backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 37 comment(s) - last by AEvangel.. on Nov 9 at 12:59 PM

Marines go through current immersion trainers  (Source: USMC)
USMC to build new immersion trainers making use of holograms, special effects, and other special technologies

The United States Marine Corps will use immersion trainers to offer additional support for troops who are facing changing environments in Iraq and Afghanistan, with insurgents, different spoken languages, buildings, and other situations that could present dangers.

California, Hawaii, and North Carolina are going to host the high-tech training facilities, the USMC said in a statement published the the Marine Corps Times.

The new generation of Infantry Immersion Trainers (IIT) systems will make use of proposed changes learned from the $2.5M immersion trainer located at Camp Pendleton. The Corps will have its first outdoor immersion trainer located at Pendleton, a $15.3M investment that provides scenarios Marines may experience.

The need for an IIT in Hawaii will cut back how many trips Marines must take to mainland United States to prepare for deployment.

The facilities  use digital holograms to help present different scenarios Marines may face while deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Specifically, Marines will have to choose between insurgents and civilians, along with having to differentiate between the multiple languages that can be spoken while in Afghanistan.  

Since the current IIT facility opened in 2007, around 12,400 Marines have undergone training, officials noted.

Construction hasn't started on any of the facilities yet, but the USMC expect all three of them to be finished by early 2011.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By sintaxera on 11/7/2009 7:47:57 AM , Rating: 2
I grew up in Fayetteville, NC which is just outside of Fort Bragg. I took an nice long vacation to visit my brother-in law who is stationed in Hawaii about a year ago. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING is more of a shock than going from Hawaii to Fayetteville, NC. Well, except going to Iraq or Afghanistan. But really, if you want immersion training and a shock to the system, just ship everyone to Hawaii for a few weeks then send them back to Fayetteville, NC. It was bad enough during the cold war but now it just sucks. Hard.




By JonnyDough on 11/8/2009 8:59:08 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, but were you just comparing Hawaii to Iraq without any first hand experience in the military?


By grath on 11/9/2009 12:07:37 AM , Rating: 3
I am hoping that what he was trying to say is that Hawaii offers a sort of "Introduction to Culture Shock" without actually going to a foreign country.

A large number of our troops come from rural areas where they may not have been exposed to much diversity, and even less to the tolerance and acceptance of such diversity. At best they have never needed to interact with people different from themselves, and at worst they have been actively discouraged to do so.

So like he almost said, you dont really need holograms and virtual reality to achieve that exposure, a trip to Hawaii or any number of urban settings is enough of a culture shock to be of value to what theyre trying to accomplish here. It certainly doesnt compare to actually being in-country, but its part of a learning process, and the more of that process that can be achieved before a deployment the better.


By TheCurve on 11/7/2009 7:30:00 PM , Rating: 2
An example of the current system used in Camp Pendleton can be seen here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/digitalnat...




By Azsen on 11/7/2009 7:55:32 PM , Rating: 2
Good link. The 'holograms' don't really look like 3D holograms though, they're more like projector images projected onto the wall behind. I wonder if paintball would be a better simulator, with other Marines dressed up as terrorists.


A better idea
By Regected on 11/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: A better idea
By bobsmith1492 on 11/7/2009 11:13:05 AM , Rating: 2
That's pretty selfish; if we leave now, they'd probably tear themselves apart.

Either that or they'd focus the violence on the US itself... it's a messy situation either way but I don't see how simply leaving will help any.


RE: A better idea
By Regected on 11/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: A better idea
By BladeVenom on 11/7/2009 2:00:42 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
How would you feel if another country invaded your town, taking away your governmental system just to put in place other ideals?

That sounds great. If someone could get rid of our current politicians and advance our country a thousand years, I'd be all for it.


RE: A better idea
By armulyman on 11/7/2009 2:14:45 PM , Rating: 2
give this guy a six


RE: A better idea
By sieistganzfett on 11/7/2009 2:43:26 PM , Rating: 2
Give a 6!


