• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Amazing Specs Could Give Soldiers Super Sight

lpast

lpast

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
13,663
Reaction score
4,633
Location
Fla
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Anyone who's played "Call of Duty" or other modern first-person-shooter games is familiar with on-screen displays of maps, troops positions and other vital information, which allow the player to navigate his or her surroundings without taking an eye off of the action.
But what if that kind of information were available to real soldiers in actual combat

nnovega's iOptik system, an innovative heads-up display (HUD) might deliver just that. According to a press release from the Bellevue, Washington-based company, a new system featuring "light-weight eyewear working with advanced contact lenses," would provide sharpened real-world vision while projecting an immersive display into the wearer's line of sight.

Innovega iOptik Contact Lenses Could Be Used For Super Soldier Vision (VIDEO)
 
Projecting images into someones eyes during combat. Let's think about that one for a second... Plus contacts aren't allowed in the field for a reason. That's the last thing you want in your eyes when you're in a place where regular hygiene is preformed with baby wipes, and some kind of water-like substance in a canteen cup. And what about Troops that can't/won't wear contacts? I'm calling it: This thing is a failure in the making.
 
I always thought the opening sequence to Lost In Space movie, where the guys contact lenses focus, was pretty cool.

0:30

 
Lokiate said:
Projecting images into someones eyes during combat. Let's think about that one for a second... Plus contacts aren't allowed in the field for a reason. That's the last thing you want in your eyes when you're in a place where regular hygiene is preformed with baby wipes, and some kind of water-like substance in a canteen cup. And what about Troops that can't/won't wear contacts? I'm calling it: This thing is a failure in the making.
Click to expand...

Contact lenses + small amount of dust in air = bad news
 
Lokiate said:
Projecting images into someones eyes during combat. Let's think about that one for a second... Plus contacts aren't allowed in the field for a reason. That's the last thing you want in your eyes when you're in a place where regular hygiene is preformed with baby wipes, and some kind of water-like substance in a canteen cup. And what about Troops that can't/won't wear contacts? I'm calling it: This thing is a failure in the making.
Click to expand...

I imagine that only special ops troops will be using these, and will only use them during missions. You're spinning out WAY too much, not every foot soldier will have them and I seriously doubt they will be in 24/7. Likely, they will be in for just a few hours at a time. And who says they will be repeat wear anyway? With the amount of money the army throws around, they may be disposables.
 
ChuckBerry said:
I imagine that only special ops troops will be using these, and will only use them during missions. You're spinning out WAY too much, not every foot soldier will have them and I seriously doubt they will be in 24/7. Likely, they will be in for just a few hours at a time. And who says they will be repeat wear anyway? With the amount of money the army throws around, they may be disposables.
Click to expand...

Not spinning anything, this is just a stupid idea. The first sentence of the article told me it's a failure in the making.
 
Loved the idea of getting an overhead view from a Predator. This would give the troop a huge advantage in trying to outflank the enemy.
 
People who think this is a terrible idea forget that the soldier of the future (AKA the actual soldiers who will be using such technology) is the child of today (even the children of tomorrow). These kids are going to be familiar with augmented reality being incorporated in their everyday lives.
 
Sometimes in my dreams I have to put contacts on that are the size of a silver dollar. It's uncomfortable even in a dream.
 
ChuckBerry said:
I imagine that only special ops troops will be using these, and will only use them during missions.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't their missions take place in areas that can get pollution, smoke, dust or pollen?

I want to switch to contac lenses, but there is a lot of talk about contact lenes causing eye infection. Are soft contac lenses safe?
Another problem is exposure to pollution, smoke, dust or pollen. Lenses tend to collect even the smallest particles from the air. This causes discomfort and, quite often, inflammation of the cornea.



And who says they will be repeat wear anyway? With the amount of money the army throws around, they may be disposables.
Click to expand...

Not if those lenses cost thousands of dollars to make,someone in office doesn't want troops wasting these things and they don't want the enemy to reverse engineer them.
 
jamesrage said:
Wouldn't their missions take place in areas that can get pollution, smoke, dust or pollen?

I want to switch to contac lenses, but there is a lot of talk about contact lenes causing eye infection. Are soft contac lenses safe?
Another problem is exposure to pollution, smoke, dust or pollen. Lenses tend to collect even the smallest particles from the air. This causes discomfort and, quite often, inflammation of the cornea.
Click to expand...

And those same things can affect eyes without contacts. So I would imagine the combat version would include goggles like we see soldiers wearing now. This would seal the eyes off from those irritants.
 
Tucker Case said:
People who think this is a terrible idea forget that the soldier of the future (AKA the actual soldiers who will be using such technology) is the child of today (even the children of tomorrow). These kids are going to be familiar with augmented reality being incorporated in their everyday lives.
Click to expand...

I grew up playing video games too. Played a lot of modern warfare when I was in. Still wouldn't use this crap, just like I refused to use NVG's, red dot reflex sights, or GPS. They're good in theory, but in practice, all the high tech stuff does is overcomplicate simple things, fail when you need it most, and add more weight to an already overbearing packing list.
 
Lokiate said:
Projecting images into someones eyes during combat. Let's think about that one for a second... Plus contacts aren't allowed in the field for a reason. That's the last thing you want in your eyes when you're in a place where regular hygiene is preformed with baby wipes, and some kind of water-like substance in a canteen cup. And what about Troops that can't/won't wear contacts? I'm calling it: This thing is a failure in the making.
Click to expand...

Every now and again, the propoganda machines tell us about the Latest And Greatest Weapon Evah!!

Remember the Daisy Cutter bombs?
 
sangha said:
Every now and again, the propoganda machines tell us about the Latest And Greatest Weapon Evah!!

Remember the Daisy Cutter bombs?
Click to expand...

Yeah. I also remember the MOAB, supposedly the most awesome conventional bomb ever constructed. 15 bought during a time of war, 0 used.
 
The future is here baby.
 
The lens can also interface and augment real world vision.

Popular choices turn "peace sign" tree huggers into brown people with AK's and towels on their heads.

Fleeing refugees into grizzled bloodthirsty pirates.

Anti-national Mexicans into space invaders.

Politicians or high value friendlies into their favorite celebrity.

Makes "occuTards" magically disapear. (because they aren't going away.)
 
Last edited:
dirtpoorchris said:
The lens can also interface and augment real world vision.

Popular choices turn "peace sign" tree huggers into brown people with AK's and towels on their heads.

Fleeing refugees into grizzled bloodthirsty pirates.

Anti-national Mexicans into space invaders.

Politicians or high value friendlies into their favorite celebrity.

Makes "occuTards" magically disapear. (because they aren't going away.)
Click to expand...

Doesn't it make more sense to make politicians, "into grizzled bloodthirsty pirates." It's closer to the truth anyway.
 
EagleAye said:
Doesn't it make more sense to make politicians, "into grizzled bloodthirsty pirates." It's closer to the truth anyway.
Click to expand...

Not when politicians have the military on a leash as their personal world police. When Billy Mays (or your favorite celeb) tells you to invade Afghanistan. You invade Afghanistan. When Sarah Palin says "Lets go get them!" everyone just shrugs. I feel i have over explained my little joke...

But, yes. I agree with your humor.
 
Last edited:
Lokiate said:
I grew up playing video games too. Played a lot of modern warfare when I was in. Still wouldn't use this crap, just like I refused to use NVG's, red dot reflex sights, or GPS. They're good in theory, but in practice, all the high tech stuff does is overcomplicate simple things, fail when you need it most, and add more weight to an already overbearing packing list.
Click to expand...

This isn't video games, it's augmented reality. A totally different thing.
 
Lokiate said:
And mankind has been waging war without it just fine since forever.
Click to expand...

That same "logic" could have been used at some point to argue against guns, bombs, tanks, planes, missiles, laser targeting systems, night vision goggles, cameras, satellites, radios, grenades, warships, heavy cavalry, siege engines, chariots, swords, shields, body armor, and even horses.

It's not a valid argument.
 
Last edited:
Lokiate said:
No, like a bunch of electronic junk that won't make it passed field tests, which cost the Army 10 years, and 500 million dollars to discover that it was garbage. Just like this piece of crap will, should some general get a boner over it.
Click to expand...

You think a single piece of a equipment is comparable to an entire system of equipment? Why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom