>You can say the same as you did about any technology. Why lug around a big heavy rifle when you could carry sharpened sticks?
Because the enemy doesn't use sticks, first of all.
>I guarantee you people said exactly the same about the first radios, for example.
They did not, because it represented a fundamental change in how ground warfare could be conducted and not everyone carried them (not everyone carries them today either, which is telling). Namely, coordinating accurate indirect fire.
>Now you wouldn't even consider leaving the wire without a radio under any circumstances whatsoever.
Because I want to be able to call in air-support and indirect. The difference with all these examples is that the technologies you are mentioning represented a game-changing way in how to enable infantry-support operations. It's not immediately clear to me that the same is true for a AR/VR helmet system used by infantry. It's possible that other branches could find uses for it in the same vein. Like the FSO using it to "see" the FLT and better coordinate indirect fire.
