User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 25

  1. #11
    Dependable Skeleton Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    I'm surprised that you emphasize infantry equipment as much as you do. IIRC, the Marine philosophy is that training, esprit de corps, coordination, and tactical exploitation were all far more important than quality of equipment. In other words, "every Marine a rifleman": that expert use of familiar and well-known weaponry in trained hands within a cohesive organization with a singular vision often defeats undertrained use of newer or better weaponry by an organization with multiple and often-divergent views and goals.
    It's a well-known point of bitching within the Corps that the Army gets all the newer and nicer technology, while the Marines don't get the good stuff. I emphasize infantry simply because they are the backbone (and that was the only infantry option there). Providing them with better equipment on top of all of the training (which I also emphasized in a later question) would increase their effectiveness in combat. We use M16A2s, the Army uses M4s and M16A4s, which provide for a range of nicer attachments (and are essentially the same gun but with improved features... no need for different lessons because it's newer). Not really a big must-have, but it would definitely be nice if we got good stuff once in awhile... :/
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Ego Reparate; Ob Me Non Deficiat.
    INTJ - RCOEI - sx/sp/so - Tritype: 683 (6w5-8w9-3w4) - True Neutral
    "Yeah, wisdom always chooses/These black eyes and these bruises"
    "Over the heartache that they say/Never completely goes away..."

  2. #12
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Engineer View Post
    It's a well-known point of bitching within the Corps that the Army gets all the newer and nicer technology, while the Marines don't get the good stuff. I emphasize infantry simply because they are the backbone (and that was the only infantry option there). Providing them with better equipment on top of all of the training (which I also emphasized in a later question) would increase their effectiveness in combat. We use M16A2s, the Army uses M4s and M16A4s, which provide for a range of nicer attachments (and are essentially the same gun but with improved features... no need for different lessons because it's newer). Not really a big must-have, but it would definitely be nice if we got good stuff once in awhile... :/
    Yup - it has always impressed me that the Corps can spend as little as it does on each Marine, and still overwhelm the other branches of the military in combat effectiveness. Men's department, indeed.

    What's interesting is that I'd always heard that the A2's problems came from wanting to be everything to everyone, and resulted in a bulky rifle that broke down and that you can't aim straight, which is why the Corps uses the A4 in the field. This somewhat goes along with the unhappy marriage narrative of the M16 and the Marines - that the rifle is a prima donna with amazing testing stats, and annoying failures in the field. This of course, in comparison to the beloved M1 and M14.

    That being said, the M27 in testing for the automatic riflemen looks like a fun little guy to play with.

  3. #13
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    oh what the the hell. little NFP girl is going to answer the questions


    1. Do you think that you would make a good military commander ? I mean what parts of your personality make you think that this is the case ?

    If I really, really believed in the cause, I'd be doing everything in my power to succeed. My most useful personality aspect would be resourcefulness. When I have an objective IRL, and I set my eyes on nothing but it, it's very rare that I don't succeed. I'm good at directing all energies towards one path, and at delegating others in a crisis situation.

    2. How detailed would you be in your commanding style ? Would you simply just give general orders and watch what happens? Or you would make sure you have everything planned out in advance ?

    Well, first I would decide what precise things I would retain full control over. Then I would delegate other ares to officers. I would be extremely picky about selecting my officers, and give them very clear groundrules for what I know I want. Then I'd try to trust their skills and give them a lot of autonomy in those areas. I don't run a loose ship but I don't like to micromanage, either. I'd be sure to hold regular conversations to combine all of our knowledge, and I'd be quick to keep them informed if and when anything major should change. I think communication is extremely important.

    3. How stressful for you would be to lead a massive military force ? Making sure that supply lines function at optimal levels. Or marking the exact spots where you should air-drop the fuel and additional ammunition .... etc.

    If I was completely and totally dedicated to the the cause, I'm sure it would be stressful, but I would throw my full self into it. It would be an engaging sort of stress.

    4. In which strategic elements you would like to have the advantage ? (choose three)

    More efficient supply lines, having commando squads that are experts for creating chaos in enemy territory, artillery with longer range than most other countries, more versatile fighter jets, bombers with unusally large bomb bay area, naval suppriority , superior intelligence agency, superior counter intelligence agency, well armed infantry (especially against armor) , general population that is capable and willing to create a organized resistance on areas occupied by an enemy.


