definately not replace them

actually that is the armies number 1 priority right now.

1. they slow
2. they pack same punch as a bazzoka
3. byebye tanky if airplane fly over

[Langy]

DARPA is working on organic-imitating Unmanned Ground Combat Vehicles (http://www.darpa.mil/tto/programs/fcs_ugcv.html). Yes, you heard me. Here's a quote:


These prototypes may include unique mobility configurations (traditional wheeled/tracked to organic -mimicking, i.e. walking/crawling),

Sure, it's only a possibility that they'd make it walking/crawling, but it's close enough.

You people would seriously be surprised at what DARPA is working on. Examples:

Unmanned Ground Combat Vehicles mentioned above
Water Rockets (http://www.darpa.mil/tto/programs/wat.html)
High-Power Fiber Lasers (http://www.darpa.mil/tto/programs/hpfl.html)
Metal Storm (1.5 million shot per minute machine gun) Note - Website is temporarily down (http://www.darpa.mil/ato/programs/metal.htm)
Underwater Fighters (http://www.darpa.mil/ato/programs/loki.htm)
Brain/Machine Interfaces (AKA Wetjack) (http://www.darpa.mil/dso/thrust/sp/bmi.htm)
Exoskeletons (http://www.darpa.mil/dso/thrust/md/smart_5.htm)
Mighty Morphing Aircraft (http://www.darpa.mil/dso/thrust/md/mas.htm)
Quantum Technological Stuff (http://www.darpa.mil/dso/thrust/am/quist.htm)
And tons of other cool stuff (http://www.darpa.mil/)

[sajuukar]

Underwater fighters and water rockets?

That got me thinking... why hasn't even a single underwater city been built if we are already building an international space station? I know a city is not really the same as a space station, and that there are already underwater hotels and research stations, but no cities! Is there not enough resources down there to make companies want to get a hold of them? 70 something percent of the planet is covered with water... imagine how many resources there are down there! You don't even have to go all that deep... of course, there are oil rigs and gas extracters, but that's it. There is an air force, a navy, and an army, but not much is underwater except for navy subs, and all they do is attack other subs and surface ships.

Imagine that... a dome made of nanotubes that could resist the pressure of the ocean, and being the size of a city, housing pretty much an entrie world...

:angel:

[Liberator]

Yowza, I was kina talking out of the side of my mouth.:square:

This stuff is closer than we think.

P.S. That one in the middle of the picture looks suspiciously like a Magella Attack Tank.

[zenogias]

Imagine that... a dome made of nanotubes that could resist the pressure of the ocean, and being the size of a city, housing pretty much an entrie world...
Well, seeing as nano-tube technology is still experimental at this point (i.e. not being mass-produced for practical means), I think we're a little ways off. Besides, there are immense technological hurdles to be overcome -- efficient life-support, providing food (it takes a lot of food to feed one person for a year), cost-effectiveness (it takes a lot of money to provide all the food and spare parts), the need for large submersibles that can travel the depths (the biggest non-military subs can only carry a few people, and very little cargo), providing spare parts and technical personnel, and worth.

It's not really that easy to just go down and start mining. Besides, there isn't an immediate problem finding resources on dry land, Give them another couple of decades, though, and I think that'll change.

Fun fact: I read all about the military exoskeleton (one project of many) about a year ago, and most of the technologies that will be employed exist only on paper as of this point. They are also working on a more traditional exoskeleton, and they hope to have a working prototype of that by 2005. The nano-exoskeleton won't be around 'til about 2010, with hopes of deployment (assuming the traditional model doesn't win the funding) by 2020.

Either way, unless the Republicans get kicked out of office and the Democrats take away the military funding, we'll all being getting our powered armor by at 2020 at the most.

[zenogias]

Reasons why mobile suits aren't good in combat:

Big, oddly-shaped objects with huge radar signatures. If you'll notice, stealth aircraft have smooth lines without many projecting things, because projecting things increase the radar signature. A stealth aircraft has a radar cross section of something like a sparrow -- a Gundam would have the radar cross-section of yo momma's ass (j/k: sorry, had to throw in a "yo momma" joke).

Things with big radar cross sections are easy to spot and hit.

Plus, there's the weight consideration. Since we don't have Gundanium, these things will be ungodly huge and ungodly heavy. You'd here them coming for miles just because of engine noises and the slamming of their feet. Being some 30-50 feet tall and proportionally bigger than pretty much all military combat vehicles, there's not many places they can hide, making them easy to spot and hard to miss with infantry missile launchers (laser-guided munitions are another thing not affected by stealth technology).

Big tanks actually sink into soft ground. Imagine what this huge-ass thing with all its weight supported by two relatively small surfaces would do?

Then there's the maintenance issue: all this small, easily clogged parts, especially around the joints. The ground pounders could have fun taking pot-shots with machineguns at the knees to make the joint sieze and tip the thing over. Since the pilot, with his big gun, would be slaugherting them left and right, they could just walk over at it falls down, yank the pilot out of the cockpit, and beat him to death for fun :devil:

These things would require massive -- probably nuclear -- power plants and every time you kill one it would contaminate the area. All well and good in some third world hellhole, but not in your backyard.

Plus, they have a hard enough time transporting an M1 to the battlefield -- how easy do you think it would be to transport something twice as big?

Then there's the weight vs servo strength issue, the issues of creating a frame light-enough and strong enough to not cave in under the weight, miniaturizing and improving sensors, creating decent gyros to stabilize the thing (though the Segway already showed us that at least could be gone), modifying weaponry, figuring out a way to make the thing survive taking a hit from a cannon without falling over (which would probably cause catostrophic damage from the fall alone), and a host of other problems.

In short:
Mobile Suit = fail

Sorry to be a spoil sport -- I think Mobile Suits are cool, too. I'm just not convinced they're actually feasible for us to make in the near (within 100 years) future.

[ceejayoz]

zenogias, mobile suits would be approximately human sized - 10-12 foot, probably... what you describe is a battlemech, not a suit, lol

also, in a ground war, stealth and radar aren't as important - the terrain scatters most radar... in the Gulf War, most of the targeting was done with thermal imaging, not radar

[Vaarok]

WTF is it with all you anime freaks demanding Gundams?

Kay. Japanese-designed robots, including Gundam, Macross/Battletech, and other Giant-Cockfighting-Siezure-Robots are unfeasable.

They are too large, too overmunchkinized, and exist in a painfully ficticious world of exaggerated physics and story-driven technology.

The actuality of these powered walkers AT BEST will end up being akin to the battlesuit from the crappy movie KillingMachine, or a Heavy Gear. (You like anime, HGs are sorta anime in aesthetics, but feasable in technology)

Secondly, most of these "walking drone combat vehicle" are not mechs. They're aquatic robo-lobsters for minesweeping and recon spiders with target designators.

Lastly, the US is going into these projects for two reasons: We have a critical shortage of manpower, and american soldiers aren't supposed to die.

We've probably killed several times the number of 9/11 casualties in afghani soldiers, yet our newsmedia is going apeshit over what, six guys that got caught in an ambush?

and the 120mm gun is on the Russian JS-somenumber Iosef Stalin Assault Tank. That tank has over 65cm of plate steel armor on the turret alone.

[Gen.Riken]

granted I think that Gundam type power armour will never come about, and even if it does, humans won't be piloting it, AI will. I think power armour is going to more like the starcraft kind. mostly something to provide comfort to the soildrer in inhospitible climates, speed them up to about 25 mph, and let them hold very powerful weapons.

the TU 92 (upgraded TU 72 series) sports a whopping 125 mm cannon, as well as the ability to fire certain modified missles from the turret.

However the TU 80 series, developed in the late 1970's and ealy 80's is a superior overall design, that just needs to be updated. The TU 92 is not survivable if it takes a good hit. Ammo lines the inside of the cabin for easy reloading, however one good hit will detonate the entire tank and turn it into a firey inferno. Thats why the TU 92 is considered the worst tank of all the modern tanks fielded by any modern power and is no match for the Abrams M1A2.

[Langy]

Varrok:


Completed Phase1A study of UGCV design drivers. Highlighted critical technologies for achieving higher mobility and endurance in configurations associated with payloads of both 150 kg (~330 lbs) and 1500 kg (3300 lbs) as representative of reconnaissance and weapons carrier vehicles respectively.


