For you the priority of an army should be

[jpm1]

if you were a high ranked general of your country what would you give first priority to :

 

i voluntary excluded the nuclear dissuasion i wanted to add the anti-missile shield as possibility but it wasn't possible . i'm not talking nuclear here just without the nuclear weapons , these weapons being the most powerful right now i believe it's unavoidable for the countries that can afford that arsenal

 

several choices possible

Edited November 25, 2009 by jpm1

[Pilotasso]

Intelligence is a force multiplier and can win wars.

 

Having lots of military units is useless without good intelligence.

 

Excellent inteligence makes a small force have the greatest inpact even against desperate numerical disavantages.

[bumfire]

As they say, Knowledge is power, i'd have to agree with Pilotasso on this one.

[Pilotasso]

^^^^why? because you disagree often? :D

[bumfire]

Only with my other self :D

[tflash]

Well, for me UAV's are a vital part of an ISR network. So, I would be investing in drones for the sake of intelligence in the first place ...

[topol-m]

This question kind of simplifies the things, cause if you want your army to be effective you do not give priorities to this branch or that one. If you want your army to be able to complete variety of tasks, to defend against different forms of attack and to have the capabilities of penetrating various enemy defense systems, you should not have priorities. At least not in long terms. Priority can be given though in case you have neglected one part of your armed forces creating a week spot in your defense/attack capabilities. Military technology and strategies based on them are dynamic. Success and effectiveness of your own require fast response and countering for any new piece of tech the real or potential enemy has/is developing/might acquire. Investing in and developing mainly one part of the military forces at the expense of the others makes you vulnerable.

[Vekkinho]

I voted defensive abilities...defense is the best offense.

[Pilotasso]

isnt it the other way arround? :D

[RedTiger]

isnt it the other way arround? :D

 

Yep. ;)

 

Intelligence is the only valid answer. In theory, you can buy or hire everything else. You want your intelligence to be proprietary, IMO. And I'd want my intelligence OFFENSIVE, as in I go out and get it, not just passive. :D

Edited November 25, 2009 by RedTiger

[Vekkinho]

isnt it the other way arround? :D

 

Yeah, whatever...:doh:

[159th_Viper]

if you were a high ranked general of your country what would you give first priority to :

 

The Troops under my Command.

[Brit_Radar_Dude]

Some guards who would come running whenever I yelled "Guards! Guards!". That would be cool....

 

 

 

... and of course sharks with laser beams attached to their heads. ;)

[zakobi]

anything this guy says: http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html

:D

[Zulu]

Honestly my top priority would be to make sure that the army, is just that an army ie. All personell motivated,fit,smart,discplined, can work as a team, good command stucture, excellant training. Overall I would make its that the army could conduct missions entirely without heavily sophisticated support etc. Then I would concertate on the other stuff.

[jpm1]

This question kind of simplifies the things, cause if you want your army to be effective you do not give priorities to this branch or that one. If you want your army to be able to complete variety of tasks, to defend against different forms of attack and to have the capabilities of penetrating various enemy defense systems, you should not have priorities. At least not in long terms. Priority can be given though in case you have neglected one part of your armed forces creating a week spot in your defense/attack capabilities. Military technology and strategies based on them are dynamic. Success and effectiveness of your own require fast response and countering for any new piece of tech the real or potential enemy has/is developing/might acquire. Investing in and developing mainly one part of the military forces at the expense of the others makes you vulnerable.

 

in theory you're right the goal of that poll was to find what's most important for a country army in times of crisis and huge debts . maybe Russia can afford such military politic don't know but excelling in all military domains means you have lot of money and it's not the case of the majority of the countries nowadays , see the US they restricted their F-22 to less than 200 i remember an era they had something like 1000 of 2000 planes operational ...

 

concerning the poll , well Pilotasso did the right answer i think a good intelligence can easily make the difference but it's also a several possible options poll . so let's say intelligence #1 then i was surprised to see that long range weapons had 0 votes same for the amphibious ships don't know if i would have put them at #2 and #3 but for me they are future weapons . long range bombers are threatened by modern SAMS that can nearly it an object in space and a landing force is unavoidable to invade a zone , yes i think i would have done that :

#1 intelligence

#2 out of enemy response weapons sea launched missiles ..

#3 amphibious ships with logistics

#4 drones/unmanned aircrafts