RE: A better idea
By bkaz on 11/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: A better idea
By aftlizard on 11/7/2009 3:22:02 PM , Rating: 2
I fail to see where he said ideal. However what exactly would you describe a loose coalition of tribes with a ruling caste that practicing strict religious dogma from the seventh century? I certainly don't consider it modern. Even the mullahs in Iran practice a more modern form of governance than what Afghanistan did.


RE: A better idea
By sviola on 11/8/2009 2:58:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I fail to see where he said ideal. However what exactly would you describe a loose coalition of tribes with a ruling caste that practicing strict religious dogma from the seventh century? I certainly don't consider it modern. Even the mullahs in Iran practice a more modern form of governance than what Afghanistan did.


Interesting...you can't see pratice of 7th century religious dogma, yet you live in a country that most people follow strict religious dogmas from the 1st century (new testament) and older(old testament) and there is even people that live like it is the 17th century...go figure


RE: A better idea
By Ardan on 11/7/2009 6:58:41 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, your response is way off from what he was saying. You didn't get what he was saying at all, did you?


RE: A better idea
By stromgald30 on 11/9/2009 12:04:41 PM , Rating: 2
You'd be surprised how bad reading comprehension is on this site. There's quite a bit of selective reading and inference.


RE: A better idea
By S3anister on 11/7/2009 6:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
Epic win.


RE: A better idea
By TSS on 11/8/2009 2:57:50 PM , Rating: 2
Someone?

How about Americans themselves?

Revolution, Revolt.... Hell just collectively vote neither republican nor democratic, there aren't many 3rd parties but they are there. Ron paul, for instance, in the last election.

Or of course you can try asking the british really nicely to take over again.


RE: A better idea
By jnolen on 11/8/2009 9:27:21 AM , Rating: 2
Somehow I really doubt most of the Iraqi people are mourning the passing of Saddam Hussein and his "government".


RE: A better idea
By jonmcc33 on 11/9/2009 10:10:46 AM , Rating: 1
I sure don't see Iraqi people cheering the US presence in Iraq either.

We haven't gased them or cut off their ears but we bombed the snot out out them at first, helped many museums get robbed of priceless artifacts and with daily suicide bombings that kill dozens and maim hundreds I don't see the living conditions all that better. Then add in some sexual humiliation in prisons that the US Army and CIA are doing as well as the raping and murdering that some of the US Army is doing.

Yep, Iraq is ten times better than what it once was!


RE: A better idea
By jonmcc33 on 11/9/2009 10:40:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
...if we leave now, they'd probably tear themselves apart.


Um, I think they are already doing that and have actually been doing it for years after the US invaded. RE: Suicide bombings that are near a daily occurrence over there.

quote:
Either that or they'd focus the violence on the US itself... it's a messy situation either way but I don't see how simply leaving will help any.


Last time I checked US is used to the violence. Regular occurrences of rape, murder and robery. Heck, that guy in Cleveland (Anthony Sowell) had 10 bodies of women in various areas of his home? Then we can look at the Virginia Tech massacre where Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people. We can look at the Heaven's Gate cult where 39 people took their own lives all in the belief that God was riding on the back of a comet. Then we can go way back to when David Koresh guided 76 people to their deaths all based upon their belief that he was Jesus reborn.

No car bombs in the US but we have our violence and crazy people around every corner.

Not to mention that even with our presence in Iraq there are still terrorist attacks planned out (and failed) in the US by Muslim extremists.


