NationStates

Kouralia wrote:Kouralian Regional Constabulary Equipment:

(Image)

Uniform:

• Boots, one pair, Black. Or, Dress Shoes, one pair, Black. Or, Boots (Eq), two pairs, Black. Or, Dress Shoes (Eq), two pairs, Black.
• Uniform Trousers, one pair. Or, Uniform Shorts, one pair. Or, Dress Trousers, one pair.
• Uniform shirt, one. Or, Uniform Polo-shirt, one. Or, Uniform T-shirt, one. Or, Dress Shirt, one.
• Dress Jacket, One. Or Dress Jacket with Cross-belt, One.
• Dress Tie, One.
• Service Cap, One. Or, Combat Headdress Mk ix, one. Or, Beret (Police), One. Or, Side-Cap (Police) (Eq), One.
• Rank Slide, two. Or, Rank Slide, four.
• Optional: Stab-proof Vest, One. Or, Ballistic Vest, One.
• Optional: Cold-Weather Coat, one, and Cold-Weather Gloves, one pair.
• Optional: Jacket, Waterproof, One.

Belt Kit:

• 1x notepad
• 2x Pen/pencil
• 1x Truncheon, Wood, General Service.
• 1x Pair, Rigid Handcuffs.
• 5x Flexi-cuffs (i.e. plastic ties)
• 1x Canister, Spray (Irritant), General Service.
• 1x Radio
• 1x Personal First-aid Kit
• 1x Multi-tool
• 1x Torch
• 1x Forensics kit
• 1x Whistle, General Service.

Role Specific:
Optional Weapons:

• 1x ASP Police (.455). Or, 1x Revolver (.455). With: 3x Magazines (.455). Or, 2x Speedloaders (.455).
• 1x Taser. With: 2x Additional Cartridges.
• 1x Fulmine Tradizionale. Or, 1x FulmineCompatto. Or, 1x SMG. Or, 1x Combat Rifle. Or, 1x Marksman's Rifle. With: 'X'x Shells. Or 6x Magazines. Or 6x Magazines. Or 6x Magazines.

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:EDIT: Otherwise, if I were a cop I'd probably need to constantly carry something as ridiculous as a machete in order to have enough confidence to do my job. And that wouldn't be sufficient let alone ideal either.

If it goes well (i.e. application accepted, exam results good) then I'll probably be an unpaid, part-time police officer with no taser nor a pistol (Because, you know, Britain isn't tyrannical (or it is tyrannical, depending on whether an armed populace is important to you or not)) by October/November.

Good luck. PCSO?

But really, Britain is pretty ridiculous when it comes to this subject. Probably among the few places where even the bare minimum of equipment required by policemen to safely do their jobs will be challenged.

As a PCSO if you witness a violent crime in progress I presume standard procedure is to radio a sworn officer for backup, no?

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:Good luck. PCSO?

No, Special Constable. PCSOs are paid.

But really, Britain is pretty ridiculous when it comes to this subject. Probably among the few places where even the bare minimum of equipment required by policemen to safely do their jobs will be challenged.

I dunno, don't most US Police Services tend to CBA to wear body armour?

On the other hand in the UK they tend to wear them.

As a PCSO if you witness a violent crime in progress I presume standard procedure is to radio a sworn officer for backup, no?

I believe it's to arrest the person committing it. Same for Special Constabulary, who hold the Office of Constable and are sworn to 'solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.'

In the UK, there are two reasons police are often seen wearing "body armour":

1) Knoife crime is most prevalent in the UK.
2) The UK is a communist dictatorship of the proletariat.

They're stab vests, not bullet proof ones. The UK has no gun violence.

Gallia- wrote:They're stab vests, not bullet proof ones.

I never would have noticed...

The UK has no gun violence.

Hasn't got... much.

The important thing is point #2. That basically explains it all. American police may be paramilitary, but they try to present a veneer of public servility by not dressing up like stormtroopers with tactical vests except when the situation calls for it. They're closer to Swedish police than British ones.

Meanwhile in Britain, police have taken the American paramilitary fashion and upped it a few notches. Firearms officers dress like commandos and normal police dress like firearms officers.

Kouralia wrote:

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:Good luck. PCSO?

No, Special Constable. PCSOs are paid.

But really, Britain is pretty ridiculous when it comes to this subject. Probably among the few places where even the bare minimum of equipment required by policemen to safely do their jobs will be challenged.

I dunno, don't most US Police Services tend to CBA to wear body armour?

On the other hand in the UK they tend to wear them.

As a PCSO if you witness a violent crime in progress I presume standard procedure is to radio a sworn officer for backup, no?

I believe it's to arrest the person committing it. Same for Special Constabulary, who hold the Office of Constable and are sworn to 'solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.'

Two things:

1. Stab vests or not some of those seem too thin to offer any protection and I'm pretty certain they're merely equipment carrying vests. They do issue those, don't they?
2. You must not be too familiar with American police - over-the-uniform body armor is almost never issued to "regular" cops. They have concealable body armor that they wear underneath. I think the movies are to blame for this - just because a police officer isn't all cowboy wearing sunglasses, a badge hanging from a ball chain round his neck and a body vest on top of his tight fitting T-shirt doesn't mean he isn't wearing armor.

Gallia- wrote:The important thing is point #2. That basically explains it all. American police may be paramilitary, but they try to present a veneer of public servility by not dressing up like stormtroopers with tactical vests except when the situation calls for it. They're closer to Swedish police than British ones.

Meanwhile in Britain, police have taken the American paramilitary fashion and upped it a few notches. Firearms officers dress like commandos and normal police dress like firearms officers.

You must have some really weird commandos. Especially since SFOs (who IIRC only dress in such a manner for pre-planned Ops (i.e. not 'some guy's got a gun and has just threatened to shoot someone, drive there fast nao')) look like this and SWAT dress like this (I am led to believe).

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:1. Stab vests or not some of those seem too thin to offer any protection and I'm pretty certain they're merely equipment carrying vests. They do issue those, don't they?

1) No, not as far as I'm aware. 2) Yes, but not these as far as I'm aware.

2. You must not be too familiar with American police - over-the-uniform body armor is almost never issued to "regular" cops. They have concealable body armor that they wear underneath. I think the movies are to blame for this - just because a police officer isn't all cowboy wearing sunglasses, a badge hanging from a ball chain round his neck and a body vest on top of his tight fitting T-shirt doesn't mean he isn't wearing armor.

Things like this just don't seem to offer any room at all for armour.

Kouralia wrote:

Gallia- wrote:The important thing is point #2. That basically explains it all. American police may be paramilitary, but they try to present a veneer of public servility by not dressing up like stormtroopers with tactical vests except when the situation calls for it. They're closer to Swedish police than British ones.

Meanwhile in Britain, police have taken the American paramilitary fashion and upped it a few notches. Firearms officers dress like commandos and normal police dress like firearms officers.

You must have some really weird commandos. Especially since SFOs (who IIRC only dress in such a manner for pre-planned Ops (i.e. not 'some guy's got a gun and has just threatened to shoot someone, drive there fast nao')) look like this and SWAT dress like this (I am led to believe).

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:1. Stab vests or not some of those seem too thin to offer any protection and I'm pretty certain they're merely equipment carrying vests. They do issue those, don't they?

1) No, not as far as I'm aware. 2) Yes, but not these as far as I'm aware.

2. You must not be too familiar with American police - over-the-uniform body armor is almost never issued to "regular" cops. They have concealable body armor that they wear underneath. I think the movies are to blame for this - just because a police officer isn't all cowboy wearing sunglasses, a badge hanging from a ball chain round his neck and a body vest on top of his tight fitting T-shirt doesn't mean he isn't wearing armor.

Things like this just don't seem to offer any room at all for armour.

Not all wear them, although I think they should. But they're available to them. It's a matter of preference not to wear them. It really doesn't have anything to do with some higher up politics / public outcry or budgetary constraints.

But obvs America is the globe's baby killing gun haven & Wild Wild West, what do those frontline cops know. (not directed to you, just a rant)

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:
I guess the load out sounds about right if civilians can't own guns in your country. But Tasers don't have a lot in common with guns at all so this

After firearms training to the First and Second Level

doesn't make a lot of sense. Training a police officer in using a firearm does not suffice if you want him to use a Taser. So really, you should either have separate training if you have separate policemen, a kind armed with Tasers and the other armed with firearms - or to integrate not only firearms but also Taser training if all who receive said training can use both.

I assume "stun" = the "close-in" feature of tasers (the one where you don't actually fire a taser "cartridge" ) whereas "incapacitate" is the ranged function? Also who would a "supervised" Taser or firearm equipped officer be actually supervised by?

The Police in the nation don't tend to be issued with firearms, whereas the paramilitary units are armed as default, if that makes any sense. With regards to there not being a lot in common, the training here is mostly in legalities - making sure that force is used correctly, with training levels progressively harder to weed out the people who aren't competent in using firearms to appropriately deal with people. So by that:
Level 1 - Competency in the use of firearms and lethal force, introduction to firearms use and identification, use of the TASER to incapacitate. Allows use of TASERs and stun weapons.
Level 2 - Further training in the use of pistols and other weapons, including tests under stress. Allows the carriage and use of a pistol in public, under supervision.
Level 3 - Further training under stress in the use of the pistol and other weapons, and introduction to long arms.
Level 4 - Training in the use of long arms.
Level 5 - Marksmanship and high risk operator course.

The TASERNET pistol, an NS design manufactured on a domestic licence in Alfegos, comes with cartridges one uses to reload the device, which on firing send out a small net which delivers the charge over an area to maximise the impact, coated in barbs. The different levels increase the amount of charge given - so stun delivers a short, strong shock to knock someone down for enough time for them to be dealt with, whilst incapacitate delivers a longer, more debilitating charge, which whilst more dangerous will keep that person down on the ground for a while. Note: this was from the manufacturer, so don't criticise me for its design! The weapon is typically used with stun, though if a fight is expected then incapacitate will be used, either at range or close in. Regards to range, I think the effective range quoted was 25 metres.

Regards to supervision, that would come from a higher role officer - so if that bloke wanted to carry a pistol, he would be going out on a patrol with another officer who is fully able to use his firearm.

With regards to crime expected, in most areas of the nation the type of weapons used are blunt or edged. I am aware of the 21 foot rule - it does make me consider whether or not carrying a nightstick would be a good idea for the people not using firearms, as a just in case (though the extendable baton is there as well). Whilst this is not a debate about gun rights and what have you, the overarching mindset in the People's Nation is that the Police should use restraint as much as possible, with firearms as the very last resort in any situation. The Fegosian viewpoint is that uparming people in the safer areas at least will just lead to an escalation in the force used by criminals, and that using non-lethal adjuncts is just as viable.

The Police do have specialist firearms teams, though that role is often taken up by the paramilitaries.

--

The point to make though, as referenced earlier, is that there are areas where firearm use is prevalent, and there is a paramilitary police force (the Interior Security Service, or ISS) who are all routinely trained with firearms, and routinely armed with either pistols or long arms. To that end though...
The area where firearms use is common is as a result of long term insurgency. It is contained somewhat, and policing there is mostly with the use of lethal force. A step down from the military taking charge in the areas where a state of emergency has been present for decades, but still is there.

Kouralia wrote:

Gallia- wrote:The important thing is point #2. That basically explains it all. American police may be paramilitary, but they try to present a veneer of public servility by not dressing up like stormtroopers with tactical vests except when the situation calls for it. They're closer to Swedish police than British ones.

Meanwhile in Britain, police have taken the American paramilitary fashion and upped it a few notches. Firearms officers dress like commandos and normal police dress like firearms officers.

You must have some really weird commandos. Especially since SFOs (who IIRC only dress in such a manner for pre-planned Ops (i.e. not 'some guy's got a gun and has just threatened to shoot someone, drive there fast nao')) look like this and SWAT dress like this (I am led to believe).

