Extreme Intelligence or Extreme Firepower?

“Would you rather fight against an army with extreme intelligence or extreme firepower?”

This is a very interesting question.

My first reaction was for the original poster to clarify the variables of “extreme intelligence” and “extreme firepower.”

I’m assuming the question refers to present day levels of both; for simplicity’s sake I am going to stick to conventional weapons and a foe of above average smarts (IQ tests and numbers are, to me, subjective… that is a different thread altogether).

One could only look at insurgencies against major superpowers over the last three decades to see that neither intelligence or firepower was as decisive as one would think. You can be one of the smartest forces out there with the best doctrinal knowledge and theory under your belt, but if you fail to appreciate the ability and disposition of well-armed opponents, you will fail miserably. A good example of this would be our own intelligence failures prior to 9/11 as well as the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In both cases, we had access to the talent and equipment to verify information, yet we still failed to prevent either event from going down like it did.

However, a study of the Soviet approach to Afghanistan in the 1980s shows us that dominance and reliance of firepower can often become predictable and a source of inspiration if rallying folks to your cause as well as an effective teaching tool for those who are willing to do whatever necessary to evict foreign armies. Firepower kills hearts & minds more than it wins them over, and the whole “beatings will continue until morale improves” technique only brings forth the charismatic, capable, and effective leaders from the impact area.

A reliance on one, while sacrificing the other, is a recipe for disaster; yet, to achieve both is often an impossibility as well. What good is a weapon if the operator is too stupid to use it effectively, and what good is the best tool if it is consistently used the wrong way?

However, if I absolutely had to choose…

I would have to choose to go against an army with extreme firepower. In combat, munitions are finite and expensive; ingenuity is endless and priceless.

Yes, my army may not withstand the initial encounter with a disproportionally better-armed opponent, but if my leaders are crafty bastards, their losses at the beginning may not be enough to prevent the inevitable follow-on missions. And if I can effectively use that intelligence – both mental and operational – I could establish the conditions which negate their firepower, making the desire to stay a costly one, in terms of public opinion and continuation…

Sorta like…?

Naaah…