Anything with "nanomachines" is well into the realm of science-fantasy. Clarkeian magic for their behaviour, power source, and programming.

@jdunlop Great minds think alike. Nanomachines and hard-science are a no-go combo.

Also, from a personal perspective, I would have real trouble taking anything that said "AI encrypted" seriously, because it's an utterly meaningless phrase.

Nanomachines are hard science... but they more closely resemble viruses than anything we think of as machines.

@Nosajimiki the nanomachines we refer are those of the sort OP wants to use. Those certainly aren't hard science.

@Nosajimiki - Nanomachines that use chemical signaling and near-organic components to do their work (ie. real nanomachines) aren't going to "coat the circulatory system releasing coagulating bio-gel", or "eliminate foreign threats" in the blood.

@jdunlop Nanobots are currently being developed to function as capsules that store a wide range of chemicals in your body until they come in contact with specific signals. The main point of this research is to develop nanobots that can deliver medicine to specific targets like cancer, but the same mechanisms at play could auto-dose you with antibiotic/antifungal/antiparasitic medicines when you get sick, anti-venom when you get poisoned, coagulants when you are wounded, etc. Not only are all these things theoretically possible, but they will likely all be done within our own lifetimes.

@Nosajimiki The nanomachines you describe would fall into hard-science science territory easily, no questions about that. But those aren't the type of nanomachines OP is asking about - his nanomachines are more akin the "micro intelligent robot that does work forever inside a body" type of nanomachine, and those fall into psuedo-magic territory.

Where, against whom and to achieve what end are these super-soldiers supposed to operate? Against interstellar invading aliens in a war of extermination? As peacekeepers in a volatile region populated by humans, winning hearts and minds? (Hint: This is an instant propaganda victory handed to any human opponent, where dehumanising the enemy is of benefit. "Look at these inhuman monsters that are being sent to kill you.")

You might want to add the GDF-8 gene to your list. It regulates muscle mass, bone density and strength in mammals. Careful selective editing will tend to give you soldiers with more muscle mass. Depending on the mission this may or may not be more advantageous than soldiers designed for greater endurance. You also have a decision to make regarding the ratio of muscle types you want (i.e. slow twitch vs fast twitch). Slow twitch benefits endurance running. Fast benefits weight lifting etc so the ratio of one to the other will matter. (All of which is a gross simplification but ... word count.)

@Mermaker There is every reason to believe that within a few decades nanomachine technology will grow into something akin to customizable, artificial biology that can "live" and reproduce symbiotically in your body while fabricating whatever chemicals you need them to. What makes hard-science fiction is not if something has been done, but if the road to get there is well defined.

@Nosajimiki There is a difference between bioengineered organisms and nanomachines. I agree with you that helpful microorganisms are quite possible, but that's not a nanomachine. What you describe is part of a field called microbotics, and works on a scale far greater than nanomachines. Nanomachines are nanoscopic - so small that several of them exist naturally inside cells.

@Nosajimiki Nanorobotics vs Microrobotics - or, more specifically, the xenorobotics subfield of microrobotics.

@Mermaker These terms are not as discrete as you may think. Nanobots can either refer to robots made of nanoscopic components or that are nanoscopic as a whole; so, it is common for a microrobot made of nanoscopic components to be referred to as a nanobot. Also, xenorobots are not the same as nanobots made from organic compounds. A nanobot can be made from synthetic protein like structures giving it many of the qualities of an organism, but not actually being constructed from an existing organism's tissues like a xenorobot is.

Have you read Gordon Dickson's Dorsai books?

@Mermaker, the inspiration behind the "nanobot" or "nanite" terminology largely has to do with scale, as the machines, or, rather, I guess, as you are debating, programed organic material, is still smaller than a singular blood cell, which is still less than 10 micrometers in diameter. The intention is for them to carry packages to serve specific functions, whether it be carrying oxygen, targeting foreign materials, or the deployment of medication. Being smaller than 10 micrometers, and smaller than most human cells, I decided to use the much more popular term of "nanomachine".

Maybe I'm being pedantic here, but I thought your BMI calculations were incorrect: "...average body mass index rating of 16 in men and 22 in women..." disagrees with "...the average for male has a height of 2.25 meters and weighs in at 125 kilograms while the average female stands 2 meters tall at 100 kilograms..." as 125 / 2.25 ^2 = 24.7, and 100 / 2 ^ 2 = 25

I'd recommend reading Borders of Infinity by Bujold. Taura is the character (in the story Labyrinth) you're trying to invent and the author does a reasonable job at explaining why such "super soldiers" don't work. Armies need smarter people, not "stronger".

Lots of people are focused on the nanotech issue, but I just wanted to note that your third bullet point — in contrast to the others, which strive for detail and practicality — sticks out as a massive handwave. // Completely separate, "a low end of 150 percent and a high end of 250 percent that of normal subjects" ... since "normal subjects" is already a broad range, perhaps something like 150-250% "...over standard human baseline". (Or whatever species they are, if not human.)

@jdunlop Maybe since you balked at "AI encrypted", you didn't continue on to "...techno-telepathy and techno-empathy". "AI encrypted" was actually the least objectionable phrase of that particular sentence. 😉 (Well, second to "real-time", I suppose.)

@Nosajimiki Wow, ambitious prediction, with the "every reason to believe that within a few decades..." there. Even if you're right, I feel like you've made the most classic blunder there is in sci-fi: Massively compressing your time scale by overestimating how quickly technology actually evolves and innovates. In "a few decades", I feel like your prediction will have aged as poorly as all the mid-20th-century predictions of moon colonies and interstellar travel we'd already find commonplace. ...A few centuries, maybe.