.
I wrote about an all-round gendarmerie designed to not be corrupt and to not launch any coup d'états as a replacement for a miniature military in (very) poor countries back in 2011.
Today I want to build on that foundation, especially with very fundamental musings.
The exposure to heavy metals such as lead and malnutrition (especially lack of iodine) negatively affects the development of a child to an adult. There's not just "stunted" growth (being much shorter and weaker), but also a much-reduced mental development. Malnutrition during childhood can easily reduce the IQ by about 15 points. There are more childhood factors that are statistically (and probably causally) linked to reduced IQ scores. Frankly expressed, the populations of some countries are mostly dumb because of such factors.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_health_on_intelligence
These countries need to make the most out of the about 10% smartest people (men) of the country to get anywhere good. This is hard because leaders are all-too often not exactly in that group.
Deterrence and defence are unproductive resources drains on a country. The fiscal aspect is already bad, but a brain drain to the military can be even worse. So the army must not be too prestigious and it must not be wasteful regarding the 10% highest IQ demographic.
In short: A very poor country needs an army model that's cheap and can make do with almost exclusively dumb individuals. The latter requirement should only be eased once the malnutrition, environmental factors and primary education woes have been largely solved and a new generation of bright individuals becomes available.
So the organisation should be able to work with few officers. The demands on non-commissioned officer competencies should be modest. The bulk of troops who would go to war should NOT be active duty troops (so their productivity benefits the country in peacetime and the fiscal stress is reduced). The doctrine should be kept simple and the way it's taught should be paced and designed to work with dumb troops. The equipment should be easy to master. Most wartime motor vehicles should be commandeered.
S O
.
Throughout most of history, we had similar poor countries. Does this in part explain the prevalence of shield and spear or crossbows? Would weapon systems for such a force need a similar learning curve and work instinctively under stress?
ReplyDeleteThose weapons you mentioned required little training. That's not the same as not requiring high intelligence or well-developed bodies.
DeleteI think a very poor country cannot easily choose very easy to use weapons, but it can avoid high maintenance weapon systems. A towed mortar instead of a tracked SPG. No tanks. Few troublesome electronics. Hardly any equipment ever that may still have teething problems.