Nope. Having a good public healthcare system and limiting conditions that lead to moronation in the first place does. Killing all the morons doesn’t stop more morons from being born. It’s like trying to rake water out of a ditch.
idiots who are slow to grasp new ideas and have difficulty processing multiple orders at once are ineffective at best in combat roles
the bigger issue is that they are going to ruin cohesion since idiots require a lot of patience and attention to get through, which the army is unable or unwilling to provide
and due to "group punishment" the local idiot is never going to be a part of the unit after the fifth time people are forced to salute every squirrel in the camp due to things that are genuinely not their fault
perhaps their only contribution is replacing a regular person in logistics role for mentally undemanding tasks like lifting crates to free them up for other jobs and keeping them far, far away from anything that requires memorization
>replacing a regular person in logistics role
Maybe if you're the Russians and just hand loading/unloading things off of a truck and into a big pile somewhere. But an actual logistics system needs people that can operate machinery and mentally keep track of complex inventory systems.
It's not rocket science, but it's a more complex skill than a lot of nations on earth can manage to do well.
The US military is the finest fighting force on Earth and I can personally attest to it having fielded a high volume of morons during the Surge, when recruitment got incredibly tight.
Now personally, this made me prefer a draft and/or recruiting non-moronic women over moronic men, but we were still the best even when moron heavy.
And no, we didn't have any Down Syndrome soldiers or something like that, but people made it through who were well under the 85 IQ mark. Like, not the separate classroom, learning how to feed themselves until age 21 SPED kids, but like the ones who were mostly in normal, if remedial classes and did bad and then also needed to be taken out for special services throughout the day.
Of course, this is also always a problem in any military with ang standards because head injuries can also make you moronic. It's obvious when you get one massive TBI, but people can also end up gradually degraded by concussion after concussion until their memory is a literal sieve. I had a friend who had this. He still presented as fairly normal but he couldn't recall if he was stripes or solids for a pool game, let alone be trusted to carry out complex orders under pressure.
The moron problem can be overcome by good leaders who learn the capabilities of their men and backstop people who are prone to frick up (or panic). A good leader can smooth over people being offended by having their seniority "questioned," by backstopping incompetent people with competent ones in a way that doesn't offend and giving the less competent bite sized shit to focus on.
This is often the NCOs because you get fricking kid junior officers, but there are older new officers who have been managers before or your rare new person with talent who is good at this. They can effectively tard rangle even during combat, keeping everyone calm enough to focus.
It's possible to get people to be useful doing their one thing. Think Rick Moranis walking calmly around a trench, working the radio, realizing everyone around them is cross eyed, and realizing the best course of action is just to stay on task and order "keep firing buttholes!"
Only problem is that if this person is injured or killed your org can crumple depending on how reliant people are on them.
Sometimes dumb people are key in that, while being bad at lots of stuff, they can still have big brass balls and good enough coordination to shoot frickers.
Now your leaders needs smarts and big balls, but they can't be doing everything because you can't afford to lose them. So even a guy who might struggle with some stuff can be very useful if he can just effectively take orders to "go over there and shoot the guys coming from that direction."
I was going to say they were probably more useful for melee warfare but maybe not. Ancient and medieval battles are all like:
>Side A and side B fought for 4 hours and it was unclear who was winning. >Then Lord Tardo of side B was baited into chasing a small detachment of calvary from side B over a hill." >The bulk of side A's heavy horse out flanked B and entered their camps, encircling them and charging from the rear." >Over the next 3 hours side B took the equivalent of 3 Iraq plus Afghanistan Wars in fatalities, which at that time represented the modern equivalent of 400,000 men for B's tiny population. The rest of side B was immediately sold into slavery as was the population of B's capital city."
Just seems like your potential for really catastrophic frick ups and fatalities on par with entire major wars today occuring over a few hours really made not being moronic important.
The state is a prerequisite of freedom. One needs protection against foreign invaders, slavers, and criminals to be free. One also needs a legal system that protects property rights to have markets and economic freedom.
That's negative freedom, freedom from external constraint. But freedom also requires reflexive freedom, the freedom to determine one's own actions oneself rationally. This requires internal development, education. The state ensures that all have access to this. See Saint Paul, Romans 7-8 and Saint Augustine On the Freedom of the Will.
Markets properly allocate resources because everyone chases their own interests, the invisible hand, emergent price and supply equilibrium. However, externalities require state intervention to fix, e.g. a factory polluting a river such that all the fish did and the fishermen lose their jobs.
The state is a prerequisite for freedom so the citizen owes their allegiance to the state. This does not mean bad states don't exist, but they do not actualize the rational essence of a state in the same way a cut off hand is still a hand but doesn't do what a hand does. Over time, oppressive, bad states will face internal and external selection pressures, actualizing the essential state, whose highest goal is the common welfare.
Conscription is an essential duty. Duty is freedom. One is not free to become a husband without taking on certain constraints and obligations. Same to for fatherhood or becoming a doctor, etc. The freedom to choose constraint rationally is freedom. The state is a rational essentiality and must be defended to the end but also reshaped into its essence.
I was the 1st LT on a destroyer, then the AUXO. For those of you who don't know anything about the Navy, that means that I went from having some of the dumbest sailors (admittedly not all, and a lot were hard workers) on the ship to ones that were generally intelligent and mechanically competent. This is in an all volunteer military that ostensibly only accepts people above an IQ of 85 or so.
You have no idea how hard it is to work with functionally illiterate, unteachable, and unthinking idiots. I feel bad for them, but damn if they aren't impossible. I can't imagine dealing with even dumber conscripts and getting shot at. Consider this: food on a submarine is significantly better than on a surface ship. This should not be, since the ingredients and menu cards are identical. The reason it is better is because you need at least an IQ of 100 to be on a sub, so the cooks are smart enough to be literate, and can therefore actually read the menu cards.
Here's another thing to keep in mind that is probably only a major problem in the US right now but could be a problem elsewhere if things keep going the way they are: the average black IQ is 85, so any military rate or MOS that doesn't have an ASVAB floor is going to be full of blacks that bring other issues on top of being stupid. Issues such as rape, theft, and assault, mostly against each other. Taken individually they can be OK, but when you have a whole berthing full of them it becomes a cell block.
My Dad was on submarines in the 80s. He claimed the food was better on subs because they need to keep the submariners at least somewhat happy on account of they are have to spend months at a time in a smelly, dangerous tin can. He also claimed submariners are generally the most competent/best sailors and the Navy wants to keep them happy but I always chocked that up to bias.
I have a close friend who got out of the sub force recently and he hated most of the people he worked with and thinks its a miracle there aren't more major incidents on ships because they are staffed with absolute trash half the time. Specifically his claim is that all the positions of authority and anything critical are generally manned by competent and intelligent people, but that a lot of non-critical (but still possibly dangerous) positions are filled with 80iq morons.
the army is 90% manual labour, 10% combat. whilst morons provide nothing and probably waste resources during combat. ditches need digging, potatoes peeled and someone had to be at the front of the line and step on any mines.
Gump has movie moronation. A real moron would stay in the leg braces, shit his pants and burden his mother into an earlier grave before burdening the state.
I would say it is in general a bad idea.
For one, you're lowering the overall quality and ability of the military in question when you are avoiding basic standards of intelligence.
You are providing an active burden for those in leadership positions to take into account when it comes almost any given task.
Even in non-critical or menial positions, if you house enough incompetence, you will eventually have issues on your hands at the most basic level, which paralyzes everything else.
Also, sending people into combat who are too dumb to know why they are there is just sort of cruel, let alone how their lack of mental acuity degrades unit effectiveness.
Švejk is ironic moron thoughever
The good soldier
Wasn't Svejk just pretending to be moronic to get out of shit
That book is basically Blackadder
didn't work out in the end for Blackadder
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_100,000
They died 3x the rate of the average soldier. But that was also because they were often used as cannon fodder.
Does having your morons die make society a more healthy place
Nope. Having a good public healthcare system and limiting conditions that lead to moronation in the first place does. Killing all the morons doesn’t stop more morons from being born. It’s like trying to rake water out of a ditch.
idiots who are slow to grasp new ideas and have difficulty processing multiple orders at once are ineffective at best in combat roles
the bigger issue is that they are going to ruin cohesion since idiots require a lot of patience and attention to get through, which the army is unable or unwilling to provide
and due to "group punishment" the local idiot is never going to be a part of the unit after the fifth time people are forced to salute every squirrel in the camp due to things that are genuinely not their fault
perhaps their only contribution is replacing a regular person in logistics role for mentally undemanding tasks like lifting crates to free them up for other jobs and keeping them far, far away from anything that requires memorization
>replacing a regular person in logistics role
Maybe if you're the Russians and just hand loading/unloading things off of a truck and into a big pile somewhere. But an actual logistics system needs people that can operate machinery and mentally keep track of complex inventory systems.
It's not rocket science, but it's a more complex skill than a lot of nations on earth can manage to do well.
Pic related is a much more realistic example of "moron in the military."
gets it.
Švejk was a based responsibility avoider. He was just ironic moron
Svejk was smart enough to pretend to be stupid
The US military is the finest fighting force on Earth and I can personally attest to it having fielded a high volume of morons during the Surge, when recruitment got incredibly tight.
Now personally, this made me prefer a draft and/or recruiting non-moronic women over moronic men, but we were still the best even when moron heavy.
And no, we didn't have any Down Syndrome soldiers or something like that, but people made it through who were well under the 85 IQ mark. Like, not the separate classroom, learning how to feed themselves until age 21 SPED kids, but like the ones who were mostly in normal, if remedial classes and did bad and then also needed to be taken out for special services throughout the day.
Of course, this is also always a problem in any military with ang standards because head injuries can also make you moronic. It's obvious when you get one massive TBI, but people can also end up gradually degraded by concussion after concussion until their memory is a literal sieve. I had a friend who had this. He still presented as fairly normal but he couldn't recall if he was stripes or solids for a pool game, let alone be trusted to carry out complex orders under pressure.
Gump wasn't moron, moron.
Anon where do you think infantrymen come from?
>Hold rifle this way, shoot enemy
The moron problem can be overcome by good leaders who learn the capabilities of their men and backstop people who are prone to frick up (or panic). A good leader can smooth over people being offended by having their seniority "questioned," by backstopping incompetent people with competent ones in a way that doesn't offend and giving the less competent bite sized shit to focus on.
This is often the NCOs because you get fricking kid junior officers, but there are older new officers who have been managers before or your rare new person with talent who is good at this. They can effectively tard rangle even during combat, keeping everyone calm enough to focus.
It's possible to get people to be useful doing their one thing. Think Rick Moranis walking calmly around a trench, working the radio, realizing everyone around them is cross eyed, and realizing the best course of action is just to stay on task and order "keep firing buttholes!"
Only problem is that if this person is injured or killed your org can crumple depending on how reliant people are on them.
Sometimes dumb people are key in that, while being bad at lots of stuff, they can still have big brass balls and good enough coordination to shoot frickers.
Now your leaders needs smarts and big balls, but they can't be doing everything because you can't afford to lose them. So even a guy who might struggle with some stuff can be very useful if he can just effectively take orders to "go over there and shoot the guys coming from that direction."
Just don't ask them to navigate.
>How reasonable is it to draft non-ironic morons into the army?
ask Putin
Look up Project 100,000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_100,000
Aren't the US Marines one of the most capable forces in the world?
I was going to say they were probably more useful for melee warfare but maybe not. Ancient and medieval battles are all like:
>Side A and side B fought for 4 hours and it was unclear who was winning.
>Then Lord Tardo of side B was baited into chasing a small detachment of calvary from side B over a hill."
>The bulk of side A's heavy horse out flanked B and entered their camps, encircling them and charging from the rear."
>Over the next 3 hours side B took the equivalent of 3 Iraq plus Afghanistan Wars in fatalities, which at that time represented the modern equivalent of 400,000 men for B's tiny population. The rest of side B was immediately sold into slavery as was the population of B's capital city."
Just seems like your potential for really catastrophic frick ups and fatalities on par with entire major wars today occuring over a few hours really made not being moronic important.