Now, tell me, why would DARPA take the time to figure stuff out for making weapon-carrying vehicles if they are all going to be unarmed mine detectors? What you are talking about is NOT what DARPA is doing. You're talking about what they already acomplished, as both the things you mentioned already exist today.

Anyways, they most likely won't go with big huge 50 foot tall mechs. They'd more likely go with crawlers or Heavy Gear-sized mechs. If I remember correctly, Heavy Gears are supposed to be around 20 feet tall, maybe 15. I can't quite remember. Anyways, they are very small compared to Battlemechs and the like.

CeejayOz - They were talking about Mobile Suits AKA the Gundam universe's Battlemechs.

[Vaarok]

Heavy Gears are from nine to about seventeen feet, counting hull-down pop-up rocket pods.

Weapons Carrier doesn't mean mech. I can mean a SAM crabwalker (a design in testing) a walker with a pintle mount, or even just a demo charge.

And I was mistaken about the IS tank. It's a very old WW2 design that boasts closer to 85cm of armor.

[Langy]

I know it doesn't mean a mech. Instead, it means it is armed. Now, if it is organic-mimicing, then it might be bipedal. I HIGHLY doubt it would be, though. More likely it would have four, six, or eight legs. While I personally think Mechs are incredibly stupid ideas, crawlers are actually very good ideas. So, basically, it'll be an armed 4/6/8-legged robot-thingy. That's close enough to a mech to be cool.

[Gen.Riken]

I think you are underating bipedal qualities. There are good resaons why bipedal creatures are the dominat form of life on earth. its good to limit the number of legs a creature has, since ther eare fewer legs to get caught up or broken. added that the more legs a mech wqould have means that each individual leg would far less armoured than either 2 legs of a bipedal mech. Next hands/arms are good specializers. they are meant for combat/hauling/grasping and excel at those tasks.

well myu human-centric views.....

[Langy]

Crawlers are FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR more stable than bipeds. How hard do you need to push in order to get a human to fall over? How about a dog that weighs the same?

Also, crawlers can carry more weight. Since they have more legs, they can distribute the weight a hell of a lot better, ending with something that can be far more heavy than bipeds. Why do you think elephants are quadropeds?

Also, the more legs a creature has, the less it matter if a leg is broken. With a crawler-mech, you could make it so the other legs can be ejected if they are destroyed. This way, the crawler can continue even if one or two legs are destroyed.

The more legs something has the more weight it can hold the more armor it can use. You can have a quadroped with the same amount of armor as a biped.

Quadropeds are always faster than bipeds, at least in the real world. They also tend to weigh more, too.

A crawler mech can still have hands/arms, but, personally, I think that hands/arms are useless on a war machine. Just give it turrets and the like and it'll do fine.

All-in-all, crawlers are a lot more efficient than bipeds.

[Liberator]

All the heavy weapons are for nothing once combat closes to near point blank range, as the reload time becomes intolerable while the platform(any type) is being pelted by smaller arms fire(no not infantry weaps). And I'm not saying that a Gundam Style MS is the end-all for armored weapons platforms, in certain situations it would have it's advantages.

For those of you who haven't seen ANY Gundam anything(those claims are highly suspect) they are 25-30m tall humanoid "tanks" powered by micro-fusion powerplant. Most of the systems are ficticious and anyway it's set about two hundred years in the future. I simply pointed that these current DARPA projects could lead in that direction.

As for the joint crack, many current robotic systems have sealed, self-lubricating joint to cut down on maintenence costs. Also, as far as weight goes, 15cm Titanium plate over Carbon Composite frames seems pretty light, supplement with a 25 or 30cm sheild and you're good to go.

[Langy]

TheBob - How many super-fast bipeds can you think of? I can think of one or two, at the most. One is the ostrich. The other is some funny little lizard thing. Neither is the fastest thing on the planet. I know of MANY really fast quadropeds, though. So, Quadropeds=efficient, Bipeds=slow.

[TheBob]

Since when did efficient mean fast? A Biped would use less energy to go the same distance than a quadruped would becuase they work with gravity and have less limbs to move.

[sajuukar]

If you ask me, all you really need to do anything in the world, all you need to do is invent some sort of "matter retriever". If you could grab anything from afar, think of the possabilites...
Instead of pitting trench vs trench (yep, a pun), just steal the other side's guns.
Rather than diving for that dollar bill on the floor, zap it right up to your hand.
Instead of having Fed-Ex deliver you a package in 24 hrs for $24 or something, zap it right over for free (plus energy costs)
No more grooming to "attract" the opposite gender! :D
Can't get enough peanuts? Get a peanut farm!

[ÜberJumper]

As a huge mecha fan (http://members.shaw.ca/uberjumper/images/mecha/), I will stake my life that you will NEVER see Gundamn sized mecha on the battlefield. At best you will see slightly larger than man sized powered or augmented armour (a la starship troopers).

Gundamn Sized robots are big targets and have correspondingly big target signatures (visually and otherwise). Tanks are short and provide a much smaller target profile. Don't sell a tank short unless you've seen one doing fire and maneuver before (and failed to spot it and the platoon it was a part of in the treeline before it bounded forth along with it's fellow armour) .

[sajuukar]

Let's not overlook the fact that nanotubes will also allow for much smaller machines... maybe swarms of tiny little heat seaking robots that contain tiny amounts of antimatter in them. One at a time, it might just hurt like a pinprick on a human, but in large enough masses, they could chew away at any city or mech. Plus, they could be used for survailance, and evetually, nano-bot vs nano-bot battles, or an entire new armed force organization... the nano force!

[TheBob]

I'm hoping for informational warefare, a la Snow Crash. What ever you do, do not listen to that guy talk in tongues!

[Liberator]

Hey Uber, what's this from?
http://members.shaw.ca/uberjumper/images/mecha/virtuaon1.jpg

From the look's of the models on show there, Uber describe your modeling ability also.:thumb:

[skywalker]

Well, nano-tech enhanced soldiers would work very well for more than just front-line ground troops. I don't think that armed combat from hereon in is going to be against countries but against people that hate america and have some medium-sized personal army. In that case, surgical strikes would be far more effective than an all-out assault. And enhanced soldiers would be an enormous asset to special ops teams like delta force, seals, etc.

[ÜberJumper]

Liberator:

First off, let me say, I only bought those mecha in playable states... those mecha are based on either Front Mission 3, Armoured Core, Robotech/Macross (I've got 4 more VF series), one Virtua On, one Evanglion guy, and an omega boost guy. The one you've posted is a virtua on bot that I found in a local store for 34 bucks (Canadian)... it's possibly the most complex of any of the mecha I have and cost considerably less.

I have several small models in storage (12 or so Macross/Robotech/Battletech 3.5" ones and a couple 1/100 scale ones... including a wicked Phalanx Destroid that I did do up myself... so sexy... hmmm). I've also got two badly damaged 1/55 scale Robotech VF-1S's (the transformers Jetfire version) and one Alpha Fighter. There's also a Mattel Robotech toy or two, including two 1/300 scale Mac II Monsters. I've also got a 1/8th scale cyclone rider (powered armour). I also have several lead figures (unpainted) from Battletech.

[zenogias]

Uber,

I hate you. I'm going to send these guys :ninja: :ninja: to kill you and steal your mecha collection! :mad:


;)

[SDSJap]

how did i miss this!?
i have failed you great teacher *falls to knees* please forgive me!!!:argh:
this thing will be to expensive, to inefective, unreliable and will frowned upon by those who use it. my $.02

[Gen.Riken]

gotta figure that battlemechs are nothing compared to the liberal use of nukes.

[zenogias]

gotta figure that battlemechs are nothing compared to the liberal use of nukes. Or armor-piercing, infantry-carried missiles. They got plenty of those babies that can scrag at M1A1 something fierce, and I imagine they'll have even better in the future (plasma missiles!).

[Prometheus]

your right it would be the Marines!! :)

And they are armed with Sporks you can't beat that.

[SDSJap]

see i like this guy, we need more like him:) and SEMPER FI!!!