How to Make the Best Super Soldier

[Cpt Toellner]

Well I'm sure the equipment aspect would vary based on what time period these soldiers are being made. A roman super soldier would only have so many weapons to choose from say, a WW2 super soldier.

Would it? Humans use tools, it's how we sucseed. A roman super soldier could carry a heavier sheild, a larger sword, thicker armor. You can do more, it doesnt always need to be technical or creative, simply adding an extra inch to your plate armor without sacrificing mobility would require a better human.

 

[Random]

For a super soldier to be a good one, they'd also need to know when to follow instructions and when to not.

It's all well and good following a battle plan crafted by someone smarter than you, but if your superior tells you to leave alone your squadmates who are busy raping whoever, would we really consider them a good soldier to obey that command?

 

[The Philosoraptor]

For a super soldier to be a good one, they'd also need to know when to follow instructions and when to not.

It's all well and good following a battle plan crafted by someone smarter than you, but if your superior tells you to leave alone your squadmates who are busy raping whoever, would we really consider them a good soldier to obey that command?

A good person? No. A good soldier? Yes.

 

[Brovo]

A good person? No. A good soldier? Yes.

+1

A Soldier is by definition a person trained and equipped to commit murder in the name of King and Country. Morality is completely secondary to that task, totally up in the air depending on your ideology.

Besides, if we wanna talk future warfare, it won't be fought with soldiers anyway. It'll be fought with smart bombs and bigger threats, drones, and so on. A soldier might flinch in the face of a morally questionable order, a drone will simply inquire "how many?"

 

[The Philosoraptor]

+1

A Soldier is by definition a person trained and equipped to commit murder in the name of King and Country. Morality is completely secondary to that task, totally up in the air depending on your ideology.

Besides, if we wanna talk future warfare, it won't be fought with soldiers anyway. It'll be fought with smart bombs and bigger threats, drones, and so on. A soldier might flinch in the face of a morally questionable order, a drone will simply inquire "how many?"

A drone won't even ask. A drone will just nuke an urban area for good measure.

 

[Reaper Jack]

How to get the perfect super-soldier?

Hire me. And give me a tank or five hundred.

 

[Razilin]

Big army is best army.

 

[The Philosoraptor]

Big army is best army.

Except the one that can be wiped out by one superior soldier.

 

[Reaper Jack]

Except the one that can be wiped out by one superior soldier.

Such a thing is only real in movies and on TV. Even the best soldier will go down to superior numbers. A lesson that the Soviets, Chinese and Vietnamese all learnt the hard way, but it did lead them all to victory in the end.

 

[Razilin]

Army of One is best Army?

 

[The Philosoraptor]

Such a thing is only real in movies and on TV. Even the best soldier will go down to superior numbers. A lesson that the Soviets, Chinese and Vietnamese all learnt the hard way, but it did lead them all to victory in the end.

Superiority, especially on the level we're debating here, cannot be defeated by superior numbers. If the Persians hadn't found a way around the phalanx, the Greek army at Thermopylae would have either been victorious (as in they could retreat safely after achieving what they had gone there to achieve) or lasted much longer than they did. A superior soldier would not only be capable of brute physical feats, but also be smart enough to manipulate their environment as well. Brains beats brawn. Excessive brawn beats brains. Brains + Brawn? Beats anything.

 

[Reaper Jack]

Superiority, especially on the level we're debating here, cannot be defeated by superior numbers. If the Persians hadn't found a way around the phalanx, the Greek army at Thermopylae would have either been victorious (as in they could retreat safely after achieving what they had gone there to achieve) or lasted much longer than they did. A superior soldier would not only be capable of brute physical feats, but also be smart enough to manipulate their environment as well. Brains beats brawn. Excessive brawn beats brains. Brains + Brawn? Beats anything.

Not exactly.
A mob of peasants is no more an army than a pile of bricks is a house.
I'm talking situations where everyone is a soldier, the Persian Army I'm assuming had a rather large proportion of peasants/slaves forced to fight.
And Thermopylae is a rather dubious example, the facts are blurred there as it was so long ago, and like all Greek accounts, incomplete.
More importantly, we're talking a *single* super-soldier, unless he's Accelerator, he's not going to be able to take millions of regular soldiers, and Accelerator isn't real.
Just making a point, not really trying to argue it here.

 

[Quiet One]

What would be the point in creating an enhanced human, only to remove the most human aspects? Why not just make drone then? The whole point of a supersoldier (in my eyes at least) is to combine the complicated metal capacities of a human with an immensely destructive force.

And speaking of that, what about equipment? Some jacked-up killer is pretty limited if he only has a tea-cup and boxer-briefs.

The first: Why not just have a drone? An unstoppable, self repairing machine with no remorse. All you'd have to do is point it at the target and get out of the way.

The second: Riddick can totally kill someone with a tea-cup. A good killer can work with anything.

 

[The Philosoraptor]

Not exactly.

A mob of peasants is no more an army than a pile of bricks is a house.

I'm talking situations where everyone is a soldier, the Persian Army I'm assuming had a rather large proportion of peasants/slaves forced to fight.

And Thermopylae is a rather dubious example, the facts are blurred there as it was so long ago, and like all Greek accounts, incomplete.

More importantly, we're talking a *single* super-soldier, unless he's Accelerator, he's not going to be able to take millions of regular soldiers, and Accelerator isn't real.

Just making a point, not really trying to argue it here.

Sure, a mob of peasants is different. But send a good 500,000 peasants at around 5,000 Greeks (since it wasn't only 300 Spartans present there)? They should have died, brutally crushed under the feet of charging horses and peasants. Yet they were masterful soldiers, better equipped, and managed to hold despite being outnumbered.

The same principle applies to a super soldier. Give them a rocket launcher, minigun, power armor, and genetic enhancements, as well as genetically augment them to the point of being almost inhuman, and they could probably take on an infinite number of modern soldiers. Especially considering modern strategies. Usually we don't fight in massive lines anymore, so the super soldier would only have to take down, say, 100 Kurds or ISIS jihadists in the Middle East, greatly increasing his chances at survival.

 

[Reaper Jack]

Sure, a mob of peasants is different. But send a good 500,000 peasants at around 5,000 Greeks (since it wasn't only 300 Spartans present there)? They should have died, brutally crushed under the feet of charging horses and peasants. Yet they were masterful soldiers, better equipped, and managed to hold despite being outnumbered.

The same principle applies to a super soldier. Give them a rocket launcher, minigun, power armor, and genetic enhancements, as well as genetically augment them to the point of being almost inhuman, and they could probably take on an infinite number of modern soldiers. Especially considering modern strategies. Usually we don't fight in massive lines anymore, so the super soldier would only have to take down, say, 100 Kurds or ISIS jihadists in the Middle East, greatly increasing his chances at survival.

That's going down a bumpy road at best.
It's what the National Socialists tried after all. Albeit on a more rudimentary level.
Also, a soldier is only ever as dangerous as his tools allow him to be. A rocket launcher is not a kill all against all vehicles.
Again however, I am simply debating this for no real reason.

 

[The Philosoraptor]

The first: Why not just have a drone? An unstoppable, self repairing machine with no remorse. All you'd have to do is point it at the target and get out of the way.

The second: Riddick can totally kill someone with a tea-cup. A good killer can work with anything.

Drone? No. Living troops can distinguish between civilians and enemies. Unless you want a really, really big massacre? You need living soldiers to fight enemy soldiers, not drones who blow shit up everywhere.

As for Riddick? LORD MARSHALL OF THE NECROMONGERS FOR THE WIN!!!!!

 

[Quiet One]

Not for the win, because Riddick killed him. Ha!

Psychological programming for the drone solution. Anyone they see not acting aggressively towards them they'll ignore, but anyone who tries to fight they kill.

 

[The Philosoraptor]

Not for the win, because Riddick killed him. Ha!

Psychological programming for the drone solution. Anyone they see not acting aggressively towards them they'll ignore, but anyone who tries to fight they kill.

What about a mother protecting her children? She'd be acting aggressively.

Also, I meant Lord Marshall Riddick.

 

[The Philosoraptor]

Would it? Humans use tools, it's how we sucseed. A roman super soldier could carry a heavier sheild, a larger sword, thicker armor. You can do more, it doesnt always need to be technical or creative, simply adding an extra inch to your plate armor without sacrificing mobility would require a better human.

Adding an extra inch would decrease mobility, though. If we're talking Romans, you would have to sacrifice mobility and safety in exchange for heavier and thicker defenses.

 

[Quiet One]

What about a mother protecting her children? She'd be acting aggressively.

Also, I meant Lord Marshall Riddick.

Protective, mostly. Unless the child itself acted out against the machine, the drone would ignore the kid in the first place. I mean aggressive against the machine in particular.

And as for the Lord Marshall - the movie kind of ended without making it very clear if Riddick took the job. I'm just not sure he's the military type. He's a good leader and all, but he doesn't really delegate.