It could also be really hard to tell your own side from the enemy before kit standardisation
Drafts are unconstitutional and imposers thereof should be hung as traitors to the people and the republic
The state is a prerequisite of freedom. One needs protection against foreign invaders, slavers, and criminals to be free. One also needs a legal system that protects property rights to have markets and economic freedom.
That's negative freedom, freedom from external constraint. But freedom also requires reflexive freedom, the freedom to determine one's own actions oneself rationally. This requires internal development, education. The state ensures that all have access to this. See Saint Paul, Romans 7-8 and Saint Augustine On the Freedom of the Will.
Markets properly allocate resources because everyone chases their own interests, the invisible hand, emergent price and supply equilibrium. However, externalities require state intervention to fix, e.g. a factory polluting a river such that all the fish did and the fishermen lose their jobs.
The state is a prerequisite for freedom so the citizen owes their allegiance to the state. This does not mean bad states don't exist, but they do not actualize the rational essence of a state in the same way a cut off hand is still a hand but doesn't do what a hand does. Over time, oppressive, bad states will face internal and external selection pressures, actualizing the essential state, whose highest goal is the common welfare.
Conscription is an essential duty. Duty is freedom. One is not free to become a husband without taking on certain constraints and obligations. Same to for fatherhood or becoming a doctor, etc. The freedom to choose constraint rationally is freedom. The state is a rational essentiality and must be defended to the end but also reshaped into its essence.
What a fricking loser.
Man was freer when he was chuckling spears at mammoths and mastodons.
I was the 1st LT on a destroyer, then the AUXO. For those of you who don't know anything about the Navy, that means that I went from having some of the dumbest sailors (admittedly not all, and a lot were hard workers) on the ship to ones that were generally intelligent and mechanically competent. This is in an all volunteer military that ostensibly only accepts people above an IQ of 85 or so.
You have no idea how hard it is to work with functionally illiterate, unteachable, and unthinking idiots. I feel bad for them, but damn if they aren't impossible. I can't imagine dealing with even dumber conscripts and getting shot at. Consider this: food on a submarine is significantly better than on a surface ship. This should not be, since the ingredients and menu cards are identical. The reason it is better is because you need at least an IQ of 100 to be on a sub, so the cooks are smart enough to be literate, and can therefore actually read the menu cards.
Here's another thing to keep in mind that is probably only a major problem in the US right now but could be a problem elsewhere if things keep going the way they are: the average black IQ is 85, so any military rate or MOS that doesn't have an ASVAB floor is going to be full of blacks that bring other issues on top of being stupid. Issues such as rape, theft, and assault, mostly against each other. Taken individually they can be OK, but when you have a whole berthing full of them it becomes a cell block.
tl;dr morons are moronic
My Dad was on submarines in the 80s. He claimed the food was better on subs because they need to keep the submariners at least somewhat happy on account of they are have to spend months at a time in a smelly, dangerous tin can. He also claimed submariners are generally the most competent/best sailors and the Navy wants to keep them happy but I always chocked that up to bias.
I have a close friend who got out of the sub force recently and he hated most of the people he worked with and thinks its a miracle there aren't more major incidents on ships because they are staffed with absolute trash half the time. Specifically his claim is that all the positions of authority and anything critical are generally manned by competent and intelligent people, but that a lot of non-critical (but still possibly dangerous) positions are filled with 80iq morons.
And there is a book - McNamara's Folly: The Use of Low-IQ Troops in the Vietnam War.
the army is 90% manual labour, 10% combat. whilst morons provide nothing and probably waste resources during combat. ditches need digging, potatoes peeled and someone had to be at the front of the line and step on any mines.
Švejk was unironically high IQ haver.
Gump has movie moronation. A real moron would stay in the leg braces, shit his pants and burden his mother into an earlier grave before burdening the state.
asparagus isn't moronation
I would say it is in general a bad idea.
For one, you're lowering the overall quality and ability of the military in question when you are avoiding basic standards of intelligence.
You are providing an active burden for those in leadership positions to take into account when it comes almost any given task.
Even in non-critical or menial positions, if you house enough incompetence, you will eventually have issues on your hands at the most basic level, which paralyzes everything else.
Also, sending people into combat who are too dumb to know why they are there is just sort of cruel, let alone how their lack of mental acuity degrades unit effectiveness.