This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Um, slight design flaw, but how does one take a leak while wearing this suit? 65.121.141.34 ( talk) 13:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Isn't the "legality" of using a pepper spray against insurgents a non-issue? As unlawful combatants they surely don't have protection of privilege and can be targeted with chemical agents as freely as a common criminal... 31.185.130.185 ( talk) 21:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
The first section talks about"strong evidence that it is not, in fact, functional," but the references linked to are just articles promoting the armor. While the lack of major sales is suggestive that such evidence exists, I can't seem to find it. If a source cannot be found, I suggest we remove this line. 184.63.79.136 ( talk) 19:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Um, slight design flaw, but how does one take a leak while wearing this suit? 65.121.141.34 ( talk) 13:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Isn't the "legality" of using a pepper spray against insurgents a non-issue? As unlawful combatants they surely don't have protection of privilege and can be targeted with chemical agents as freely as a common criminal... 31.185.130.185 ( talk) 21:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
The first section talks about"strong evidence that it is not, in fact, functional," but the references linked to are just articles promoting the armor. While the lack of major sales is suggestive that such evidence exists, I can't seem to find it. If a source cannot be found, I suggest we remove this line. 184.63.79.136 ( talk) 19:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)