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/04/ ... 4x1206.jpg



These are the most high speed low drag mofos I've seen outside of an airsoft game.

Wearing body armour regularly is a sign of a crumbling civilization teetering on the brink of anarchy, or a totalitarian dictatorship needing to enforce its will on a defenceless population. Britain just happens to be both. >:

The standard equipment of both Provincial and National Police officers:


Provincial
Uniform
- Navy hat (baseball style)
- Hi-Vis coat
- White shirt
- Black Tie
- Navy Trousers
- Black Shoes/Boots

Equipment
- Handcuffs (1 pair)
- Pepper Spray
- Extendable baton
- Notepad and pen
- Ticket book
- Radio

National
Uniform
- Black Hat (this style)
- Black Coat
- Bulletproof vest (Thin, concealable - not capable of stopping more than a 9mm round/Knife attack)
- White Shirt
- Black Tie
- Black Trousers
- Black Shoes

Equipment
- Handcuffs (1 pair)
- Pepper spray
- Extendable baton
- Notepad and pen
- Ticket book
- Radio
- 9mm pistol
- 3x Spare magazines


Provincial Police are not armed as it makes them approachable to the public. They wear hi-vis clothing as it distinguishes them in crowds and lets people know where they are. Assaults with lethal weapons (ie guns, knives, clubs, bats) is not very prevalent in Connagh so the need for constant body armour isn't really there.

The National Police are in place as a patrolling armed unit. They mostly serve as armed back-up for provincial units in distress and can usually be on a scene much quicker than an ERU (Emergency Response Unit). They also patrol highways, motorways and areas in which provincial units may end up out of jurisdiction. They are also the units to provide escorts and accompaniments to politicians/VIPs when needed, as well as the security to staff foreign embassies.


Is the equipment and uniform adequate for the roles played by each branch? Is there anything you guys suggest changing or adding?

Connagh wrote:The standard equipment of both Provincial and National Police officers:


Provincial
Uniform
- Navy hat (baseball style)
- Hi-Vis coat
- White shirt
- Black Tie
- Navy Trousers
- Black Shoes/Boots

Equipment
- Handcuffs (1 pair)
- Pepper Spray
- Extendable baton
- Notepad and pen
- Ticket book
- Radio

National
Uniform
- Black Hat (this style)
- Black Coat
- Bulletproof vest (Thin, concealable - not capable of stopping more than a 9mm round/Knife attack)
- White Shirt
- Black Tie
- Black Trousers
- Black Shoes

Equipment
- Handcuffs (1 pair)
- Pepper spray
- Extendable baton
- Notepad and pen
- Ticket book
- Radio
- 9mm pistol
- 3x Spare magazines


Provincial Police are not armed as it makes them approachable to the public. They wear hi-vis clothing as it distinguishes them in crowds and lets people know where they are. Assaults with lethal weapons (ie guns, knives, clubs, bats) is not very prevalent in Connagh so the need for constant body armour isn't really there.

The National Police are in place as a patrolling armed unit. They mostly serve as armed back-up for provincial units in distress and can usually be on a scene much quicker than an ERU (Emergency Response Unit). They also patrol highways, motorways and areas in which provincial units may end up out of jurisdiction. They are also the units to provide escorts and accompaniments to politicians/VIPs when needed, as well as the security to staff foreign embassies.


Is the equipment and uniform adequate for the roles played by each branch? Is there anything you guys suggest changing or adding?

Provincial Police are not armed as it makes them approachable to the public. They wear hi-vis clothing as it distinguishes them in crowds and lets people know where they are. Assaults with lethal weapons (ie guns, knives, clubs, bats) is not very prevalent in Connagh so the need for constant body armour isn't really there.

Cool in theory, but what do you do when it DOES happen?

I wouldn't go below arming all frontline (regular) cops with at least a Taser w/ER cartridges (ever heard of the 21 ft rule?)

Kouralia wrote:If it goes well (i.e. application accepted, exam results good) then I'll probably be an unpaid, part-time police officer with no taser nor a pistol (Because, you know, Britain isn't tyrannical (or it is tyrannical, depending on whether an armed populace is important to you or not)) by October/November.

Hope youre prepared to spend half your time filling out paperwork.

I know I'm late to the discussion but I have to speak in defence of Britain.

A) You cant compare firearms/special units of the Met to the rest of the forces. They are a spefial sort of crazy. Generally speaking outside of London and Manchester you dont see that sort of 'hard' copper. Also, Daily Mail is slightly less reputable than 4chan.

B) Police are unarmed voluntarily. I doubt that will ever change tbh. Tasers are issued more often now because most people, civvys and Police alike understand that they are required to help Officers do their job.

C) Stab resistant vests arent as thin and comfortable as they appear. Unlike soft ballistic armour stab resistant vests are normally lined with what amounts to chainmail.

D) Britain isnt totallitarian or communist or near anarchy. We have a government that collectively couldnt tell their arse from their elbow, but there is nothing mallicious going on. Instead of educating people and helping those in need, our problems fall to front line services to deal with. So now instead of taking mr junkie off the street and helping him help himself, the local bobby has to arrest him, which means going out like a storm trooper for fear of being stabbed by someone off their head and armed with 652 needles.


Anyway, hope my rant is in someway useful.

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:

Provincial Police are not armed as it makes them approachable to the public. They wear hi-vis clothing as it distinguishes them in crowds and lets people know where they are. Assaults with lethal weapons (ie guns, knives, clubs, bats) is not very prevalent in Connagh so the need for constant body armour isn't really there.

Cool in theory, but what do you do when it DOES happen?

I wouldn't go below arming all frontline (regular) cops with at least a Taser w/ER cartridges (ever heard of the 21 ft rule?)

Police here (Ireland) tend to get on fairly well without any firearms or tasers. The last report I seen, which was quite a while ago, stated there was on average around two attacks per day on gardaí (police) officers. They have an option to wear stab proof vests, which most do.

Also, I'm sure some extra training in self defence and effective use of the baton/hand to hand would cancel most of the need for a taser. How would the 21 ft rule apply here? It only proves that a holstered gun or taser would be useless at any distance less than 20 feet.

Lead cooled nuclear reactor for commerical ? y/n

In my view at least compared to pressurized water reactor or other alternatives like Sodium or rock salt, lead coolant have many advantages :

-Inherent passive safety due to liquid metal coolant which means, there would be no such thing as "Lost of coolants" or explosions
-No need for pressurizer or pressurized vessel.
-Compactness but high power output.
-No proliferation threat
-Leaking wouldn't be as catastrophic as their sodium or PWR sibling, shut down the reactor and the lead coolant will "self seal" the reactor vessel.

hmm that's all for now :3

New Vihenia wrote:Lead cooled nuclear reactor for commerical ? y/n

In my view at least compared to pressurized water reactor or other alternatives like Sodium or rock salt, lead coolant have many advantages :

-Inherent passive safety due to liquid metal coolant which means, there would be no such thing as "Lost of coolants" or explosions
-No need for pressurizer or pressurized vessel.
-Compactness but high power output.
-No proliferation threat
-Leaking wouldn't be as catastrophic as their sodium or PWR sibling, shut down the reactor and the lead coolant will "self seal" the reactor vessel.

hmm that's all for now :3

Can think of a few downsides to your lead reactor
1 - How heavy is it going to be? Incredibly heavy is the answer - you're looking at the coolant mass being about 11x that of a water-cooled reactor. So either the reactor you use is much smaller for the given weight, or the reactor built is going to be massively re-enforced to stop it failing under the weight. It's possible, sure, but not great.
2 - What happens if you shut the reactor down? The coolant freezes, making it an absolute pain in the arse to restart.
3 - Don't see why it'll be any more compact than any other rector system.
4 - You can still lose coolants easily - look at precedent from the Soviet K-64 submarine reactor. The leak didn't exactly go down well with the reactor and submarine equipment.
5 - Still going to be a proliferation threat mate, as with almost ANY reactor type - put in the right fuel, for the right length of time, and you'll be good to go in making fissile material.

The only true advantages I can think of are as follows:
- The lead acts as a barrier to radioactive shine, reducing radiation shielding necessary around the reactor.
- If there is a leak of coolant, it isn't going to be catastrophically dangerous.
- The lead will self-circulate in the event of electric pump failure, so allowing it to continue to cool the reactor (so no fukishima for you).

It's a good idea. The literature I've seen, which is what I think you're coming from, looks at microgeneration of power from fast reactors with smaller reactor units, sealed to (As you said) prevent proliferation. The debate there is entirely down to that sort of thing, not necessarily to coolant or reactor type.

Alfegos wrote:Can think of a few downsides to your lead reactor
1 - How heavy is it going to be? Incredibly heavy is the answer - you're looking at the coolant mass being about 11x that of a water-cooled reactor. So either the reactor you use is much smaller for the given weight, or the reactor built is going to be massively re-enforced to stop it failing under the weight. It's possible, sure, but not great.
2 - What happens if you shut the reactor down? The coolant freezes, making it an absolute pain in the arse to restart.
3 - Don't see why it'll be any more compact than any other rector system.
4 - You can still lose coolants easily - look at precedent from the Soviet K-64 submarine reactor. The leak didn't exactly go down well with the reactor and submarine equipment.
5 - Still going to be a proliferation threat mate, as with almost ANY reactor type - put in the right fuel, for the right length of time, and you'll be good to go in making fissile material.

1.Any weight limitation exist for ground based facility ?
The STAR power module also claimed rail transportability, meaning that the thing may not as heavy that it will collapse by its own weight.

2.The only need to shut it down and refuelling would be hmm 10-20 years later, and this can be done in dedicated facility

3.No need for pressurizer i see.
4.This easy need clear clarification.

New Vihenia wrote:
1.Any weight limitation exist for ground based facility ?
The STAR power module also claimed rail transportability, meaning that the thing may not as heavy that it will collapse by its own weight.

Yes - dependent on the ground you build, heavier structures or installations will sink into the ground over time. The STAR module is rail transportable, indeed, though consider it is a relatively low output system of about 100MW tops. Good for a large ship, submarine or for a remote station, but not that good for large scale infrastructure. The proposed larger size reactors (1.2GW systems) for network power generation would be far, far heavier.

2.The only need to shut it down and refuelling would be hmm 10-20 years later, and this can be done in dedicated facility

What if it shuts down in an emergency? Earthquakes, flooding, armed attack, containment breech would all be grounds to shut the reactor down. The solution I can see to this is starting it back up quickly, since the coolant mass will retain at least some heat and stay molten - however feasible that is. The time given between refuels for the smaller systems was 25 years - however, in your larger 1.2GW systems, you would be more inclined to replace fuel on an annual basis.

3.No need for pressurizer i see.

Fair enough.

4.This easy need clear clarification.

???



Overall, as I said, the limitations you get with the system depends entirely on how you want to deploy these reactors, and for what purpose. For large scale power generation, you would most probably want to use a non-sealed design, as a result of the economies of scale you get - why pay for 12 SSTAR type reactor modules when you can have a single installation? Then of course, there are the limitations I have discussed with larger facilities. I would consider both in deciding what type of reactor you want.

As a comparison, yes indeed the system is more compact. I'll need to read up on this, but I would be interested in knowing what the efficiency of a lead or lead-bismuth cooled reactor would be, relative to the various water-cooled types and sodium cooled types - I get the feeling that it isn't as efficient, but that's just my gut instinct. The startup costs would be interesting, seeing as there are few large-scale lead cooled reactors in the world (as compared to other types), though I get the feeling it shouldn't be too bad. As for the use of the reactor for proliferation/non-proliferation... I have a feeling that a lead reactor would be MORE useful for the manufacture of weapons grade fuel, as you get a higher neutron density within the reactor courtesy of the lead reflecting some neutrons back in.

So that goes back to your question of Y/N...
> For small scale production at facilities requiring their own power... the sealed SSTAR type reactor modules would be perfect. I think examples given were desalination plants, hydrogen fuel production facilities, and remote off-grid installations. So that'd be a yes, bearing in mind the limitations and lower power output.

> For large scale production of electricity for the national grid... be more cautious of it.
SSTAR reactors would probably not be economical for power generation for a nation. If we use the USA as an example, they produce roughly 470GW of power on average. If we wanted say 10% of energy to come from nuclear, from SSTAR-type reactors, you'd be looking at providing 40GW... from roughly 470 of these units. Conversely, you could save money by having just 39 of the larger reactors. Whether or not the lead reactors would be cheaper... I'm not sure, though investment would be an issue for the newer systems.
HOWEVER - if you can find the right conditions, and get it working, I'd say go for it, if cost isn't too much of a drama.




Final thought though - how much does lead cost per litre? In comparison to sodium and water? I hazard a guess it's rather expensive.

Connagh wrote:

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:


Cool in theory, but what do you do when it DOES happen?

I wouldn't go below arming all frontline (regular) cops with at least a Taser w/ER cartridges (ever heard of the 21 ft rule?)

Police here (Ireland) tend to get on fairly well without any firearms or tasers. The last report I seen, which was quite a while ago, stated there was on average around two attacks per day on gardaí (police) officers. They have an option to wear stab proof vests, which most do.

Also, I'm sure some extra training in self defence and effective use of the baton/hand to hand would cancel most of the need for a taser. How would the 21 ft rule apply here? It only proves that a holstered gun or taser would be useless at any distance less than 20 feet.

BTW, 21 ft is approx. 6.5m for reference.

It doesn't mean a gun or taser is useless at 21 ft, it means that at 21 ft you could say that you're arguably "leveling the playing field" for guns vs melee weapons, so to speak. Also, the rule assumes that the attacker is already wielding a melee weapon whereas the police officer does not have his ranged weapon (e.g. pistol, taser) unholstered & isn't aiming down sights. Another thing: I don't know if the rule assumes that the attacker starts running to the cop at the distance of 21 ft or if he's in the process of running when he reaches 21 ft. The latter will be undoubtedly quicker. This is obviously a subtle difference, but nonetheless one to be taken into account.

If a police officer has his weapon ready to fire before the attacker enters the 21 ft zone, it's IMO (highly) unlikely the attacker will ever reach him.

I was trying to emphasize how quickly even an average attacker wielding a blunt or bladed weapon can go for, say, an officer's head or throat (or not necessarily those body parts, but you get what I'm talking about) . The point behind having a ranged weapon is that you can at least have the chance of neutralizing said target before it gets within 21 ft . Or, if the attacker has a gun, at least stand a chance unless you're within 21 ft of him (but even then, you can't count on that) . Or, to have better chances against multiple attackers (in the case of guns as this doesn't apply to tasers that much because AFAIK the Taser X3 is the highest capacity [as in number of "shots"] taser and it only has 3 cartridges, and even then follow up shots will be awkward and not as quick because of how tasers work) .

As you can see, ranged weapons (gun, taser, etc.) have multiple advantages even when there aren't a lot of gun-armed crooks around (but even then, you never know) which simply cannot be matched by batons or other types of melee weapons. So it's good to have that capability on hand as it's a question of when, not if, you will need it assuming you're a career cop. Even if your country has strict gun/weapon control.

You could argue that pepper spray is a (mildly) ranged weapon, but still, it doesn't compare.

Couple quality training with well-thought out guidelines (which among others, means to worry for the safety of the officer and the public before worrying about the safety of the one being targeted, btw) and harsh penalties for abusive/reckless cops, and you should have nothing to worry about, but rather to the contrary, worry less as you know your officers and population are that little bit safer.

IMHO, people seem to wrongly "merge" the issue of armed vs unarmed populace with armed vs unarmed cops , when the two have little in common. Whatever your reasons for an unarmed populace, 99.9% of them do not apply to the police. There's no reason why you should have an unarmed police force because you have an unarmed populace.

(for this post armed = armed w/firearms)

Britinthia wrote:

Kouralia wrote:If it goes well (i.e. application accepted, exam results good) then I'll probably be an unpaid, part-time police officer with no taser nor a pistol (Because, you know, Britain isn't tyrannical (or it is tyrannical, depending on whether an armed populace is important to you or not)) by October/November.

Hope youre prepared to spend half your time filling out paperwork.

I know I'm late to the discussion but I have to speak in defence of Britain.

A) You cant compare firearms/special units of the Met to the rest of the forces. They are a spefial sort of crazy. Generally speaking outside of London and Manchester you dont see that sort of 'hard' copper. Also, Daily Mail is slightly less reputable than 4chan.

B) Police are unarmed voluntarily. I doubt that will ever change tbh. Tasers are issued more often now because most people, civvys and Police alike understand that they are required to help Officers do their job.

C) Stab resistant vests arent as thin and comfortable as they appear. Unlike soft ballistic armour stab resistant vests are normally lined with what amounts to chainmail.

D) Britain isnt totallitarian or communist or near anarchy. We have a government that collectively couldnt tell their arse from their elbow, but there is nothing mallicious going on. Instead of educating people and helping those in need, our problems fall to front line services to deal with. So now instead of taking mr junkie off the street and helping him help himself, the local bobby has to arrest him, which means going out like a storm trooper for fear of being stabbed by someone off their head and armed with 652 needles.


Anyway, hope my rant is in someway useful.

1. I don't think anyone was doing that, perhaps you were trying to reply to another post? And even if you were I don't think that other poster did what you said he did.
2. The general population of a country will reflect the specific social and media-tic (yes, I just made that word up) atmosphere of said country in their views. Cops represent a fraction of that population, so yeah, it's no surprise they don't like guns. But still, some Brits get their panties in a bunch even when they hear just "taser", not gun. What is this XREP controversy I keep on hearing about? I can't comment on the specifics as I don't know enough, but seeing the general British attitude towards the general subject, I'll go out on a limb here and say that it's highly likely a good part of media coverage was sensationalist and exaggerated (just like in the US . . . )
3. Shit. I wanted 3A+Slash/Stab lvl 2 vests for my coppers. Something like this - ProMAX Concealable Stab Resistant Aramid They do say this:

Stab-Resistance does stiffen up a vest significantly, so we don't recommend it unless you have a significant knife threat. A good comparison is to leather - ballistic vests bend like soft leather, Stab-Resistant vests bend like stiffer saddle leather. The stiffness makes conceal-ability a little tougher, and means you have to be sure to fit the vest correctly for comfort.

But really, it's light (2 kg) and fairly thin (6.6mm) .
4. I second this. The War on Drugs was successful however. In lining certain people's pockets and bringing down more authoritarian measures on the general populace, that is.

Is it actually to make a supercarrier-sized submarine for purposes of transporting cargo, or are there structural limitations?

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:IMHO, people seem to wrongly "merge" the issue of armed vs unarmed populace with armed vs unarmed cops , when the two have little in common. Whatever your reasons for an unarmed populace, 99.9% of them do not apply to the police. There's no reason why you should have an unarmed police force because you have an unarmed populace.

(for this post armed = armed w/firearms)

Because you police by the consent of the populace and thus don't need permanently armed police.

Kouralia wrote:

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:IMHO, people seem to wrongly "merge" the issue of armed vs unarmed populace with armed vs unarmed cops , when the two have little in common. Whatever your reasons for an unarmed populace, 99.9% of them do not apply to the police. There's no reason why you should have an unarmed police force because you have an unarmed populace.

(for this post armed = armed w/firearms)

Because you police by the consent of the populace and thus don't need permanently armed police.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Thanks to Krazakistan, who has been generously helping me with my ground forces (and who linked me to a page showing the breakdown the Soviet ground forces), I can safely say I'm about done with them.

Mainly because I'm carbon copying said graphs, but still.