User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 25

  1. #1
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    135 so/sp
    Posts
    8,696

    Default What kind of a military commander do you think you would be ?

    I know that there is probably plenty of people on this forum that would probably want to skip posting in this thread. However I would trully like that people answer the questions in this thread. If nothing take this as the "Would you kill the baby?" thread. Which was basically about values and abilities. (and this thread is no different)


    Plus I am not sure where to place this, so I will place it here in members only section.



    Ok, here is a couple of questions about your militaristic opinions and mindset.
    Also you can skip some of the questions if you truly dont know what to say or you are simply too uncomfortable to post your real answer. (since some of them are quite serious and without an answer that is clearly moral)
    Plus you can philosophize and speculate in your answers in the case you feel that this is needed to make your opinion clear.



    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 ?






    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 ?







    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.






    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.







    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.









    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)









    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 ?









    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)






    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.







    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 ?








    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 ?






    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 ?






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







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





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




    16. How do you feel about these questions ?






    Ok. I think that this is more than enough. Especially since I would really like to see the replies to these questions. Out of pure INTJ curiousity of course.

  2. #2
    XES 5231311252's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    450

    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 ?
    No. I am often lazy, indecisive, selfish, and do not care to lead anyone but myself. I'm also inclined to question why whichever cause I am on is necessary and this would most likely lead to me turning on said cause.

    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'd hire some fluke to impersonate me and then hide amongst my unit for various reasons and strategic plots.


    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.
    Extremely stressful. In this scenario failure would be dishonorable and I would dwell on the high probability of it, which would drive me insane. It'd be a self-fulling prophecy.

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

    Having commando squads that are experts for creating chaos in enemy territory, superior intelligence agency, and general population that is capable and willing to create a organized resistance on areas occupied by an enemy.


    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.

    Ambivalent; it'd fascinate me to be so close to experiencing it and yet unnerving in that I don't know what or if anything comes after death.

    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)
    Yes.

    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 ?

    There will be civillian casualties either way, so why risk the lives of the civilians on my side? Every hand would count, these civilians could later have a hand in furthering my goal.


    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.
    Though I'm aware of their "power", I'd still find the UN and such groups to be jokes. They'd have to find me first to bring me to trial and maybe there would be no UN to put me on trial in the first place.


    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. Why did you choose a church? Is it to sway the answerer against leveling it, simply because it involves religion and such tugs at the heart's strings?

    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 ?
    Only if I were to gain something I hold in high esteem.

    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 ?
    Guerilla/terrorist are usually adept in dexterity and I find that deadlier than strength. I want to ensure my odds of winning are quite high.

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

    Cunning.

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

    Pfft, they're not gods.

    15. At what age did you learn to play chess ? (in the case you know how to play)
    17.

    16. How do you feel about these questions ?

    As if I'm indulging my narcissism, but still mentally stimulated nonetheless.
    Last edited by 5231311252; 05-23-2011 at 11:41 AM.
    “'Fuck', I think. What a beautiful word. If I could say only one thing for the rest of my life, that would be it.”

  3. #3
    Dependable Skeleton Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    626

    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 ?

    Yes. I am both organized and good under any sort of non-emotional stress or pressure. I work best, and can make snap decisions on the fly. Usually my gut feelings are correct, and I have a basic understanding of tactics already, one that will be augmented in the future by my training as a Marine officer.


    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 ?

    Negative, we have a five-paragraph order that covers every aspect of how to engage the enemy, and I intend to fill that out quickly every time we engage. Find the happy medium between speed and order, and that is where you will find my command style.

    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.

    Rather stressful I imagine, though depends on the scale of the force I am leading. Taking into account that auxiliary or supplementary forces may be under the command or jurisdiction of a different authority, and I have less to worry about when I engage the enemy. Their commanders are responsible for their position, and all I need do is to engage and request their support when necessary.

    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, well armed infantry, and naval superiority. With that last one, if we include the inevitable naval aviation premise, I will also have command of the skies off the coast and ensure that my enemy is restricted to land-based deliveries of his supplies, which are very much more arduous. With my infantry, I should be able to stay fast and mobile, as well as able to fit into both urban and agrarian environments. Infantry (and their supplementary equipment) is by nature very flexible, with weakness only to armor and air. If I control the seas, and by extension, the air around the seas, I can exert control over any situation. If I also have superior intelligence, I can be assured of knowing the enemy's strengths and weaknesses, and being able to exploit those sufficiently.

    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.

    Death is natural. If I am to command at a company level or higher, I cannot be expected to feel every loss personally. I will mourn after the battle, and of course try to minimize losses, but in the end, death is inevitable in any conflict. I enter battles knowing there will be losses, and attempting to minimize them as best I can.

    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 actually. 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 everybody 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)


    Absolutely. With precision airstrikes on their targets, we would both minimize civilian losses and exploit enemy weakness, presuming that all of their forces are celebrating, and not manning a skeleton defense.

    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 break through before their reinforcement arrive. What puts you in a difficult position and probably endangers civilians on your side.

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

    Which option makes more sense to you ?

    Option two. I will always put the safety of my men and the civilians on my side before that of any known enemy associates. With modern advances in technology and better soldier identification, civilian recognition should not be hard. Collateral damage can be therefore minimized.

    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 break the first wave of the invasion and take the initiative ? (even if the most of those civilians were for the invasion on your territory)

    No, I picked option two. Still would pick option two.

    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.

    Negative.

    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 ?


    Heh, neither. I'd send in a special forces unit to surgically remove and destroy the enemy from the area while launching an assault elsewhere to distract the enemy's attention. Odds are if he's in the church, it is worth a lot both in strategic and historical value. Keep it intact and preserve the area.

    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 ?

    Didn't destroy it to begin with.

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

    Classic army. It has been proven that an army with good morale and excellent training (which mine has) can stand up to a force twice its size. With the right positions and tactics (we can employ guerrilla warfare to our advantage) we will prevail. Contrary to this, asymmetric warfare is notoriously difficult for the larger and stronger army.

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

    Training and morale, which would probably fall under either "good aiming" or "determination". The better trained army will win.

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

    False. If every conflict against injustice and evil had to be sanctioned by the UN, the world would be filled with Darfur situations. Filled.

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

    Around eight.

    16. How do you feel about these questions ?

    There were a lot of them, but they were interesting.
    [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..."

  4. #4
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Despite my mother's assertions that I missed my calling as a drill sargeant (when shit goes down, I suddenly have major backbone and take control, but generally this is in RESPONSE to provocation or emergency or whatever, not as an offensive measure which makes all the difference in the world) I absolutely despise structure, especially on a militaristic level.

    No thanks.

  5. #5
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    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 ?

    I think I would make an incredible commander.

    Most parts of my personality lend themselves to leadership.... ex. commanding voice, global thinker, ability to dispassionately analyze strategic problems

    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 ?

    It depends on the quality of those below me. If they were capable, I would prefer to just go over the broad strokes and let them handle the rest. I would probably show them the end goal and some of my thoughts on how best to get there, and then let them fill in the rest.

    If they were not as capable, I would micromanage where needed.

    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.

    I have a tendency to put tremendous amounts of stress on myself regardless of what I'm doing, so I don't think this would be too much of a burden.

    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, superior counter intelligence, more efficient supply lines.

    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 would cope well.

    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)

    Depends on how important this resource is. If getting this resource is a life and death situation for my country, and I have been ordered to, at all costs, retrieve it, then yes (without a second thought).

    We killed 100's of thousands of Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to prevent millions of our own casualties.

    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 ?

    Depends on the numbers involved, the overall global political situation, and how such action would be responded to by our allies and enemies.

    I would probably have several plans (and backups) in place for just such an eventuality.

    If ultimately, this action would prevent more civilian deaths in the future, then yes I would. I'm more concerned with the general number of civilian deaths over the course of the conflict, than I am with any one action.

    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)

    The answer is dependent on only the facts, not my feelings.

    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 the conflict was necessary and I was doing everything I could to prevent excessive collateral damage, then there would be nothing to fear.

    If my country was a dominant global power, I would have even less to fear regardless of 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.

    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 ?

    Yea sure.

    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 army. Give me an enemy that I can confound and out manuever.

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

    Supplies, numbers, determination.

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

    Depends. If I have actionable intelligence that there is going to be a biological strike on the water supply of a large domestic metropolitan city, but the UN isn't on the same page, I'm going to take action.

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

    shortly after I learned to read.

    16. How do you feel about these questions ?

    Appropriate for what the OP is looking to discover about those who post.

  6. #6
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    I know that there is probably plenty of people on this forum that would probably want to skip posting in this thread. However I would trully like that people answer the questions in this thread. If nothing take this as the "Would you kill the baby?" thread. Which was basically about values and abilities. (and this thread is no different)
    To be honest I wish there were more threads like this where I can answer definitively and within (one of) my areas of expertise, than all this wishy washy emotional fluff stuff that I have no idea about.

    No disrespect to those of you who like that sort of thing.

  7. #7
    Dependable Skeleton Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    626

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    To be honest I wish there were more threads like this where I can answer definitively and within (one of) my areas of expertise, than all this wishy washy emotional fluff stuff that I have no idea about.

    No disrespect to those of you who like that sort of thing.
    I agree. This was fun to answer.
    [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..."

  8. #8
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    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 ?

    Yes. I'm good at making decisions in crunch time, and dealing with rapidly changing scenarios on the fly. I'm not overly concerned with protocol, but understand that it has its place, and can't be entirely overruled. I trust subordinates, but expect them to be accountable, and for me to be in the loop on every decision. I'm good at recognizing the best roles for subordinates, and staffing them accordingly.

    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'd set out clear objectives, and clear expectations of conduct. I'd trust my instructors to adequately prepare the troops in the necessary skills for combat and survival. I'd trust the troops who have passed training to handle themselves accordingly. I'd give details in execution when others were confused about what exactly to do, or when things were going wrong. Other than that, though, I'd trust in the competency of those underneath me.

    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.

    Marking the exact spots would be fun - I'm a fairly visual person, and handling that information holistically comes naturally to me. Regarding supply lines, a subordinate would direct the logistics of it. My role would be to provide solutions whenever problems arise, and to recognize problems when they aren't immediately apparent.

    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.


    1. Naval superiority, because that guarantees a few things - security of overseas supply lines; a platform for artillery and air assets outside the reach of enemy saboteurs; the ability to cut off enemy overseas supply lines, tilting the war of attrition in my favor; greater troop mobility; assets for demotivating the enemy population; platforms for covert and special operations behind enemy lines, etc.

    2. More efficient supply lines - Napoleon was right: an army marches on its stomach. Nothing hurts troop morale like feeling abandoned and alone, especially when starving. Since then, supply lines have helped to decide practically every major land war: Napoleon's winter in Russia; Waterloo, since Napoleon lost because of the strength of British and Prussian supply lines; Crimea, where the use of railroads bolstered Russian resiliency in the face of siege; the Anaconda Plan during the American Civil War, along with Sherman's "hard war" strategy; France's loss to Prussia in 1871 almost entirely resulted from supply ineptitude; supply issues ensured Russia had no chance against Japan in 1905; World War I ended because the British had cut-off the Central Powers' access to the nascent Iraqi oilfields along with the established Caspian fields, and the introduction of the US into the war along with the convoy system provided the Allied Powers with access to unlimited oil reserves; World War II almost speaks for itself.

    3. Superior intelligence - the fog of war is the commander's biggest enemy. Intelligence lets you know when it's appropriate to fight, and when an action would waste resources. Accurate maps, positioning, estimation of assets, and enemy movements let you know how to fight the war.

    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.

    It wouldn't be easy, and it most assuredly would take its toll. I'd cope through viewing the struggle as one by which I keep my command alive, rather than effectively killing my opponents. I don't want them dead - I want them not fighting.

    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)


    The Yom Kippur War scenario. I would not launch this kind of a sneak attack. For one, there's no guarantee that you'll get all critical infrastructure, and if you don't, you now have a resolute enemy population, out for revenge. Furthermore, empty roads on a holiday facilitate mobilization. Acting as a clear aggressor severely undermines diplomatic status, and disrespect for the other country's customs further undermines this issue. If the war is simply for resources, you've just backed yourself into a scenario where you'd only want to limit engagements to conquer and hold (made more difficult by a non-compliant populace), while the enemy would likely desire a total war leading to a full conquest and punishment of the aggressor nation.

    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 ?


    Two. Even though that sucks, it makes the most sense. It's also likely that evacuation procedures had already begun up to this point. Entrenchment would eventually lead to further casualties for all sides, especially if the civilian population ends up under siege. Informing beforehand would potentially lead to organized resistance. War is hell.

    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. You'd want to push through the civilian area as fast as possible so that they get behind lines, and don't end up in a scenario where they remain besieged between lines. If anything, I'd send in covert ops and drop propaganda leaflets instructing the population of our impending arrival, and encouraging evacuation to the countryside, sabotaging enemy capabilities in the process.

    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 you're a high-level commander in an active war, and you lose, you're going to be charged with war crimes. If I'm a high-level commander in an active war, and I'm worried about war crimes, then I'm acting under the presumption that I'll lose. That's no way to run a war.

    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. One hundred percent.

    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 ?

    Absolutely.

    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 ?

    It depends on what my assets were, and what the political status of my army is.

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

    Supplies. Maintain the lines, and you can fight as long as you want to; and if you fail to meet your objectives, you have a stronger position at the bargaining table.

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

    No. It is politically undesirable, however.

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

    10

    16. How do you feel about these questions ?

    They're interesting.

  9. #9
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    I would also choose naval superiority.

  10. #10
    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
    Superior intelligence, well armed infantry, and naval superiority. With that last one, if we include the inevitable naval aviation premise, I will also have command of the skies off the coast and ensure that my enemy is restricted to land-based deliveries of his supplies, which are very much more arduous. With my infantry, I should be able to stay fast and mobile, as well as able to fit into both urban and agrarian environments. Infantry (and their supplementary equipment) is by nature very flexible, with weakness only to armor and air. If I control the seas, and by extension, the air around the seas, I can exert control over any situation. If I also have superior intelligence, I can be assured of knowing the enemy's strengths and weaknesses, and being able to exploit those sufficiently.
    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.

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

    Classic army. It has been proven that an army with good morale and excellent training (which mine has) can stand up to a force twice its size. With the right positions and tactics (we can employ guerrilla warfare to our advantage) we will prevail. Contrary to this, asymmetric warfare is notoriously difficult for the larger and stronger army.
    One problem with a war with a classic army - everything's going to be all ass-backward for the first few months of the war, as people listen to the Army and Navy commanders over you, since it's a "real war." They're inevitably going to screw everything up and leave you a logistical nightmare to reorganize before forces can work effectively. At least in an asymmetrical war situation, they don't want to bother with it from the start

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