2 ms·

The fact that this tone-deaf comment is the top comment right now speaks volumes of the second nature of people on this website. Modern warfare, especially tha

The fact that this tone-deaf comment is the top comment right now speaks volumes of the second nature of people on this website. Modern warfare, especially that since World War 1 and the rise of deaths on the battlefront on a massive scale, requires a high amount of intelligence on all levels to be executed. You need generals who can envision new strategies such as the blitzkrieg or the paradrop. You need sergeants and master sergeants to provision and allocate adequate resources for your regiments. You need privates and conscripts to figure out where enemy mines are, or to follow orders from top to execute their complex maneuvers. Of course, you could also adopt ages-old Russian-style human steamroller doctrines and send in men after men to their deaths, just like the world did in WW1. We're already seeing that in Ukraine - 3 day operation is going strong after 500+ days. > Maybe trying more "x's Morons" ideas isn't such a bad idea? Perhaps the US government should enlist a number of upvoters of this comment, put them on the median national wage and force them to work for days on to refurbish creaking government IT systems? Just a thought, heh.

jhanschoo 3y ago
It is a balance. In the other extreme you can't just have gifted people manning your army, or you will have lack of manpower. Not all roles require average or above-average intellect anyway. Of course, we are discussing defensively, where one weighs the danger posed to, and contributed by, a low-IQ individual against the counterfactual of civilian liberties lost owing to the failure of the military from a lack of manpower.
- fakedang 3y ago
  Again, you don't need gifted people to run along your entire army. You do need gifted people to lead it in the war room. And you cannot sustain it by having those gifted people leading poor IQ people - they need to be people able to follow commands while also being able to take initiative at the lack of command. For that, you need folks with an average level of intelligence.

jhanschoo 3y ago

It is a balance. In the other extreme you can't just have gifted people manning your army, or you will have lack of manpower. Not all roles require average or above-average intellect anyway. Of course, we are discussing defensively, where one weighs the danger posed to, and contributed by, a low-IQ individual against the counterfactual of civilian liberties lost owing to the failure of the military from a lack of manpower.

fakedang 3y ago
Again, you don't need gifted people to run along your entire army. You do need gifted people to lead it in the war room. And you cannot sustain it by having those gifted people leading poor IQ people - they need to be people able to follow commands while also being able to take initiative at the lack of command. For that, you need folks with an average level of intelligence.