In the July/Aug 2010 issue...

Protection as standard

Anyone visiting an international defence or security exhibition these days cannot help but be struck by the sheer number of body armour manufacturers that have sprung up and are now busily marketing and selling their wares to a highly receptive market. The reason for this boom in the use of body armour is not difficult to understand. Insurgency wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have meant a massive expansion in the military market for ballistic protection, not just for the many international contingents of troops operating in those countries but also for numerous private military companies and security companies that have sprung up to take on roles formerly the preserve of the military. The threat from global terrorism and the proliferation of hand guns and high velocity weapons among criminal gangs and street gangs has also forced law enforcement agencies to seek better protection for specialist units, as well as ordinary officers going about their normal duties.

So what's the problem? Is the proliferation in body armour manufactures and suppliers not just industry stepping in and responding to a market requirement? Does the arrival of new manufacturers not also mean there is more competition, which drives research and development and keeps down prices for the customer?

The answer to both questions is yes, but the problem is that of the standard of protection afforded by some of these new products, particularly those purchased from some developing nations, do not meet recognised standards. In some cases they are simply not fit for purpose; that is, they will not protect the wearer against the ammunition for which they were originally was purchased.

In the July/Aug 2010 issue...

Scare tactics

The price of authoritarianism