    Superior intelligence, support of general population, and more efficient supply lines. Call me an NF but I'm all for psychological advantages. And supplies, of course, because keeping soldiers well-supplied means keeping morale up as well as being effective. A lot of the other options listed – artillery, jets, navy, etc. - those sort of depend on the terrain and nature of what you're going into, which isn't explicit in this scenario.

    5. How would you cope with all the death around you ? Especially since you are basically the most responsible for that then anyone else around ? Except maybe the enemy high command in the case that they invaded first.

    Do everything in my power to minimize it and then say a prayer. Anyone who chooses to fight risks death. I don't like it, but some things are important enough to die for.

    6. Here is the situation. You are a high ranking general of one country. However your country is in a very bad relations with its neighbour because of some critical resources that are directly on the border and it is just a matter of time before things escalate, especially since people want that actualy. However the other countries in the region are too weak to have their own position and opinion.

    So one day the other country celebrates its more sacred holiday and eveybody will rejoice on that special day. So my question is: Would you lunch a suprise air-strikes on that day if it is obvious that there will basically be no resistance on that day ? So you will take out easily most of their critical infrastructure and objects of strong military or strategic value. What would probably prevent alot of bloodshed on the long run. (but there is no guarantee)


    Not deadly and not anything that would involve civilians. Otherwise, I am not opposed to preemptive striking. I think I would prefer something a little sneakier than air strikes, though. Maybe infiltration of their executive buildings, catch their leaders off guard and try to force surrender.

    Though perhaps an easier route would be seeing if the government could do a better job at distributing the critical resource that is causing such a stir...

    7. Another situation. There is plenty of enemy civilians that ended trapped in a front line between your forces and the enemy. You have two options.

    One: wait for a few days so that everybody moves away. Even if that will give the enemy the time needed to entrench. What means you will probably not be able to brake through before their reinforcement arrive. What puts you in a difficult position and probably endangers civilians on your side.

    Two: Continue with the full assult even if it is obvious that there will certainly be plenty of civilian casulties. (even if you don't target them specifically)

    Which option makes more sense to you ?


    One... it's more a matter of moral obligation than sense. I don't have a problem with killing soldiers, but killing civilians is another matter. If there's any way to strike from above, the sides, below, or behind, that would be ideal. Unless the civilians are obviously actively in favor of the enemy's cause, in which case, fuck that.

    8. Would you change your opinion in the above scenario in the case that you are the one who got brutally invaded first and by some miracle you managed to brake the first wave of the invansion and take the initiative ? (even if the most of those civilians were for the invansion on your territoy)

    No.

    9. Would you be afraid that the international community or UN or some one like that will charge you for war crimes ? Even if you were doing your best to keep the civilian death rate at the lowest possible level.

    If I'm serious enough about this cause that I'm risking others' lives, I doubt I'm really going to care what the international community or the UN thinks.

    10. The enemy has set up a field command centre and ammunition depot in a ancient church from 14th century in hope you will not notice it.*
    So the question is quite simple. Would you level this church with an air-strike or artillery barrage if that will probably cause the collapse of the front line on enemy side ?*


    Yup. Same thing again - If the cause is important enough that I'm killing people for it, there's not even a question in my mind that I'd be willing to level that thing in a heartbeat. It'd make me sad, but war sucks in general. Hopefully by now we have some good photos of it, anyway.

    11. In the case that you win the war would you personally insist that this church should be rebuild and look just as it did before ?

    Someone's Fi is showing That would be ideal.

    12. Would you rather fight an elusive well armed guerilla/terrorist kind of an enemy or classical army that is about 25 percent stronger than your army in pretty much all elements ?

    Classical. Smart is almost always more dangerous than strong; chaotic moreso than predictable.

    13. By your opinion the most important thing in a war is : plenty of supples, determination , raw firepower and numbers , good aiming , camouflage ?

    Determination. Humans prove over and over again that they are capable of mind-blowing things if their willpower is great enough.

    14. The conflict that does not have a blessing of the UN is ALWAYS wrong course of action or outcome ?

    Nah. UN's only human.

    15. At what age did you learn to play chess ? (in the case you know how to play)

    Maybe 7 or 8? I don't have the patience for it, though. Seems like a Ni thing.

    16. How do you feel about these questions ?

    They're interesting. I don't think about war in a classic war sense much, but I realized that all I had to do was drop myself in the situation of saying an enemy has taken my loved ones / family / SO and is threatening to kill them. Maybe I don't have the best answers... maybe I wouldn't win against a brilliant strategist... but I would try my hardest. Some part of me thinks that if every single person I have can be lit on fire for this cause the same way that I would be, then there really wouldn't be much we couldn't do. If every single person was ready to fight until every single drop of their energy was gone, if everyone was willing to channel every single resource into the task at hand... I think we'd have a damned good chance. At the very least of appealing to the world's hearts, if not blowing the enemy's shit up.

  4. #14
    Certified Sausage Smoker Elfboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLI None
    Posts
    9,635

    Default

    1. Do you think that you would make a good military commander ? I mean what parts of your personality make you think that this is the case ?


    not so much now, but if I got training I would kick ass at it.
    - Ne+Te = WIN
    - I'm confident enough to command an army
    - I can plan, plus I'm intelligent and quick on my feet
    - I'm not afraid of retreating if we can't win

    2. How detailed would you be in your commanding style ? Would you simply just give general orders and watch what happens? Or you would make sure you have everything planned out in advance ?
    pretty damn detailed, I want to know EVERYTHING about the opposing army. how many are there? what training do they have? what's there position? what's the terrain? is there any way to ambush them? can we win? if not, how can we retreat and lure them into a trap?






    3. How stressful for you would be to lead a massive military force ? Making sure that supply lines function at optimal levels. Or marking the exact spots where you should air-drop the fuel and additional ammunition .... etc.

    maybe, but mostly it would just be fun commanding people




    4. In which strategic elements you would like to have the advantage ? (choose three)

    More efficient supply lines, having commando squads that are experts for creating chaos in enemy territory, artillery with longer range than most other countries, more versatile fighter jets, bombers with unusally large bomb bay area, naval suppriority , superior intelligence agency, superior counter intelligence agency, well armed infantry (especially against armor) , general population that is capable and willing to create a organized resistance on areas occupied by an enemy.


    - superior intelligence agency
    - superior counter intelligence agency
    - commando squads that can create chaos in enemy territory




    5. How would you cope with all the death around you ? Especially since you are basically the most responsible for that then anyone else around ? Except maybe the enemy high command in the case that they invaded first.

    honestly, it wouldn't phaze me.







    6. Here is the situation. You are a high ranking general of one country. However your country is in a very bad relations with its neighbour because of some critical resources that are directly on the border and it is just a matter of time before things escalate, especially since people want that actualy. However the other countries in the region are too weak to have their own position and opinion.
    So one day the other country celebrates its more sacred holiday and eveybody will rejoice on that special day. So my question is: Would you lunch a supprise air-strikes on that day if it is obvious that there will basically be no resistance on that day ? So you will take out easily most of their critical infrastructure and objects of strong military or strategic value. What would probably prevent alot of bloodshed on the long run. (but there is no guarantee)


    - use counter intelligence to confirm that the celebration isn't a trap
    - bomb the shit out of them. kill all of their leaders
    - do it under a different name, like a terrorist organization or something. better yet, pay off a terrorist organization that has government contempt and supply them the ammunition to do so
    - after the terrorist organization has done so, bomb the terrorist organization yourself and make it look like you're on their side. this is make taking over the country from the inside more easy






    7. Another situation. There is plenty of enemy civilians that ended trapped in a front line between your forces and the enemy. You have two options

    One: wait for a few days so that everybody moves away. Even if that will give the enemy the time needed to entrench. What means you will probably not be able to brake through before their reinforcement arrive. What puts you in a difficult position and probably endangers civilians on your side.

    Two: Continue with the full assult even if it is obvious that there will certainly be plenty of civilian casulties. (even if you don't target them specifically)

    Which option makes more sense to you ?


    option 2 definitely. you're more likely to win and it will lead to less casualties long term.






    8. Would you change your opinion in the above scenario in the case that you are the one who got brutally invaded first and by some miracle you managed to brake the first wave of the invansion and take the initiative ? (even if the most of those civilians were for the invansion on your territoy)

    no




    9. Would you be afraid that the international community or UN or some one like that will charge you for war crimes ? Even if you were doing your best to keep the civilian death rate at the lowest possible level.
    no, I would have a good case prepared in my favor in advance by a team of expert lawyers. in the worst case scenario, I would have lobbyists and connections in the UN council just in case.






    10. The enemy has set up a field command centre and ammunition depot in a ancient church from 14th century in hope you will not notice it.
    So the question is quite simple. Would you level this church with an air-strike or artillery barrage if that will probably cause the collapse of the front line on enemy side ?

    of course. I'm not loosing a war over a friggin church






    11. In the case that you win the war would you personally insist that this church should be rebuild and look just as it did before ?


    if it got be better public press, yes.



    12. Would you rather fight an elusive well armed guerilla/terrorist kind of an enemy or classical army that is about 25 percent stronger than your army in pretty much all elements ?

    classical. it's easier to retreat and you can find a way to trap them




    13. By your opinion the most important thing in a war is : plenty of supples, determination , raw firepower and numbers , good aiming , camouflage ?

    none of the above. information





    14. The conflict that does not have a blessing of the UN is ALWAYS wrong course of action or outcome ?

    that depends on the specific consequences long term and short term of going against the UN



    15. At what age did you learn to play chess ? (in the case you know how to play)


    10, although I think it's too 2 dimensional to have significant consequential carry-over into being a commander

    16. How do you feel about these questions ?

    simple enough
    ENFP: We put the Fi in Fire
    ENFP
    5w4>1w9>2w1 Sx/Sp
    SEE-Fi
    Papa Bear
    Motivation: Dark Worker
    Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
    Chibi Seme
    MTG Color: black/red
    Male Archtype: King/Lover
    Sunburst!
    "You are a gay version of Gambit" Speed Gavroche
    "I wish that I could be affected by any hate, but I can't, cuz I just get affected by the bank" Chamillionaire

  5. #15
    Nips away your dignity Fluffywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,422

    Default

    1. Do you think that you would make a good military commander ? I mean what parts of your personality make you think that this is the case ?

    Nope. I'm sure I have the knowledge and ability to be a good leader, but only if I was so inclined to bother leading other people. If I could pick the team I lead individually, perhaps I could make it work. But that's wishful thinking. In general, my answer would be no, I'd make a terrible military commander.




    2. How detailed would you be in your commanding style ? Would you simply just give general orders and watch what happens? Or you would make sure you have everything planned out in advance ?

    The give orders and watch what happen part sounds very interesting. Fun even. I would force myself into a middle road however. I will calculate outcomes from potential scenario's and steer towards the most profitable one.





    3. How stressful for you would be to lead a massive military force ? Making sure that supply lines function at optimal levels. Or marking the exact spots where you should air-drop the fuel and additional ammunition .... etc.


    Keeping stuff at optimum levels, can't I have someone else do that stuff? I'm fine with marking some maps, thinking up some strategies and making descisions on what to do though.



    4. In which strategic elements you would like to have the advantage ? (choose three)

    More efficient supply lines, having commando squads that are experts for creating chaos in enemy territory, artillery with longer range than most other countries, more versatile fighter jets, bombers with unusally large bomb bay area, naval suppriority , superior intelligence agency, superior counter intelligence agency, well armed infantry (especially against armor) , general population that is capable and willing to create a organized resistance on areas occupied by an enemy.


    having commando squads that are experts for creating chaos in enemy territory, superior intelligence agency, superior counter intelligence agency.

    Without reliable information, an army force means very little. And I quite like the commando Rambo style of bringing down syndicates and governments.




    5. How would you cope with all the death around you ? Especially since you are basically the most responsible for that then anyone else around ? Except maybe the enemy high command in the case that they invaded first.

    Honestly, I think that wouldn't bother me much at all. Ofcourse I would try to minimize collateral damage to the best of my abilities, for both sides, and rather not lose or kill anyone. But I'm not as naïve as to think everyone will listen to reason. If some heads need to get blown off in order for the survival of our way of life, than that's unfortunate but neccesary.







    6. Here is the situation. You are a high ranking general of one country. However your country is in a very bad relations with its neighbour because of some critical resources that are directly on the border and it is just a matter of time before things escalate, especially since people want that actualy. However the other countries in the region are too weak to have their own position and opinion.
    So one day the other country celebrates its more sacred holiday and eveybody will rejoice on that special day. So my question is: Would you lunch a supprise air-strikes on that day if it is obvious that there will basically be no resistance on that day ? So you will take out easily most of their critical infrastructure and objects of strong military or strategic value. What would probably prevent alot of bloodshed on the long run. (but there is no guarantee)


    What kind of country would let their army have a day off for celebration, seriously? That's my first thought to this.

    Secondly, if and only if we're way past diplomatic means of solving this issue, striking an enemy on a day it would hurt the opinion of the people about your country the most, will likely escalate the hate between the countries to a point it would bring about a lifetime of war. Worst case scenario, if the resources mean survival, however. Sure, but it'd be better to completely genocide the entire rival country if there's only enough resources for one to survive.

    But basicly, I'm not one to start a war, I'd fight one if I have to though.



    7. Another situation. There is plenty of enemy civilians that ended trapped in a front line between your forces and the enemy. You have two options

    One: wait for a few days so that everybody moves away. Even if that will give the enemy the time needed to entrench. What means you will probably not be able to brake through before their reinforcement arrive. What puts you in a difficult position and probably endangers civilians on your side.

    Two: Continue with the full assult even if it is obvious that there will certainly be plenty of civilian casulties. (even if you don't target them specifically)

    Which option makes more sense to you ?


    Neither make much sense, modern warfare isn't fought in trenches. But suppose that's the kind of war we would be forced to, the second seems the logical choice.






    8. Would you change your opinion in the above scenario in the case that you are the one who got brutally invaded first and by some miracle you managed to brake the first wave of the invansion and take the initiative ? (even if the most of those civilians were for the invansion on your territoy)

    Nope.




    9. Would you be afraid that the international community or UN or some one like that will charge you for war crimes ? Even if you were doing your best to keep the civilian death rate at the lowest possible level.

    Nope. If I've been found guilty, I would take responsibility for my actions.





    10. The enemy has set up a field command centre and ammunition depot in a ancient church from 14th century in hope you will not notice it.
    So the question is quite simple. Would you level this church with an air-strike or artillery barrage if that will probably cause the collapse of the front line on enemy side ?


    Yes. Seriously, I don't like hipocrits. I'm not saying religious peple are hipocrits, but the ones that use their churches for warfare definately are. Down the the church!





    11. In the case that you win the war would you personally insist that this church should be rebuild and look just as it did before ?

    Not me personally no. If there are people that would, fine, go ahead. But these kind of things are not on my to do list.




    12. Would you rather fight an elusive well armed guerilla/terrorist kind of an enemy or classical army that is about 25 percent stronger than your army in pretty much all elements ?

    Classical. History tells us that no war can really 'be won'. But as far as modern warfare goes, fightning guerilla/terrorists will wield much more casualties than fightning for political influence.




    13. By your opinion the most important thing in a war is : plenty of supples, determination , raw firepower and numbers , good aiming , camouflage ?


    Information. Not in the list, I know. :p




    14. The conflict that does not have a blessing of the UN is ALWAYS wrong course of action or outcome ?


    Well, being part of the UN, and having technically democratically chosen for that as a people, I would have to say yes. Not to mention the heads that spin for these discussions are plentiful and knowledgable, and if there is no blessing there is a good reason for it.

    If there is any decency my country would have to hold on to in order to at least fake dominance and reason, it would have to at least be able to stand behind its own, albeit shaky, principles. If the UN is off the table, then I'd be no better than my enemy and hope the world will become apocalyptic. Because that would be ironically well-deserved.

    We're not perfect, but if we at least not strive to be better, than we definately have no right to be going to war for our own sake.


    15. At what age did you learn to play chess ? (in the case you know how to play)

    Don't shoot me down, but I don't know how to play chess, I've never been interested in playing chess, and I am not interested in it now. Even though I am probably decent at it if I cared enough to play.


    16. How do you feel about these questions ?

    Somewhat indifferent for most, but the situation questions stirred up some feelings about how dumb war really is. And how much I'd rather not have anything to do with them. Even though, if my survival would depend on it, I would still participate.
    ~Self-depricating Megalomaniacal Superwolf

  6. #16
    Senior Member guesswho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,983

    Default

    What kind of a military commander do you think you would be ?
    I'd be an advisor, not a commander.

    Theoretically.

    I'll just answer what I find interesting.

    6. Here is the situation. You are a high ranking general of one country. However your country is in a very bad relations with its neighbour because of some critical resources that are directly on the border and it is just a matter of time before things escalate, especially since people want that actualy. However the other countries in the region are too weak to have their own position and opinion.
    So one day the other country celebrates its more sacred holiday and eveybody will rejoice on that special day. So my question is: Would you lunch a supprise air-strikes on that day if it is obvious that there will basically be no resistance on that day ? So you will take out easily most of their critical infrastructure and objects of strong military or strategic value. What would probably prevent alot of bloodshed on the long run. (but there is no guarantee)
    If conflict is inevitable, I'd do it.
    However, if the conflict is inevitable, they'd also be prepared, unless they're fucking idiots.
    It depends on what "bad relations" means.

    5. How would you cope with all the death around you ? Especially since you are basically the most responsible for that then anyone else around ? Except maybe the enemy high command in the case that they invaded first.
    I don't know. And I believe no one does. Until they experience the situation.

    3. How stressful for you would be to lead a massive military force ?
    I can't lead a massive force

    2. How detailed would you be in your commanding style ? Would you simply just give general orders and watch what happens? Or you would make sure you have everything planned out in advance ?
    I wouldn't give orders.

    Two: Continue with the full assult even if it is obvious that there will certainly be plenty of civilian casulties. (even if you don't target them specifically)
    It depends. Cruel actions like this may win the enemy sympathy on an international level. And maybe some allies.
    I'd probably make sure nobody finds out.

    (even if the most of those civilians were for the invansion on your territoy)
    I don't understand this. They're invading with civilians?


    9. Would you be afraid that the international community or UN or some one like that will charge you for war crimes ? Even if you were doing your best to keep the civilian death rate at the lowest possible level.
    Wouldn't they like stop the war and kick my ass first?


    10. The enemy has set up a field command centre and ammunition depot in a ancient church from 14th century in hope you will not notice it.
    So the question is quite simple. Would you level this church with an air-strike or artillery barrage if that will probably cause the collapse of the front line on enemy side ?
    It's the logical thing to do.
    However, why would they put an ammunition depot near a command center ?

    11. In the case that you win the war would you personally insist that this church should be rebuild and look just as it did before ?
    lol. No



    12. Would you rather fight an elusive well armed guerilla/terrorist kind of an enemy or classical army that is about 25 percent stronger than your army in pretty much all elements ?
    No/No

    13. By your opinion the most important thing in a war is : plenty of supples, determination , raw firepower and numbers , good aiming , camouflage ?
    The most important thing in a war is strategy.

    14. The conflict that does not have a blessing of the UN is ALWAYS wrong course of action or outcome ?
    I don't know.
    15. At what age did you learn to play chess ? (in the case you know how to play)

    I can't play chess. I started playing at 21...and I sucked.
    I play other games.

    16. How do you feel about these questions ?
    Some of them didn't make sense to me.
    There's little room for ethics in wars, so nobody would care about the church for instance.
    My grandpa used to tell me stories of world war 2, and he told me that the artillery always destroy churches because they had high towers and the spot was perfect for snipers.

    oh I missed a question

    4. In which strategic elements you would like to have the advantage ? (choose three)

    More efficient supply lines, having commando squads that are experts for creating chaos in enemy territory, artillery with longer range than most other countries, more versatile fighter jets, bombers with unusally large bomb bay area, naval suppriority , superior intelligence agency, superior counter intelligence agency, well armed infantry (especially against armor) , general population that is capable and willing to create a organized resistance on areas occupied by an enemy.
    I guess it depends on what kind of war I am theoretically fighting.

    For instance artillery wouldn't be that useful if the forces are fighting in jungles or forests.
    And a counter intelligence agency wouldn't help that much if you're fighting a raw guerilla war.

    However in a conventional war I believe that air superiority would kick ass.

    You blow their supply lines, their communications, their ammunition facilities, their bridges, everything!

  7. #17
    Senior Member guesswho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,983

    Default

    However I don't think that war is a solution. War is a problem.

  8. #18
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    I think I'd be best suited as a general staff officer and strategic advisor, rather than an actual frontline commander.


  9. #19
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,670

    Default

    It is nice to know that I have managed to lure you guys into one trap by playing on your emotions. (that is how it seems)


    The question 12 is about picking the enemy. Skilled terrorist/guerilla or classical army that is 25% percent stronger in almost every way.

    And from what I see everybody that clearly answered the question said that they would take/like a classical enemy.


    However there is one catch: 25% in almost every way means that when you interconnect those strengths the overall effect is much more than 25%.


    Here is one purely theoretical example. Lest say your army has 100 points and enemy has 125. And your damage potential is 10% of your army size while he has 25% bonus on that 10%.


    Day 1

    100/125

    Day2

    85/115

    Day 3

    71/106

    Day 4

    58/99

    And then somewhere at this point your army crumbles in organization. Especially since the amount of damage they can cause drops pretty quickly at this point.


    What means that the with the last 20 or 30 % of your troops you truly have no real alternatives to the guerilla tactics if you plan to win.


    I know that all of this is purely theoretical but is interesting to see that people think that a terrorist leader is a born strategic genius while someone who has at least 20 times more of people,guns,equipment .... is almost surely a complete idiot.

    I mean this are only numbers and simplified math, but in reality loses can be much more asymmetrical. However the chances are still that they will mostly be on your side.


    Also the argument that is easier to retreat against the classical army is weird.
    Because if you are retreating you are living some of your cities to fall. What usually has the tendency to destroy the morale which is basically the most important thing when you have a opponent that is clearly stronger. And if you are weaker you probably not the one that started the attack on the enemy soil.


    I mean seriously I am interested in the fact that everybody were thinking in a way they did. Especially since so many people said that they would prefer having advanced commando squads. Which would mean that sneaky and elusive enemies will also play their part even if you are facing real army. While in the case of terrorist there is no the real problem which is a force that you cant combat directly. Also just because the enemy is bigger/stronger that does not mean that it still cant outmaneuver you with commandos, snipers, camouflaged tanks, artillery that has 25% longer range than yours... etc.



    For another example lets pretend that the enemy commander is equally good leader as the mastermind of the terrorists.


    1. In a short time your army will probably suffer larger to catastrophic losses.
    2. The population from effected part of the country will run to the parts that are not directly effected. Creating massive humanitarian crisis within your borders.
    3. Almost all economic activity will stop since people will be preparing to make a stand or flee somewhere abroad. So even the basic supplies will become rare if the situations happens to last. The cash flow will also be gone since a fair part of the country is outside the your economic system.


    So even if you manage to destroy the invaders through brilliant guerilla tactics after a while you are still left with the country that is by a larger part or completely in ruins. The official army basically no longer exists and the people you have on your side are basically armed civilians. It will probably take 10 years to repair all the damage and return to normal economic activity. Especially since population is permanently traumatized , education system was on hold , many people who filled in certain holes are now dead , live abroad or they are emotionally dis functional. Plus there are plenty of families that dont have a home anymore. Plus your currency probably collapsed completely on the global market so you are technically bankrupt.


    And that is only the case if you manage to stop the though superior tactic. So if you dont it will probably be even worse then the above scenario. What means that your only hope will that a third side will help you out or that the enemy will lose interest after a few years or even decades of occupation.


    On the other hand I truly doubt that a terrorist enemy could ever even hope to achieve such a destruction and chaos in your country. They may me annoying or sometimes draining but the fact is that their damage potential is still much smaller.


    In a way it surprises me that people are making this choice. Especially since you are so concerned about winning.


    So I guess that the entire "war on terror" thing did its magic.

  10. #20
    Nips away your dignity Fluffywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    So I guess that the entire "war on terror" thing did its magic.
    Whilest I won't go into your highly theoretical and mathematical approach to two seperate war beasts moving in on each other. Because it's obviously flawed, especially since the defending army has a better position to choose positions to defend whilest attacking armies do not have that luxury. Meaning that a 100 defending army could easily beat a 125 offensive army due to tactics.

    You never said the strength and numbers of the guerilla fighters. Not to mention that apparantly just a handful of them can bring down two large buildings and kill many innocent people, and still it takes years for any progress, only to see your progress to be replaced by others. Quite frankly, even losing to a classical army is prefered than dealing with terrorists, because terrorists are basicly unable to be dealt with, not without resorting to guerilla tactics yourself, which may even incite other people to do the same and so on and so forth.

    Also, I based my answer mainly on the Vietnam war and not the terrorist threats of today.
    ~Self-depricating Megalomaniacal Superwolf

Similar Threads

  1. What definition of I and E do you find most useful?
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 07-06-2014, 09:11 PM
  2. [NF] What kind of fantasies do you female NF's have?
    By Yomama99 in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: 10-18-2008, 01:48 AM
  3. What kind of hobbies do you have?
    By Sahara in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 08-01-2007, 10:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO