Leadership: systems, styles and analysis.

[Faran Brigo]

It's been frequently touched, so I figured it deserved it's own thread. I'd like to hear what others think before I go on a diatribe. But most of all, I would like it to be an honest discussion about the weaknesses and strenghts of the different kinds of leaderships and situations where each would shine (or suck), not just shooting down ideas.

[Augustus Desius]

Are we speaking of military, decentralized, or dynamic centralized leadership?

I would think that a centralized chain of command is the most effective, as it gives everyone a position and, so long as everyone does as thier commander say, it keep people in line and less willing to break under stressful assaults. Also, both good and bad, it detaches the lead commander from the stress of battle, allowing for clear minded set of instructions.

Cons to this would be that when central dies, so too does the entire military under its command. Also, a detached leader may not have accurate enough info to allow for good commands.

Did I miss the point of this thread? I should stop now if I did.

[Faran Brigo]

Not at all. It's sort of what I thought and sort of not, but it's good actually.

In the beggining, If your group is really small, I think part of what John has said would hold true, for some time. The leader will probably be the person who can get things done, this means it will probably be the person with military/LE experience, a survivalist background or barring that someone with a borderline obsessive knowledge of all things zombie (the term, not the forums :p ) although not necesarily, if the person with background is the kind of guy you see going into periodic psychotic episodes and shellshock I wouldn't follow him to the kitchen, let alone around a city in the middle of armageddon. In other words it would be a very informal system with tacit agreements and quite a bit of playing it by ear.

As time goes by and the group expands beyond a certain point (where you're not talking about a few people but rather a few families, or quite a bit of people like over 30) something more refined must come up. And I believe the current system with separation of powers is a good idea, but on a much simplied scale of course. In other words having a leader who takes care of non combat decisions and another who leads raids, organizes defenses and such, neither of them being a senior over the other.

I think communications will regress, so it's important that the commander is close to the troops.

Democratic or meritocratic, there's still the aspect of style: soft, hard, or a middle point between both.

Hard would be trying to fix everything solely (or mostly) by intimidation, fear and punishments. In other words, treating people like tools.

Soft would be trying to do everything solely (or mostly) through persuation, machiavellian games, charisma, leadership by example and such.

[Augustus Desius]

Deciding leadership in early, small groups is both easy and hard, depending on the group. For example, a group that has an abundance of people scratching their way to the leadership position will often cause splitting of the troops, leading either to a complete separation or a small group that consists, essentially, of many smaller groups via favoritism. Neither of these are effective.

On the other side of the spectrum, a group of people without anyone wishing to lead will cause forced leadership or mob-mentality combat, also ineffective.

I like the idea of two lead commanders you mentioned. Having specialists is essential to survival (see: nature) and I think it will help leaders focus on their specialty, generally assisting the group.

Question: Will each lead commander have authority over the same group or does each commander have their own groups to work with?

EDIT: Leadership is a huge subject, perhaps we should break it down and discuss each subject individually, within this thread though as to not flood the US&D board with leadership threads.

EDIT2: Perhaps we should define what a leader is and decide what traits are most important. That would give us a base idea of what we're discussing and a defined unit to place in our scenerios (sp?).

[Faran Brigo]

I agree with the division (of topics) but I think we should just let it flow for awhile, to get a feel of the aspects that should be adressed before categorizing.

Same group, but different situations. The peace leader calls the shots when there is no immediate danger. He determines what needs to be done when it doesn't involve combat directly (who gets assigned what tasks, what kind of defenses to build, where to hold up, where to go, that sort of thing) with input from the rest of the people in the group.

The combat leader directs offensive and defensive actions. As soon as the first zombie (or marauder) attacking is sighted, he assumes command, decides strategies and tactics and gives the corresponding order. Under attack, his orders are not questionable, however they might be reviewed after the danger has passed.

Both of them have joint command when it comes to areas where interests overlap, such as deciding raid sites and non-essential equipment procurement (I.E. what kind of tools for construction or important resources like power generators and such should be secured). An impasse would be broken by a general vote with two thirds majority. The right to vote however would only extend to members of the party with a reasonable amount of time there, who is competent at what they do.

[Augustus Desius]

I like it, the idea seems sound. The impasse situation I think has several flaws though. The voting idea is good, but there are some issues mainly concerning seniority and voting rights.

How would one go about deciding who has the right to vote? You spoke of those who have been in the organization long enough, will this be a set amount of time, or done by individual review of personel (can't spell it halp!) (like an exam you must pass before voting), or some other method? What if the authority is contested, or they fail to meet standards, are they forever banned from vote or can they reapply?

[Faran Brigo]

both. First condition would be spending at least 6 months in the group (obviously if he/she was not part of the original group), once that's met, the rest of the group would discuss the issue of whether or not to give the right to vote. This is so there's a good chance that people who get the right to vote are effective and trustworthy. It's just ideas though, it's all really open to adjustments depending on the circumstances.

[Augustus Desius]

Of course, none of this is solid, and numbers are simple to adjust as situations call for it. We haven't even discussed other forms of leadership so we have plenty of time for pro-con comparison.

But. . .

I'm out of ideas and questions for the moment, I'm gonna play Sins of a Solar Empire for a bit and come back to this soon.

[bandits1]

both. First condition would be spending at least 6 months in the group (obviously if he/she was not part of the original group), once that's met, the rest of the group would discuss the issue of whether or not to give the right to vote. This is so there's a good chance that people who get the right to vote are effective and trustworthy. It's just ideas though, it's all really open to adjustments depending on the circumstances.
A 6 month probation period may be a bit long. A lot of people may not survive long enough to have a say in a decision that got them killed. I'd say a month of living and working together every single day would be enough time to get a general handle on a person's personality and trustworthiness.

[Faran Brigo]

A lenghty probation period discourages and makes infiltration harder. It also provides plenty of time for the whole group to get to really know the possible member, no one can put a flawless facade for 6 consecutive months. I'd want it to be even longer, but that would be too impractical.

[Augustus Desius]

So, here is how I see the structure as of now. The question marks are for things not discussed or not understood.

High leadership: 2 main Commanders; Combative and Peacetime

Combative:
When in charge: Under perceived aggressive threat.
Loss of authority: When all perceived threats are eliminated or evaded.
Duties: Instruct lower ranks for offensive or defensive operations, votes on voting rights.
Post: ? (do they travel with the troops or stay at a headquarters)
Wage: ? (do they make a living wage, or is the wage living conditions and security)

Peacetime:
When in charge: All non-combative scenarios.
Loss of Authority: When agressive threat appears.
Duties: Managing troop movement, Pre-establish defense, votes on voting rights.
Post: I assume he stays behind. Y/N?
Wage: Equal to Combative Commander.

I think that covers High-Command roles, but what of Low-Command (Lieutenants) and Non-Command (Privates) positions? I imagined that would depend on whether or not the Combative Commander (I will call CC from now on) stays with the troops. If they do, then Low-Commanders (LC) may be redundant, as the CC will give all commands as the situation arises, on-the-fly. If they don't I would have to assume that he would have LCs with the troops, to relay commands and come up with tactics on-the-fly and relay vital info to the CC.

Also, How do you think High-Commanders should elected? The option are many. I would assume they would be elected from the troops, but I was thinking they should be put through a battery of tests, ranging from combat tactics to technical knowledge. And then those who qualify should be candidates if they so choose. This wouldn't apply if a High-Commander died and must be replaced very quickly (such as in battle if he is fielded with the troops.) Instead either the Peacetime or a temporary commander will be chosen.

Thoughts debates or additions?

[Faran Brigo]

Well, for the post I'm guessing at least until the group's too large to do that, they're all going to stick together all if not most of the time. The peacetime leader is one more gun when things go bad, and so are technicians and others, like the marine motto "Every Marine is a Rifleman First" same thing here.

As for wage, I'm guessing money will have no value, creature comforts will be scarce, and different food rations (for example) would be a bad idea for several reasons. I was thinking it would be more of a status thing.

[Cenobite]

Leadership shouldnt enforce but should inform.

When you start enforcing you are building up a pyramid as it is in the modern world civilization. Which I think is flawed.

In an outbreak, I would never follow someone, I'd be better on my own or at least in a group where everyone contributes without sounding like the alpha male.

[Dave Of The Dead]

Well yeah, a group with a fixed leadership or one where following commands is all you do is ridiculous. Nobody would follow you.

An Alpha Male (or female) is always nice because they can inspire courage or morale when there is none. I agree that everyone should do their own part equally to their best ability. If someone has something to say or suggest, no matter who they are, they should be respected and heard out. In a high-stress situation, I would think that if anyone in the group felt the need to double back to a safe-house, then it should be done. If one domino starts to fall, it won't be long til more people are panicking and then you're done for.

All groups should be small enough and close enough that every member should be important enough to listen to.

Example of a bad leadership (IMO):
Leader- "I'll tell you what to do and when to do it"
Watchman- "I'll just be up on the roof keeping an eye out"
Soldiers- "We shoot guns"
Piss boy- "I take the piss bucket on the roof and throw it off the edge"

In a good group (IMO), everyone should use their own talents to an advantage with the normal tasks (like keeping watch, cooking, or even throwing the piss off the roof) rotated through the members so everyone does an equal share.

[bandits1]

Agreed with the above posts. I don't think it's a good idea to compartmentalizie daily tasks into groups that only do the cooking, only do the shooting, only do general housekeeping, etc... . Everyone should be trained to do every task they are physically capable of and take turns doing them. Like Dave Of The Dead said: even the best markman in the group is going to have to take his turn empting the piss-bucket.

What happens if a raiding party gets completely wiped out and only the cooks and carpenters are left without having received the proper training on weapons use?

[Slayer]

My humble opinion, in a zombie outbreak situation, the best form of government in this situation is honestly, more or less a Fascist like system. In a life or death situation involving zombies I believe the person that becomes the leader, does so because he is the most capable and suited for the tasks at hand. While this is an autocracy, he would have his subordinates to handle other issues as necessary, chosen also based upon how well they qualify for the position. I believe also in an outbreak collectivism is best, focus on the good of the group as a whole.

[Behemoth]

My humble opinion, in a zombie outbreak situation, the best form of government in this situation is honestly, more or less a Fascist like system. In a life or death situation involving zombies I believe the person that becomes the leader, does so because he is the most capable and suited for the tasks at hand. While this is an autocracy, he would have his subordinates to handle other issues as necessary, chosen also based upon how well they qualify for the position. I believe also in an outbreak collectivism is best, focus on the good of the group as a whole.
Your humble opinion is shared. I would however not use the word fascist, i would call it a benevolent dictatorship, a firm control must be maintained, yet not at the expence of logic & fairness. But when all is said & done any leader is only as good as those he/she leads, if you're leading a bunch of lawyers, congressmen & estate agents, well all i can say is beware the ides of march!

[Cenobite]

Agreed with the above posts. I don't think it's a good idea to compartmentalizie daily tasks into groups that only do the cooking, only do the shooting, only do general housekeeping, etc... . Everyone should be trained to do every task they are physically capable of and take turns doing them. Like Dave Of The Dead said: even the best markman in the group is going to have to take his turn empting the piss-bucket.

What happens if a raiding party gets completely wiped out and only the cooks and carpenters are left without having received the proper training on weapons use?

That and what if there is no cooks to begin with?

"Soldya, you know I dont even have to tell you but you gonna have to fix yoself a meal"

[Creature]

Who in the right mind would send EVERYONE to do a raidin party? It makes the others who can't do much attack or defence pretty much undefended.
"Lets go back." *they all go back* "Aw shit. Our Guys are dead"

[Faran Brigo]

If everyone's going, then what "others" are you talking about?

[Screwballgunnut]

I think Behemoth & Slayer are right on the money. I've been in enough hair raising crises and watched plenty of "trained professionals" fall apart to realize that Z-day is going to be a chaotic mess. Its going to take a dominant person to step up, take charge and bring some semblance of order out of the mess. That leader will have to be strong enough to be solitary and to take charge, and smart enough to find a group of trusted adjutants to advise him, and to ensure that his orders are carried out. He should conduct the planning sessions behind closed doors and simply come out and tell the group what is going to happen next. The leader will also need to have an heir apparent in the event he is killed, and the heir apparent will have to be well established, and well respected by a large part of the group. To maintain the group long term, the leader (and his heir apparent) will have to be charismatic and tactful. He will need to lead by example, while remaining aloof enough that he doesn't have "the buddy" syndrome break out among the troops.

Joint leadership & group voting to go on a raid, or not to go on a raid will stagnate a group. Go to a city council meeting. Watch the amount of discussion to pay the monthly bills when the money is there and the bills have to be paid. Watch the arguments that ensue over raising the water & sewer rates. Now extrapolate those arguments to a matter that gets people killed. You'll never get anywhere, as everybody will have to "have their say," and argue with the plan just because they can. In a crisis situation, democracy is not a viable option.

[john154]

Great point all around. Props to Faran Brigo for starting up this thread!

Speaking of slightly larger groups (think you've got a safehouse and a solid body of survivors) whats been touched on but not outright said yet is that a reliable way of running a organization is to have dual leaders who understand each other and work together taking care of the two most important elements that you'll be doing: Administration & Operations. This system is possibly the oldest and best established method of running a community. Think Mom and Dad, Platoon Commander and Platoon Warrent Officer or on the largest scale Prime Minister and Chief of Defence Staff.

This system is even used by pack dwelling creatures such as lions, gorrillas ect. Dad does the hunting/working and Mom takes care of affairs at home. Platoon Commander plans and executes missions, Platoon Warrent Officer is responsible for the administration and well being of the troops. The Prime Minister runs the country and the Chief of Defence Staff fights the country's wars. However in each of these working relationships the two leaders with their respective experiance and expertise work together for the same purpose and allow each to run their aspect of the "tribe" most efficiently.

So in your 30 person survivor tribe maybe its best not to leave all the responsibility on one man's shoulders. Take two leaders who respect one another and can best use their know-how to run one aspect of the tribe. You've got your former cop running the defence, excursions and controling weapons distribution while your former university prof is taking care of the people's need and general administration. Officer Bloggins is Honcho for your shitkickers and Professor Smith runs the safehouse. They compliment one another and each half of the whole provides for the other half. Just like Mom & Dad.

On a related note not everyone can be skilled in every job. It'd be nice but isn't realistic that all your survivors would be competant with a firearm. As much as a socialism where everyone gets time at every job sounds fair and would make some people happy life isn't fair and taking a marksman and putting him in the kitchen is a waste of his skills and vice versa for the cook your now putting on a guard post. Women for example arn't much value as fighters and most guys don't have too much patience with children or textiles. Some folks are just gonna be stuck thowing the piss bucket off the roof twice a day because like it or not their not good at anything else and in a desperate situation who's gonna have the time or resources to train him not to be a retard.

[Faran Brigo]

Well thanks John, and I figured it would be best to do a 180 on my previous attitude. Candid, not canned opinions are better. I did say what you're talking about outright:

As time goes by and the group expands beyond a certain point (where you're not talking about a few people but rather a few families, or quite a bit of people like over 30) something more refined must come up. And I believe the current system with separation of powers is a good idea, but on a much simplied scale of course. In other words having a leader who takes care of non combat decisions and another who leads raids, organizes defenses and such, neither of them being a senior over the other.

Democratic or meritocratic, there's still the aspect of style: soft, hard, or a middle point between both.

I agree that it would be costly to rotate everyone, and that no one can be good at every function they're assigned and they would likely develop specialties. But with manpower as reduced as it is going to be, and the overwhelming superiority of the numbers of the enemy, I think rotating ocupations is not a bad idea, not out of ethics or what is "fair" but simply out of practical considerations, 30 fighters who also double as technicians, builders, cooks, etc. are better than 10 riflemen, 10 technicians, 4 piss garcons (it's good to be the king), and 6 builders.

It's true, not everyone can be a marksman, but there's wisdom in the motto "Every soldier a rifleman first.", and special forces cross train for similar reasons I believe, because it will be hard to compensate for losses if reinforcements aren't coming, and the loss of a few critical people will be crippling if nobody can cover for them at least to an extent.

[Behemoth]

This system is even used by pack dwelling creatures such as lions, gorrillas ect. Dad does the hunting/working and Mom takes care of affairs at home. Platoon Commander plans and executes missions, Platoon Warrent Officer is responsible for the administration and well being of the troops. The Prime Minister runs the country and the Chief of Defence Staff fights the country's wars. However in each of these working relationships the two leaders with their respective experiance and expertise work together for the same purpose and allow each to run their aspect of the "tribe" most efficiently.
I hear what you're saying, but FYI, mommy lion does all the hunting, daddy lion feeds, fights & fu..... well you know the rest.

[bandits1]

I agree that it would be costly to rotate everyone, and that no one can be good at every function they're assigned and they would likely develop specialties. But with manpower as reduced as it is going to be, and the overwhelming superiority of the numbers of the enemy, I think rotating ocupations is not a bad idea, not out of ethics or what is "fair" but simply out of practical considerations, 30 fighters who also double as technicians, builders, cooks, etc. are better than 10 riflemen, 10 technicians, 4 piss garcons (it's good to be the king), and 6 builders.

It's true, not everyone can be a marksman, but there's wisdom in the motto "Every soldier a rifleman first.", and special forces cross train for similar reasons I believe, because it will be hard to compensate for losses if reinforcements aren't coming, and the loss of a few critical people will be crippling if nobody can cover for them at least to an extent.
This is mostly what my point was. I'm not expecting the guy who empties the piss bucket to ever become as good a shot as the marksman, but he should at least know how to aim and fire a weapon. And the marksman should at least know where the full piss buckets are emptied and how many times a day it needs to be done.

[Dave Of The Dead]

Well, I'm glad my piss bucket analogy got so popular.

I can see in a small group (5-6 people) resolving over an issue rather quickly when planning a raid. When that number grows, you have less people as closely trusting and dependent on their other members. I can see this causing trouble because more people will want the spotlight or even want to prove themselves to the other group members. I say that as long as you have a rather small group, there is more of a need for rotation in "chores" and less of a need for a government. When the numbers grow and people become difficult, I can see the need for a leader with a type of government sent up.

[john154]

Well thanks John, and I figured it would be best to do a 180 on my previous attitude. Candid, not canned opinions are better. I did say what you're talking about outright:

Touche.

I hear what you're saying, but FYI, mommy lion does all the hunting, daddy lion feeds, fights & fu..... well you know the rest.

I figured someone would say something about that. Smartass.

[Dave Of The Dead]

If anyone knows anything about the types of social orders, then this is thread for you. Here you pretty much explain the type of leadership you will have in your group of survivors. Most I have seen suggested around here is complete dictatorship as the strongest will take the lead. In my opinion, a small group of survivors would not want to follow one person, but maybe two or more. I think an Oligarchy would be best for any kind of group. So what would you have: Democracy, Dictatorship, Oligarchy, Anarchy, or whatever else you think of?

[Krazymouse]

Oligarchy is when rich people rule the government, not a bunch of people.

i would say, elected dictatorship, your not be immediately a leader, but you have to be chosen by the people, and by vote! also, if you are doing a bad job, you can be voted out!

But, the thing is, one person needs to have an iron hand at commanding things!

[hotlead]

The Men in my family have all been in the military( except me, injuries from playing football in college makes me inelligable ), so far no officers, only honorable enlisted men. My Dad is the most senior being a Senior Chief Petty Officer in the Navy with 28 years in, My Brother is a Staff Sargeant in the Marines with 7 years, and we have various other ranks both active and retired in different branches.

By the chain of command and the UCMJ, my Dad has command as the senior man present, but my Brother has more time, training, and experience with leading men on the ground with rifles and rucks. My not being able to join the Marines gave me the time and money to have the fullest gun safe in the family, so that'll just make me the Armorer and quartermaster.

So to answer the question, my Mom will be in charge :doh: :)

[mattifikation]

Here's how I lead.

You do what I say, or I gently and repeatedly dip my nutsack into your mouth.

After putting ice on my junk to deal with the inevitable pain of being bit on the scrotum, I promise myself to knock people out in the future before I teabag them.

I then go on my own separate way, to look for people who are more prone to doing what they're told.

[hotlead]

Seems to me that if you're just gonna look for people who are gonna do what they are told so you can be in charge, then you're going to get a bunch of scared, soft-headed, un-disciplined, shadow-shooters that are gonna get themselves and likely you killed. Instead of finding people with strengths that will enhance your groups survivability and possibly threaten your rule over the masses.

[mattifikation]

I was thinking more along the lines of people who will listen when I say, "You stay here and cover us while we fall back. When we get in position we'll clear you a path!"

Yeah... I'd totally stick around to clear that path. Totally.

[Dave Of The Dead]

Oligarchy is when rich people rule the government, not a bunch of people.

Not exactly correct. Oligarchy is where power is held by a small group of people distinguished by royalty, wealth spirituality, or in this case military influence. People are always going to disagree with you. If you have a leadership of two or more, you can collaborate with your other leaders and figure out what is best for the group as opposed to one mind, one idea. What happens if your group has to split up? The group with the dictator will do better probably as the groups without any leadership will run around like chicken with their heads cut off. If you have multiple leaders, this lessens that. There will always be problems in a group, no matter what kind of leadership you have, but I think Oligarchy has less problems than any other kind.

[43911]

what do you think the best thing the armed forces could do in a zombie invasion?

remember there is : paras,tanks,helis,aircraft,infantry,special forces,artilary etc

[hotlead]

Kill all the hostiles and protect the civilians.......the same thing they always do.

[zombiekilling101]

mess shit up like we always do.

[kiltedninja]

I think that they'd try to evac as many civilians to designated safe camps of some sort, and then proceed to kill the hostiles/F**k everything up like they always do.

Some soldiers are good at doing their job, others will screw things up. I personally would go into hiding, I'm not about to be crammed into some camp, where all of my useful skills mean nothing, so I'd hide when the evac happened, and kill, while avoiding the soldiers and all their big explosive toys.

[Dave Of The Dead]

The best thing they could do is just have a large infantry sweep through all of the major cities. Of course that probably not what they will do, but we can hope right?

[kiltedninja]

I hope that they would man, I'd love nothing more than to go back to my home and continue life as best as I could after a Z-Day.

[Subgenius]

The problem, as always, with zombie invasions is that the military is a SMALL segment of the over-all population. The US has only (roughly) 1.4 million men and women in the armed services. They would be spread out too far and too wide and too thinly to cover all the cities in the US. They just could NOT do that. They would not have the ammunition and the equipment and the supply lines to make that happen. Especially in a Romero style all out rise of the dead all across the country.

[hotlead]

There is a main armory at every military installation and several smaller arms rooms at various places on base, the size and number of arms rooms vary on the size and branch of the base. For example, MCB Camp Pendleton has much more ammo and ordinance on hand than Beale AFB does.

IMO, the ammo on hand at military bases will be plenty to fight off an uprizing and get started on WWZ. Particularly these days, when so many units from around the country are gearing up for deployment or just returning from deployments in the sandbox or the rockpile.

It won't take long before our nations finest realize that only headshots take Zs, and the onsite minimum will last even longer. Fewer 240s and SAWs will be deployed, leaving a lot more ammo for rifles and DMRs. You'd be surprised at how much space and energy is devoted to feeding these MGs in todays TOEs. Add to that many rifles issued today have varying optics, and many terrorists taken by small arms fire are taken by headshot because of these optics and frequently the head is all that is seen.

A modern Marine rifle squad has 13 Marines, made up of three 4-man fire teams and a squad leader. There is currently one SAW in each team as well as a 240 in the weapons team. When they figure out that belt fed MGs have limited effectiveness against Zs, most of these will be traded in for rifles. With each having a rifle and the basic combat load of 190rds, that makes 2,470rds to deliver to the stenches by proffessional lead delivery technicians.

[Subgenius]

The time to wipe out the zombies, as Doctor Logan in Day of the Dead (1985) pointed out, would be in the first few days of the zombie outbreaks. After that, as a few days or a week passes, the zombies will become far too numerous for the military to take them down. Doctor Logan put the odds at 400,000-to-1 against them.

The military is not one huge 1.4 million person combat unit. I know it is easy to think that, but only roughly 30% of the US Army personnel actually serve in combat brigades. Most military serve in a support role. The Navy and the Air Force will not be called in during a zombie invasion. This cuts the numbers of actual combat units way down.

And, in the first day or two of the outbreak, it will be the civilian forces taking action. The local police of any given jurisdiction will respond to the event as though it were a riot. They would not have the preparedness to be ready to fight zombies. The police and civilian population will be killed or turned into zombies at least at a level of 50% or more having been zombified in the first few days.

Probably, in the first few days into the event, the governors would declare a state of emergency and activate the National Guard. They would get sent into certain zones and cities of importance to support the civilian authorities trying to control the situation like a riot zone or a disaster area. A curfew would be instated. Looters would be shot. The zombies would be seen as looters or as a threat requiring lethal force.

The US Army and US Marines would not get sent into US cities during the first few days. But, they would be fighting against the zombies fairly quickly. Especially in places where a major military base is set within or adjacent to a major population center, much like the US Navy bases in Norfolk or San Diego. Zombies both on and off the base would be attacking.

1.4 million personnel in the US military versus 300 million zombies?

Well, maybe not 300 million zombies. Maybe more like 200 million or 250 million in the US. But, not all of those 1.4 million military personnel are going to get to their bases and get armed for a fight. A lot of US forces are deployed or stationed overseas in other countries.

In the end, I see the armed forces being the primary survivors, but in small numbers spread out all across the globe and all across the US, thus ineffective on a larger scale Romero invasion. I think maybe 25% of the active military combat brigades would survive the first week. They would be in full blown survival mode and not sweeping the cities trying in vain to wipe out the vast hordes of zombies.

[mrlaughingman]

pull every uninfected they could out of the major cities then nuke em

[Darkness]

"It's clear that control is needed, but where is the line? When does it become 'excessive force'?"

[Faran Brigo]

What happens if your group has to split up? The group with the dictator will do better probably as the groups without any leadership will run around like chicken with their heads cut off. If you have multiple leaders, this lessens that. There will always be problems in a group, no matter what kind of leadership you have, but I think Oligarchy has less problems than any other kind.

I think it's the other way around, if there is a need to split up, the group with the dictator will be worse than the group with several leaders in it. There's no such thing as a "group without leadership", there are groups with good leaders, bad leaders, democratic leaders or tyrants, but there's always a leader, else it's not a group (even animals have alphas). As long as there's one guy doing something, and another one imitating or helping, there's a leader.

[hotlead]

What does leadership styles have to do with how the military would respond to a zombie outbreak ?

Can we get some new freakin' threads here, please ?

[Darkness]

"Because the military is one of the forms of leadership that will need to be considered. And how they handle themselves, during a zombie outbreak, is an important factor in whether they would make good leaders."

[hotlead]

I think the best thing to do is for each member of the team to carry two big meals that will feed the group, but each individual carries his own lunches and snacks. That way, you can be out patrolling for as many days as you have members of your group, and losing one member doesn't lose all your food and getting separated doesn't leave you hungry.

[J Dub]

"Because the military is one of the forms of leadership that will need to be considered. And how they handle themselves, during a zombie outbreak, is an important factor in whether they would make good leaders."

interestingly enough i wonder if much of the current armed forces would even be cohesive after society's collapse.
would a new order emerge from hodgepodged sections of the service or would the people start from scratch.
it is not always the man expected that makes a difference i have found.

[DeAdLY SiNZz]

I would assume that certain military structures would survive whether it would last as to wheter or not we would do the world any good is a undeteremined possibilty i would assume we would attempt to help the civilans or we could hole up on are base and tell y'all to well get the F*** out who knows it can't be predetermined but my best assumption would be we would help y'all at all cost, while fortiyfying are bases and bringing people onto base to protect them.

[J Dub]

I would assume that certain military structures would survive whether it would last as to wheter or not we would do the world any good is a undeteremined possibilty i would assume we would attempt to help the civilans or we could hole up on are base and tell y'all to well get the F*** out who knows it can't be predetermined but my best assumption would be we would help y'all at all cost, while fortiyfying are bases and bringing people onto base to protect them.

as much as i hate assumptions, i like the sound of yours. :drinking:

i like the simplicity of the military style, but the question remains.

would you be willing to start from scratch in a new system with people you don't know, or have even met?

[hotlead]

That's where discipline and the UCMJ comes into play.

This type of clusterf**k has happened before, the plan going out the window and everyone being split up and regrouped into impromptu units, and the military has protocols in place to deal with this. An example most folks will recognize is the invasion of Normandy in WWII.

Almost everything went wrong, misdrops, units landing on the wrong beach, the equipment to be used not making it ashore, bombing raids missed the targets, all kinds of stuff got screwed up, but discipline and military customs combined with individual bravery and resourcefulness to make things happen.

I think the military will do just fine on Z-day.

[J Dub]

That's where discipline and the UCMJ comes into play.

This type of clusterf**k has happened before, the plan going out the window and everyone being split up and regrouped into impromptu units, and the military has protocols in place to deal with this. An example most folks will recognize is the invasion of Normandy in WWII.

Almost everything went wrong, misdrops, units landing on the wrong beach, the equipment to be used not making it ashore, bombing raids missed the targets, all kinds of stuff got screwed up, but discipline and military customs combined with individual bravery and resourcefulness to make things happen.

I think the military will do just fine on Z-day.

there are some good points made by hotlead. but i don't know if you could really match a z-day apocalypse to d-day.
d-day was basically a dot on the map compared to a world wide clusterfook. it was also outfitted with those trained, where as in z-day it would be from all corners.
i guess the question remains. would military meld with civilian and would a civilian be respected by the military to run the show (so to speak)?

[DeAdLY SiNZz]

as much as i hate assumptions, i like the sound of yours. :drinking:

i like the simplicity of the military style, but the question remains.

would you be willing to start from scratch in a new system with people you don't know, or have even met?

I honestly say yes i could but i have to ask the ? to y'all. Would y'all listen to the remaining military members or just overthrow them or kill them off, without giving them a chance to either blend in or to reamin your protecting force? Honestly if the shiat hit's the fan i'm military i stand by my duty to portect the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA but if i get civie shooting at me telling me to fudge off and all that good stuff i'm gonna tell ya to do the same and the end result to that treatment of the military would be for the branches to pretty much evac just are selves, not saying thats reality but i could see that possibilty. But that would be the VERRRRRRY last thing we did, we would try countless times to save and help all civies bcuz thats what we are hre for, but if we cam down to having a minuim force left either we would drop it completely or take oon new recruits in the middle of the war. You do what you gotta do to survive. A civilain could be respected, and run the show but it better be a big bad azz civie before they allow it i'd more expect to se a big time genereal in power instead with a civie as his right hand man to quell the civilains. We could meld with y'all but we'd want to stay military, my ? is can y'all meld with us without causing a ruckus?

[J Dub]

I honestly say yes i could but i have to ask the ? to y'all. Would y'all listen to the remaining military members or just overthrow them or kill them off, without giving them a chance to either blend in or to reamin your protecting force?

hellz yeah :drinking:

hopefully many are on the same page.

[DeAdLY SiNZz]

Then if all the other civies were on the same page then we should hav no problem with both sides coming 2gether as one, and even like i said possibly recruting some new peps who want to fight to win and do the best for the rest of humanity!!! HUUUUAAAH

[J Dub]

there would be the usual dissension amongst some, but they would adjust or cast themselves out.
i think we'd hold up alright, there might be a bump or two along the way but nothing major. heck if the shtf most of the liberals would be extinct, what problems could there be :lol:

in canada its hoooo-ehh:)

[DeAdLY SiNZz]

lol agreed, we could always show them we mean business by leaving a few anatagonist behind to fend for themselves