RE: A better idea
By odessit740 on 11/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: A better idea
By rippleyaliens on 11/7/2009 5:20:06 PM , Rating: 2
When are Wars Laweful.. Hmm, that is very difficult to say. Considering that on this PLANET, there is a war going on. AT ANY POINT IN TIME, RECORDED to be easy, there is a war going on. Maybe not a World Class LEVEL war, but still wars. If you do not believe that, then you my friend are in a bubble. Wether it is a Religion, (Christians have killed MILLIONS in the name of GOD), to RACE WAR, White on white, White on Black, English on Scottish, German versus, everyone else, etc....
To DOPE WARS.. There is always War going on. NOW if we let IRAQ and/or Afghanistan alone.. Well what will that solve.
NADA.. IF we kill them all, what would that solve.. NADA..

BUT if a Group openly attacks the USA, well it is THE LAW in this country to fight aggressors to the USA.. wether foreign or domestic. Al Qaeda drew first blood.. IF WE didnt do anything, that sends a message, that we as a country are tolerant of those kinds of actions. It would be simular to a situation.. BOOM 19 French terrorist attack the big 4, world headquarters.. Walmart, Exxon, Kmart, and Target world hq's.. killed 3000 employees..The french wont hand over the leaders of the Terror ring, nor will they hunt them down.
A. Do we just pout and go "oh fooey"
B. Do we Pursue the people responsible?
C. Do nothing or Pray that it doesnt happen again??
D. SEND a FIRM and Very POWERFUL message.. IF you kill 3000 of use, we will kill 300,000 of you?

As you can see, D is very powerful message.. Very violent, very nasty.. BUT you can best believe, it would be heard..
Japan found out the hard way.. 1941..
And to remind people, the USA has in the past tried to stay out of stuff. wwii. comes to mind. Staying silent and out of the way, is at times, much worse, than actually fighting the battle.. Then Again MOST sheep in fact believe that the world revolves around them.


RE: A better idea
By SiliconAddict on 11/8/2009 4:44:56 AM , Rating: 2
Yah because the US has such a wonderful track record with going to war. See Korean and Vietnam as references. Sorry but I would like you to name me an instance in our history where we have gone to war and the outcome has been for the better instead of ending up being worse. we routinely stick our noses into local politics without knowing anything about regional culture with the end result being a drastic miscalculation as to how "easy" the goal is to achieve. See Vietnam and Iraq as perfect examples of this.


RE: A better idea
By jnolen on 11/8/09, Rating: 0
RE: A better idea
By RandallMoore on 11/8/09, Rating: -1
RE: A better idea
By JonnyDough on 11/8/2009 9:18:53 PM , Rating: 3
Really? Because I know some Vietnam vets that don't believe we should have been there in the first place.


RE: A better idea
By RandallMoore on 11/9/2009 10:09:17 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds like he's not a true American then. I know some preachers that steal. Doe's that mean all of them do? No.


RE: A better idea
By AEvangel on 11/9/2009 10:21:38 AM , Rating: 2
Actually The Gulf of Tonkin was a staged event by our Government to get us into Vietnam, also Vietnam is a prime example of how War never solved the problem and nor would it, but diplomacy and trade did as they are now trading partners of America.


RE: A better idea
By B3an on 11/9/2009 2:48:10 AM , Rating: 2
It's really refreshing to read something like that from an american. That is basically how the rest of the world see's things regarding america, because it's true.
Every time the U.S sticks it's nose where it does not belong, it just makes even more people hate the country.
If it carries on it will get even more out of hand and could lead to multiple countries fighting a war against the U.S that it could not win.


RE: A better idea
By jonmcc33 on 11/9/2009 10:54:49 AM , Rating: 2
What's wrong with Korea? I was stationed there for a year. Because of the US there still is a free South Korea as opposed to a single Communist Korea controlled by an insane dictator. Not sure if there is a "negative" track record with the Korean War by any means.


RE: A better idea
By SiliconAddict on 11/8/2009 4:54:45 AM , Rating: 3
"BUT if a Group openly attacks the USA"

And this equates to Iraq how? It has been well documented that the terrorists were Saudi citizens. And those supposed ties to So damn insane? It has also been well documented that Bin Laden and al-Qaeda HATED hussein due to his backing of the Saudi royal family. When we invaded Iraq we did them a favor, and created a rally point of hatrid against the US. Let me ask you. With the number of people dead in Iraq do you actually think there are less newly created wanna be terrorists now in Iraq who have nothing to live for due to everything they know and love gone up in smoke now then there was before we went in. Bush's actions have most likely made the US less secure due to probably a crap load of more people more then willing to strap a bomb on their hides and kill themselves if they can take out a US asset. Bush was an idiot and invading Iraq was a massive mistake. Still waiting on those WMD's to show up too. Remember WMD? The sole reason we were given on the air for invading Iraq.


RE: A better idea
By rippleyaliens on 11/8/09, Rating: 0
RE: A better idea
By mydogfarted on 11/9/2009 10:33:37 AM , Rating: 2
You do realize WE put Saddam in power? Blame Clinton if you want, but remember that Reagan and the Bush family have close ties to the Bin Laden family. Do you honestly believe that no one in that family knows where he is?

I don't think anyone here is talking about not supporting the troops, just not supporting the war. It is two completely separate issues.


RE: A better idea
By AEvangel on 11/9/2009 10:35:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well My friend. WMD.. you act like Iraq has never used WMD's.. THEY DID.. ON OUR TROOPS..


Yes, Saddam Hussein did have WMD's the US sold them to him in the 90's in his war we promoted against Iran.

quote:
as well. IRAQ did a scortched earth, which is a biggg nono..


Yes, just like Lincoln and Sherman did during their unjustifiable War against his own people may they rot in hell.

quote:
As a US Marine, wether i believe or not, it is thy oath to do what is told.


Actually the first part of that oath should have overridden the latter part since your first duty is to defend the Constitution. Against enemies foreign and domestic, which given our Foreign Policy over the last 50 years would include our Government.

quote:
SHOULD WE STOP support of our troops? NO..


I support our Troops, I support bringing them home before more of their lives are wasted in these pointless conflicts.

quote:
We could have gotten mr binladden, a DECADE ago.


You mean before or after he was getting training by the CIA to attack the Russians? Also if you believe the idea that we can't catch a 60+ year old Dialysis patient hiding out in ONE country, then you are truly delusional. They don't want to catch him, he is the boogie man that funds the Military Industrial Complex and keeps projects like this funded. Even Colin Powell figured that out in 2002 in speech he gave.

If you truly believe either of these two conflicts are justified or that they will accomplish any long term peace in the area then you are really have no clue.


RE: A better idea
By jonmcc33 on 11/9/2009 11:07:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually the first part of that oath should have overridden the latter part since your first duty is to defend the Constitution. Against enemies foreign and domestic, which given our Foreign Policy over the last 50 years would include our Government.


The oath of enlistment is NOT segmented into multiple parts like the Bill of Rights.

It purely states to defend the US Constitution against enemies foreign or domestic and that you will obey the orders of the US President and of the officers appointed over you.

Foreign Policy from the governments standpoint has nothing to do with what you are trying to twist it into. I take it that you have never served in the US armed forces as you don't seem to comprehend the meaning of the oath of enlistment.

quote:
I support our Troops, I support bringing them home before more of their lives are wasted in these pointless conflicts.


At least we agree here.


RE: A better idea
By AEvangel on 11/9/2009 12:59:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Foreign Policy from the governments standpoint has nothing to do with what you are trying to twist it into. I take it that you have never served in the US armed forces as you don't seem to comprehend the meaning of the oath of enlistment.


But any soldier can refuse deployment based on grounds of conscientious objector (CO) status being that this occupation is unconstitutional, as well as violating international law.

Also I never said it was segmented like the bill of rights, I simply stated the first part of the oath can in some cases override the later part of the oath. It's up to the individual whether they want to fight for their rights.

You are correct I have never signed up for military service, i choose a different career path, but I'm not sure what that has anything to do with my points.


"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki