home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1990s
/
Time_Almanac_1990s_SoftKey_1994.iso
/
time
/
021891
/
02189910.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-03-25
|
2KB
|
54 lines
<text id=91TT0377>
<title>
Feb. 18, 1991: In Need Of Protection
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1991
Feb. 18, 1991 The War Comes Home
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
THE GULF WAR, Page 23
In Need of Protection
</hdr><body>
<p> As a ground war in the gulf comes closer, so does the
prospect of chemical warfare. If U.S. troops have to fight on
a poisoned battlefield, will their gas masks and protective
suits keep them safe? The not completely reassuring answer is,
Yes, but...
</p>
<p> The American military gas mask, the M-17, was designed in
1955 and has not been significantly improved since. It has
complicated straps and a hood that take time to sort out when
delay can be fatal. Its filters are good for an hour or more
in mustard gas but cannot be changed while the mask is being
worn.
</p>
<p> One of the most outspoken critics of U.S. anti-gas equipment
is Evan Koslow, former editor of the technical journal Nuclear,
Biological and Chemical Defense & Technology. He says the M-17
mask "gives very limited gas protection" compared with those
produced by other NATO countries, most of which are more
modern. He also claims that the protective clothing the U.S.
uses can be penetrated by chemical agents.
</p>
<p> The Pentagon denies those charges. The M-17 mask and suit,
says an Army spokesman, "will protect our soldiers." Martin
Calhoun, an analyst at the independent Center for Defense
Information in Washington, agrees: "The M-17 does its job." A
study by the Government Accounting Office in 1986 found that
while U.S. gear was old and bulky, it offered sufficient
protection.
</p>
<p> The U.S. Army's attempts to produce a modern gas mask have
cost $100 million but have been delayed 20 years by false
starts and contract cancellations. Amid the praise for the
Pentagon's high-tech weapons, its low-tech failures should also
be noted.
</p>
</body></article>
</text>