I have to write an essay on "Why you shouldn't abuse the chain of command". I'm not asking anons to write it for me, but if any PrepHoleommandos have some advice or reading resources I can reference that would be really appreciated. Also for the mods, abuse is lies and lies are weapons and therefore relevant.
what does abusing the chain of command entail?
filing shitloads of extraneous and stupid but technically correct paperwork to force everyone around you to deal with your bullshit because you are a butthurt autist
The short answer is that the COC exists for two basic reasons: to provide meaningful direction and delegation from the top down, and to provide accountability for lower ranks in the event of malfeasance or malingering by your superior officer.
A functional professional army relies on the strength of delegation- the ability for your subordinates to independently achieve the goal you set for them without you having to stand over their shoulder. this applys all the way from painting the grass green to mobilizing an entire command.
This requires a minimum of good faith effort on your part- you obey orders, do what you are supposed to to and in return are granted trainingm time and materials to achieve that.
If your superior fucks up in a way that prevents this and trys to blame it on you, you use the chain of command to go up the ladder until someone can unfuck the situation, because the military is a very large game of CYA played between actually doing your job, this is possible.
However, using bad faith to gum up the works, try to skate, lawyer your way out of responsibilty, not suck it up, or just make someone else's life miserable is abuse of the CYA game.
If you want to do some reading search on "military command philosophies"
>filing shitloads of extraneous and stupid but technically correct paperwork to force everyone around you to deal with your bullshit because you are a butthurt autist
If it's technically correct, you should do it, or the regulations that make it technically correct should be changed. People that tell underlings to cut corners say that shit because they're not the ones that are gonna be left injured, be inconvenienced, or be left holding the bag.
You're gonna make a regulation merely a suggestion, that shit should be in writing, and you shouldn't just lean on chain of command to shout down someone doing standard CYOA bullshit. Frankly people playing fast and loose with rules is why a lot of military culture is just ass. Nobody ever stops to think why they're expected to do anything in the first place because you aren't fucking expected to think in command structures.
So is psyop but still politics
ChatGPT wasn't up to the task?
If you abuse the chain of command then you are liable to get abused back creating an endless chain of abusers and the abused. This is how you get Russians claiming that fucking men in the ass is, in fact, not gay.
>The Short Victorious War is a science fiction novel by American writer David Weber, first published in 1994. It is the third book in the Honor Harrington series.
>Its title comes from a quotation by Vyacheslav von Plehve in reference to the Russo-Japanese War: "What this country needs is a short, victorious war to stem the tide of revolution." That quotation is one of the novel's two epigraphs; the other is a quotation from Robert Wilson Lynd: "The belief in the possibility of a short decisive war appears to be one of the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions."
>The families who rule the People's Republic of Haven are in trouble. The treasury's empty, the Proles are restless, and civil war is imminent.
>But the ruling class knows what they need to keep in power: another short, victorious war to unite the people and fill the treasury once more. It's a card they've played often in the last half-century, always successfully, and all that stands in their way is the Star Kingdom of Manticore and its threadbare allies. Enemies who in the past have always backed down.
>Only this time the peeps face something different. This time they're up against Captain Honor Harrington and a Royal Manticoran Navy that's prepared to give them a war that's far from short... and anything but victorious
I think submitting that one webm of Russian officers rawdogging some random guy while the cameraman peeks around a corner in lieu of an essay would be a succinct argument.
the mouth breathers here are incapable of understanding abstract concepts like ideas as weapons, anon.
a huge percentage of them are 83 IQ no disk no knee no college retards and are cognitively unable to help you.
also they will report your thread because they cannot understand things they cannot hold in their hands and see with their eyes.
computer programs, for example, are vital components in hundreds of weapons in every army on earth, but PrepHoleeddit does not believe they are weapons.
you could read the article by zoltan barany - Armies and Autocrats: Why Putin's Army Failed
it goes into the failed reforms, recent history and obviously corruption
thanks for the references anons, and for making me laugh about retardation
how != why
Dear gpt. Write me 20 yestions about why one should not abuse chain of command
Now explain point 1 in 10 paragraphs
Now add references and sourxea
Please explain point 2 now
All hail our robotic overlords.
Wrote it for you.
Now you have a ton of time to reread it and research it and add something finetuned
Last time I talked history with TardGPT it was about Napoleonic conquest of Spain. It started talking about how Francisco Goya was some sort of partisan Che Guevarra figure / battle-painter.
Truth is our new living in the moment statistical conversationalist overlords are better at having a chat with about pretty much anything like history or strategy than your average human will ever be.
Yeah but GPT sucks for anything rare or significantly technical, especially if there's not a lot of online writing about it. It will make a best-guess about the general idea and then hallucinate fake sources to confirm it.
>It will make a best-guess about the general idea and then hallucinate fake sources to confirm it.
No one is reading these anyway. Just make it good enough that there is no obvious bullshit when someone skim over it.
>but GPT sucks for anything rare or significantly technical
That is absolutely not true.
You talk out of your ass rn.
And chain of command is sommethinf not particulalry technical. It didn't say
>write an essay about why disobeying a chain of command is a bad idea while using tongue to play with the captain's anus like "" does
Obv it wont write you shit if you ask for a while essay. You ask it in parts and ask about details about every question
Humans don't have AI, they barely have the I
Maybe you're too lazy or stupid to detect it yourself, but I've tested this repetitively on everything from cedar tree genetics to electrical engineering equations. Try it out for yourself. A basic google search can outperform it.
"abuse the chain of command"? Who are you writing for first of all because audience is important. Secondly how long should the essay be because that will dictate how many sources you will need.
For what reason do you need to write an essay, OP?
Probably asked his CO a retarded question that could have been answered by literally anyone else or jumped the CoC asking about leave.
t. Had an absolutely smooth-brain Joe that would do that shit constantly and every team leader in the platoon had to take turns dealing with his retardation.
Who did you stick your dick in, Sergeant?
You may want to further define abuse when it comes to something like chain of command, because lying is merely one way it can be abused, and abuse itself can also come in the form of mental, physical or emotional, not only verbal.
>I have to write an essay
bro, its current year
Haha yes it's current year so you must become a consooomer who is incapable of work or thought. Very based sentiment.
I'm more surprised that the source reference works, even with adding a time frame like between 2015 and 2023
Divided armies is kind of on the grand scale of what happens when you can't trust your superior officers and its effects on combat effectiveness
This is an interesting talk about lying in the military.
I think the gist of it is that the US military makes officers do so much paper work they everybody kind of fudges it. This leads to a promotions being based on who fudges numbers the best. Lying is so common that if you tell the truth superiors will hand things back to you and "hint hint, nudge nudge" you into lying.
I guess the incentive structure is the problem here.
I would center the premise around the fact that if you "abuse" the power you have from the chain of command. It will make people not have faith in the chain of command itself.
The point of having a chain of command is to run things as smoothly as possible. If you "violate the trust", or "make people weary of leaders" then they won't listen. They may even do stuff like in vietnam they would frag their commanders.
Look at Russia right now. The chain of command is corrupt. They abuse their power in the CoC. The result is people die. People don;t listen. They stage mutinies like we see on telegram and tik tok.
A commander or leader may tell you to do shitty stuff you don't want to do. Yet, if you trust them, or believe in them (or the system). You are more likely to listen.
>For the mods... I am a pro ukrainian transsexual and my pronouns are bug/bugs. Here is a non weapon related topic that belongs on 4chan
thread stays up.
>I am a pro ukrainian who is heterosexual and suffers from no clearly diagnosible mental illness. Here is a weapon related thread in which a ukrainian soldier dies by russian fire.
3 day ban.
I'm not particularly liking the osint fags pointing out Russian failings, and posting Ukrainian successes, because then Russia has a point to work off of.
I know it's not as easy as "Listen to the retards on the internet" but they're effectively only doing drone drop and FPV drones etc because of Ukrainians posting themselves doing it and using it effectively.