>>12709933Just because I don't have much opportunity to talk about this subject and spent quite a lot of time involved in research, some final points that I find interesting:
Cognitive enhancement or 'trainability' in general wouldn't be particularly useful since, frankly, the vast majority of military training isn't intellectually demanding. And if there was a need, far more bang for buck could be achieved by recruiting better recruits (pay more, forced conscription a la Forever War, whatever) than sticking needles in someone's head. Frankly, many military recruits are very underwhelming people (actually less so in the US than the UK, due to cultural affinity for the military and because of GI Bill benefits).
The benefit from most enhancements feasible in the next decade or two would be nowhere near as beneficial as cultural changes to improve diet and lifestyle. Making all SF soldiers and fighter pilots teetotal pescatarians (or an equivalent) would accrue far, FAR more benefit than smart pills and pumping them full of roids. Also changing military culture to improve training (I.e. instructors who want to instruct and teach, not fail people and bully trainees to massage their own egos, which is distressingly common).
Finally, as talked around in most of my posts, supersoldier enhancements would not go to the people a lay person might think they would. Far more value would be attained from enhancing key Strategic, Operational, and Tactical commanders, and high-value vehicle crewmen (all aircraft, drones, main battle tanks, key recce vehicles, warship ops room and weapons system crew, possibly some artillerymen) than from enhancing infantry grunts to run fast and punch through walls.
