/pnd/ - Politics, News, Debate

Training time-scales, or, THE CYCLES/ MILESTONES YOU SHOULD PLAN FOR:

<FULL: <1 second, 2 seconds, 5 to 10 seconds, 30 to 60 seconds, 5 minutes, 1 hour, 5 hours, 2 days, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 y ears, 4 years, 6 years, 8 years, 10 years, 13 years, 16 years, 20 years [one generation].

<ESSENTIAL: <1 second, 30 seconds, 1 day, 2 weeks, 3 months, 1 year, 4 years, 16 years.

<RULE OF THUMB: 2 weeks

So the idea is you boil anything down in 5 - 10 seconds, then an extended 30 - 45 seconds, then a 5 minute crash course, then an hour long lengthy bit of training, then a thorough half/third day of 5 hours, and then a 2 day course, then a week long course, a 2 week course, a month long training cycle, a 3 month long training macro-cycle, et cetera until you have to take into account more and more the wear and tear or burnout that is happening and are forced to recruit if you aren't already.

This works with physical training, skill training, education, or preparing for a whole situation. About to get mauled by niggers and have some slow fucks in your group? "Use solid kicks, control the head, follow my lead, X watch for weapons play support KILL THEM AGHHHH" Need to boil down violence/conflict to a group in a close quarter combat training arch? "KILL OR BE KILLED." << "God and Beast. As Man, grab the chain of each and keep from being ripped apart as they take off in opposing directions. Control your enemy and control yourself while resisting with power the shear tearing force and FRICTION of it. Fighting is chaos and it will be something abyssal and something divine that gets you through."

As well: In <1 second, you look for the moment someone makes a mistake or demonstrates a critical naivety and exploit it, showing them the flaw right away. It's to seek or create pointed and poignant opportunity.

If you're feeling a dull agony and boredom seeing the long list of time scales i.e. time preferences then stick to the Rule of Thumb. Once oriented and sorted out, programs designed and plans made, sort through the Essential time-scales

<If you have a different view on the details of this go ahead and say so. If you have knowledge you can apply Scale to please do so and share.

Remember that this is an intellectual exercise and we are drafting our own conceptions of what the best military organization would look like for fun and in order to critique each other's work, promoting discussion, productivity and creativity.

The fourth image of the OP should assist in structuring the conceptual model, and the Technical Writing wiki should assist in actually writing it down as well as for the structure of the conceptual model, and the Infogalactic wiki will of course assist one do their research.

Military manuals are available online, use:

>searx.me

… as your search engine, and use:

>gen.lib.rus.ec

… for a variety of books.

Of interest is that the US Military places Enlisted soldiers below branches for recruitment, "Learning from Experience", Human Resources and Career Counciling. Then you have commissioned and warrant officers above them all. Staff above the Enlisted.

To simplify discussion let's begin with the Tactical. As before I suggest 6 ranks, which is somewhat arbitrary but any more would have to be justified.

To speak of Tactical ranks: Private, Private First Class, Corporal, Corporal First Class, Sergent, Sergent First Class.

What training would a Private go through? What screening process and accommodations might they receive if any? How would you model or program the training, education and skill progressions of a Private? Similar questions for the Private First Class.

Luckily we have available a whole library of US Military manuals which you can find on archive.org. Listed below are the first stop anyone should take in learning about the US Military:

>ADP 1 The Army

>ADP 3-0 Unified Land Operations

>MCDRP1 Warfighting

>MCDP 1-0 Operation

>MCDP 1-1 Strategy

>MCDP 1-2 Campaigning

>MCDP 1-3 Tactics

>MCDP 2 Intelligence

>MCDP 3 Expeditionary Operations

>MCDP 4 Logistics

>MCDP 5 Planning

As you can see I'm mainly interested in infantry. I feel this is more relatable thus more interesting. Perhaps most of you feel similarly.

>>128995

Clarifying time-scale.

With such things as weight lifting there are time-scales one programs on, time-scales one invests their personal magic in, and time-scales one's goals ultimately lie on. You program 8 week meso(?)-cycles with a deload at the end, 5 day or 7 day micro cycles that may change each week, and possibly 48 - 56 week macro cycles that may spell the duration of some workout program you're using at the end of which you pick up another depending on the results and it's synergy with your level of progress and goals. Thus you find similar in every physical fitness and sports training, the time-scale is similar across the board. You might find some tryhard anime workout that works on a month time-scale, and perhaps some old man's 5 year time-scale, but overall the macro cycle is a year, the meso cycle 8 weeks, and the micro cycle is a week, with each workout similar or variable depending on the program. You might hit progress each day, each week, each month, each 2 months, each 4 months, who knows. Thus all of it functions on different time-scales and it's important to be able to deduce what exactly the relevant elements are that you should find time-scales of.

With marksmanship, it shouldn't take very long to become very good at it. A year perhaps. The progress you can make in a day, a week, a month and so forth are still relevant though and informs a military how much they can get out of a very limited amount of time and training.

Outside of training there are many elements where time-scale is critical or at least somewhat important. How far can you travel in 10 seconds? 10 seconds with a hundred pounds weighing you down? 10 seconds with a hundred pounds weighing you down going up hill? What about in an hour? What if you're starving, dehydrated, demoralized, sick? Having a measure of things is just par for the course. I believe this would all be exceptionally relevant for someone working on the Operational level, as I think mastering the dimensions of scale and measure makes for exceptional decision-making.

<Perhaps we should focus on the perceptual training of scale and measure that someone on the Tactical level would need to become competent in?

Judging distance by a glance would be important. Knowing how much time it would take to cross a field, how much fire you may take and how likely an enemy is to hit how many given the parameters. This would be up to a Corporal and higher to know as they command teams of men. A private or private first class only needs to know how likely it is he'll hit someone by the distances involved, and focus on the basics.

>>128995

>>129027

'Time-Preference, Time-Scales

Those that can bring their energy into the moment can muster great intensity. Those that can manage this more than others have certain advantages though may neglect longer time-scales. This is called a time-preference. Ideally one doesn't have a time-preference they neurotically cling to, but after evolving from their inclinations they can effectively operate on a breadth of time-scales and know when to switch from one to the other given the task and circumstances.

People can generally multi-task though, so while one focuses on say, their form and energy efficiency while running, they are trying to reach the other side of a field whilst hair-trigger ready to drop to the ground if some hidden enemy opens fire. In this example the hair-trigger readiness would be an example of a quarter second time-scale, as the buzzing nerves are poised to react in a quarter of a second or less. The attention to form would possibly be a half-second and quarter second time-scale depending. The journey to the other side of the field would be thirty to sixty seconds, depending. Of course, if there might be enemies nearby why would you cross an open field?

Let's assume there's an air-drop in the field that you have to pick up. 60 lbs. If you had trained in the months prior to move more quickly or have greater stamina and you've been marching for days, would it take 20 seconds to retrieve it? 30 seconds? How likely is a person to be shot given a scenario with a round open field 130m in diameter with 2.5 ft tall grass, and one shooter with an M16 in the treeline 100 degrees to where you left the treeline yourself, that doesn't notice you crossing until you're half to the drop, when it takes you 7 seconds to reach it? 11 seconds? What if your, say, fireteam has fanned out to cover half the perimeter of the field and the shooter was on the opposite side, and a teammate went with you to help bring it back? How likely is it one of you gets shot before the enemy flees or dies, or you return to the edge of the field? Where are you most and least likely to get shot, and how does this affect the hypothetical scenario? If one guy goes down, does the other return the package first then come back for you? There's tall grass after all, but if the enemy has backup moving in all of you may need to retreat right away; thus you may be in an even riskier scenario going back for him when a supply drop at least provides the option to just leave the fucking thing.

So time-scales are also time-windows, clearly. And if you'll recall time-preferences, they too are time-windows of opportunity and risk. Given you have a certain time-window how do you make the most of it? Given it's a training window, given it's a tactical window, given it's an operation's or strategy window? Given a certain time to patrol, to scout, to get somewhere, to get the necessary resources and/or transport them? All of it requires a very strong grasp of time and timing.

STP 21-1-SMCT, Warrior Skills, Level 1; STP 21-24-SMCT, Warrior Skills, Level 2, 3, 4; over 16mb file limit:

>https://www.milsci.ucsb.edu/sites/secure.lsit.ucsb.edu.mili.d7/files/sitefiles/resources/STP%2021-1-SMCT,%20Warrior%20Skills,%20Level%201.pdf

>https://www.milsci.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/sitefiles/resources/STP%2021-24-SMCT,%20Warrior%20Leader%20Skills,%20Level%202,%203,%20and%204.pdf

Unit Size and Leadership

>Given the proposed six ranks for Tactical operatives of Private, Private First Class, Corporal, Corporal First Class, Sergent and Sergent First Class.

<There should also be the rankless recruit, not officially a member of the military so perhaps referred to as 'listed' or 'rankless'.

The unit size increased exponentially from 2. The Private commands none but himself, and would be 2 to the power of 0, otherwise known as 1. The Private First Class commands himself and one other, making a team of 2, known as a Fire and Maneuver Team in the American military. The Corporal commands himself and three others, making a team of 4, known as a Fireteam in the American military. The Corporal First Class commands himself and seven others, making a team of 8, known as a Squad in the American military. The Sergent commands himself and fifteen others, making a team of 16, known as a Platoon in the American military. The Sergent First Class commands himself and thirty one others, making a team of 32, known as a Platoon as well in the American military, being the top end of the size range.

>Given the proposed five ranks for Operations operatives, currently without [placeholder] names.

<Odd ranks of Operations operatives should see a doubling in unit size under their command.

First Rank: 64 including oneself. Between a Platoon and a Company in the American military.

Third Rank: 128 including oneself. Known as a Company in the American military.

Fifth Rank: 256 including oneself. Between a Company and Battalion in the American military.

>Given the proposed four ranks for Strategy operatives, currently without [placeholder] names.

<Each rank should see a doubling in unit size.

First Rank: 512 including oneself. Known as a Battalion in the American military

Second Rank: 1 024 including oneself. Between a Battalion and a Regiment in the American military.

Third Rank: 2 048 including oneself. Known as a Regiment in the American military.

Fourth Rank: 4 096 including oneself.Known as a Regiment in the American military, on the high end of the range.

As one can see, by this method the top unit size possible is a mere 4096 strong Regiment. This is intentional, so as to force commanders to make the most of what they are given. Since they understand and have experienced commanding each tier of unit, and the units scale up linearly (being very easily split up) they should know how to maximize the effectiveness of their unit at every scale and each scale of unit should find it easy to execute on commands.

<Perhaps above these ranks would be spiritual and political leaders.

The issue with the ease of scale and splitting of these units, and the self-dependency fostered all around, and breadth of training at all ranks, is that it would be easy for a military to fracture and units to go rogue and do their own thing. In a war with a clear premise and goal this isn't the case, but with the standard of corruption and muddledness the USA demonstrates, excellence can't tolerate the bullshit and it drops out. Thus, political and spiritual excellence is the domain of Strategic operatives somewhat, and perhaps the primary training of a theoretical higher level called Grand Strategy. As politicians today control the military, perhaps it will be the military trained that become politicians in the future, and it will be Good.

The issue of "war for war's sake" may arise from this however. Seeking excellence, to whet their blade, they seek war and lead the nation to constant and intense immoral wars. Thus the Operations operative seeks mental excellence, in the analytical sense, and the Strategy operative seeks mental excellence in the strategic, the high level synthesis, the crafty and sometimes wise sense. Then the Grand Strategist, with deeper wisdom and creativity, operating on time-tables that sometimes stretch beyond their own lives, must recognize the depth and complexity of moral and spiritual elements. They must plant trees they'll never know the shade of, nip buds that none would suspect malevolent till their grandchildren suffered the consequences, inspire and lead in ways that will only show its virtue in rare but possibly inevitable circumstances (and at critical junctures), but most of all they must know and confront their own marrow.

>Given a proposed three ranks for Grand Strategists.

First Rank: 8 192 including oneself. Between a Regiment and a Division in the American military.

Second Rank: 16 384 including oneself. Exceeding a Division by some margin, in the American military.

Third Rank: 32 768 including oneself. A Corps in the American military.

>>132110

<Though I said the logical doubling of units and excellent broad training may result in easy fracturing if fighting a retarded or convoluted war, I'd like to backpedal and proclaim that it would be much much more difficult under any expected circumstances.

>The only reason I said it would be easier is I imagined the linear scaling with the broad and rather deep competencies would give each individual and their unit a strong sense of identity along with a mastery of the hierarchy they exist within, thus they may see the way things are being done and the purposes the hierarchy are put to as wrong, and with their sense of mastery they may feel that it is their own domain or territory in a primal sense that is being devalued, and too they may feel their commander isn't much different from themselves, thus they may go against their commands in small ways until finally they go against them completely and proclaim themselves independent.

>It happens already in militaries around the world. Maybe making things conceptually simple would promote this, maybe dissuade it, maybe there's a change in behavior of the phenomenon but overall no difference. Maybe the change in behavior is beneficial either way though.

Perhaps the reason the USA military uses the units it does is that 8 is the maximum one can feel a close bond to their group, 30 is the maximum one can feel part of a group or class of people, and 150 is the maximum one can feel part of a tribe. This is backed by empirical study. Is 800 another special number? Is 4, 000? Are these numbers iron clad? 7 is about the number of objects (objects of attention not necessarily physical) your working memory can work with. What is 30 the maximum of? 150?

I think that with the jump of 7 to 30, you have about 4 groups under your command, and then you usually have peers and a leader. When operating just within your group you may interact with 4 sub-group leaders and some individuals, which could add up to 7. When dealing with peers and leaders, you have 1 above you and at least 2 peers, which when considering the 4 you command you get 7 once again.

In general you want to group anything by 5 - 9 max. Any mental model should take in up to 7 and output less than the input. Thus you give the same command to groups A and B, specific command for C, same command to groups D and F, and the same commands for groups E and G. Inside the mental model you have a process that may fluctuate between 1 and 9, but the end result should be effective and under the input #.

>>134096

OP here.

You're not supposed to be an untrained armchair, faggot.

>Anything over 20 miles a day, especially (lol casualties from one 20 mile hike) consecutively, would cause a ton of casualties before ever seeing the enemy.

Jesus christ. You are the extreme opposite of what I was espousing. The opinion of someone with 0 fitness informing their own opinion with their own physical incompetence.

Given a year of training, going 30 miles with 35 lbs as the other anon said >>129501 would be the norm, not 10 miles. 20 miles will kill people? Really? The standards would have to be so terribly low we'd be talking about… I guess the modern USA army! You have a point. In a degenerate shit hole your standards would be standard.

4 mph, a mild walking pace for 8 hours nets you 32 miles

This is not even mentioning 10 minute breaks each hour and a 30 minute break in the middle of the afternoon.

I'm not sure if delusion is this rampant or you're a shill. People can be retarded when it comes to math and fitness, but this is just depressing. The other anon was reasonable, you are not.

>>134102

I believe keeping it to 2s rather than 3s would be good as it frees up working memory, and leaders have more objects of working memory to deal with so it helps them command better. Tactical level soldiers should focusing on looking in the darkest parts of the shadows around them, scanning the horizon and sky, synthesizing tactical plans in changing environments, going over their training, et cetera. In the fire, they should be able to perceive and think about what their whole squad or fireteams or other squads are doing to find opportunities and come up with shit on the spot, which is easier with a total of 8 than 12. When not thinking about what the other fireteam or squads are doing, you are focusing on the enemy and their actions/movements. Thus, freeing up working memory/attention is good no matter what.

It might even be better to, instead of doubling, adding half. So 1 goes up to 2 goes up to 3 goes up to 4, to 6, to 9, to 13, to 19, to 29, et cetera. This way you can work out the nuance of tactical this and that better.

The lack of depth in tactics would account for the "MOOOOOOREEE" approach to units. If you have a super team of 2, adding 1 is a game changer. When you have a super team of 3, adding 1 is a game changer. When you have a super team of 4, adding 1 perhaps is not a game changer, but adding 2 is.

Thus 6 ranks would not suffice. 9 would do it though, and that's the upper limit of how many objects a person can hold in working memory so one can conceptualize the rise of tactical scale with full view of the 'territory' so to speak. This should lead to extreme tactical depth and effectiveness.

Personally I think the people in charge of a tactical team should be the most tactically competent, most physically competent, most perceptually competent (aware, dynamic, quick, sharp eyes and ears). This scaling would ensure that those at the top have the most thorough experience and training to make that possible.

As for the Operations level ranks - 44, 66, 99. If each rank sees an increase in unit size - 149, 224 as well. The doubles is quaint but it's just following the x1.5 rule. Operations level has the same responsibilities per usual, but should be very near-tactical. A very involved support and command role in any engagement. They should be the brains of any operation, and competent in technical matters. Education plays a big role at this level, as you can only engage so much so if you lack the competence to command appropriately. If one's ability to engage with operations is shallow then there is a problem that requires remedy; it should be so involved and deep that one innovates on the spot often - that one deepens the tactical and operational art (as each rank should by way of pushing to a realization of absolute efficacy and mastery).

>grand strategy

I used to play lots of eu4 myself

>>134162

Make it through training and possibly war, and you'll eventually rank up to Strategist.

>>133938

Glad to help. I survey a lot of books and authors looking for interesting ideas and topics. I have another you'd be interested in I think, "Logic and the Art of Memory" by Rossi. As far as I can deign from the description, it suggests that the use and development of memory techniques lead to the creation of logic, in an effort to find a universal language to encapsulate phenomena. This puts one in the ontological and epistemological level in order to author phenomena with greatest encompass, distilling praxis and fundamental axioms of nature (phenomena), and then of the relative abstract itself (epistemological, ontological) perhaps placing one on an even more abstract level (noumena? Creation by lack of contradiction but without necessity to exist, thus yet uncreated, perhaps never to be created?).

I don't know how the book goes but it's an interesting premise.

http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php? md5=2B5D7AEF6DB728E3108ECBB86A2B822D

over 16mb so can't upload

>>134231

I like the idea of re-inventing it from the ground up. Means I get to learn it inside and out. Most people don't know much about the subject and it would be a good opportunity for anyone else as well.

As for your account of weight: Rifle ~8 lbs yeah? Water 8 lbs, 8 lbs of ammo, and at least 13 lbs of plates but often 26 lbs, some extra including magazines, grenades, helmet, clothing and pack, making a total of 50 lbs at the very least. This would make sense if some equipment and food were being carried by vehicles. Assuming no vehicles then 65 lbs, 70 lbs. Assuming full plate then 80 lbs average is about right.

Hey that's my weight vest's top weight.

As for blisters: The issue is mostly the sock and boot; feet should develop thick thick hide (not so much callouses) by barefoot hiking in bootcamp (heh). Once one can jog on craggy gravel with 30 lbs or so, barefoot without injury or much discomfort, there should be very little blistering once within boots. On safe terrain one can go without the boots and socks entirely. This also promotes the ankle strength necessary to avoid injury. Barefoot tends to reduce impact at the heel and is better for knees generally - people walk with better form I guess when barefoot.

I was wondering if you were some idiot or military, assumed you were an idiot, didn't check your ID as I would have decided you were talking big weight if I knew you were the guy who posted >>134102

I think with modern athletic, sports and physiological science, plus the wisdom and insights of the best and strongest, all can make supermen out of common soldiers so that at least 30 miles with 80 lbs is a feasible daily march. The feet are a big issue and barefoot hiking on various terrains will both prevent injury in skin and bone; the chaotic stimulus of a bumpy surface goes a long ways to building all around strong and durable feet. Boots make walking form tend towards the heel which is absolute shit. Glucosamine and chondroitin supplementation will lead to bone microfractures healing on the daily. Cod liver oil or Krill oil will oil up the joints, prevent pain or cure pain and aid healing of the foot joints and bones too. Strength and plyometric training of the shins, calves, ankles, knees and feet will go a long long way. In general the eccentric is more important for preventing injury so that will be focused on. Isometrics have been shown to lead to incredible strength, and I believe eccentric strength especially. It develops steadiness and proper force transference too. Development of the posterior chain and the standing range of motion will allow one to deal with the weight on one's torso. The lumbar has to be built and the core too; the shovel lift can assist in this, as it's an asymmetric stimulus on the torso/spine. The asymmetrically loaded deadlift as well. Many old strongman exercises develop the lumbar and 'awkward strength' in general, which would help quite a bit. I think a wheelbarrow exercise would be good but I'm not sure if it would make the cut as a high shoulder carry would be more "sport specific", but it's somewhat like a deadlift and should round out one's strength (I think it shores up some blind spots so to speak).

There's a lot to go into so I'll just suggest authors that have a lot to say on the topic of strength. With strength one can avoid many of these injuries you mention. You can't have conditioning to carry 80 lbs for tens of miles if you don't have the strength to prevent injury. If you can prevent injury with ultra high strength, you can condition up to at least 30 miles.

With your input I think 80 miles is a mythical realm, but feats of strength have seemed rather mythical and feats of strength generally don't involve the feet, calves or shins, so there's an area that once developed could possibly allow a breakthrough in marching.

The authors and books:

Steve Justa "Rock, Iron, Steel", "Iron Isometrics"

Bud Jeffries a lot of books

Harry Wong (heh) "Dynamic Strength"

"NSCA's Tactical Strength and Conditioning Facilitator's Reference Guide"

Alexander Zass "Samson's Systems and Methods", skim " The Amazing Samson"

There's some myofascial stuff that would suggest optimal exercise patterns, but I haven't looked into it much.

(((OP))) here.

Some mathematics revealing a path to supreme physical excellence.

On Sprinting

The foot contact time of regular, average sprinters is equal to that of their air-time. This time is about .12 seconds. The approximate G-force they exert is about 4G. An olympic sprinter's foot-strike is about .08 seconds and their air-time is still about .12 seconds. The approximate G-force they exert is about 6G.

>This means that when you sprint, if you weight 150 lbs you are virtually 600 lbs when you strike the ground.

>When a 150 lb oly sprinter sprints, they weight virtually 900 lbs when they strike the ground.

<But this seems like bullshit to me.

Still, if you can walk with an extra 750 lbs on for about 291 meters, which is the max distance an olympic sprinter can go all out (on average), you will possibly be ready to reach olympic sprint speeds after training sprints for a few months.

<But this seems like bullshit to me.

I believe the time ratio is more important here. It takes .06 seconds for the average person to reverse the downward momentum of .12 seconds free fall; calculated from the top of the parabola of air-time to the point where the downward momentum is stopped and reversed. This ratio is 2x.

An olympic sprinter reverses this weight in .04 seconds, which totals the free-fall time to .10 seconds. This would be a ratio of 2.5x.

''Now given a mass falling for 1 second, it should take 1 second to stop it from accelerating any more given an opposite, upward acceleration that is double it. This tells that a standard sprinter is pushing 2G into the ground, as given a freefall of .06 seconds they stop the weight of their body in .06 seconds.

To think of this, think of a weight thrown up and falling down. This arcs in a parabola. The time it takes to peak and turn back towards the Earth is the same as the time it takes to fall from the peak of the arc to the level it was launched from. Now to cancel this downward acceleration you need an upward acceleration. This is just to cancel out the acceleration though, the velocity or speed will remain the same. Now imagine your upward acceleration is like gravity - assuming a parabola arc, a weight would 'free fall' upward at the same rate if you first neutralized gravity's acceleration with an upward force or acceleration equal to it (1G) which is pushing 1G into the ground because your upward acceleration comes from pushing down against the ground, and then add your upward acceleration of 1 more G to make it parabola upward in the same time as an object would in free fall.

But with the oly sprinter it's different. Momentum must make a 180 degree turn before the body can turn the free-fall around and push upward. Force = change in momentum over "change in time". Assuming momentum is down 1, it must go up 2, so that you wind up going up 1 when you add it up. Assuming time is 1, the change in time would be 1 if they were equal but it's 2/3 because it's quicker. It's a bit confusing but the point is that the force is exerted for less time with the same result. Thus it sums up to 3.

So the regular sprinter experiences 2G on average and the oly sprinter 3G in their foot-strike when sprinting.

The thing with this is that a weight lifter can get up to 10G whilst a sprinter will never experience that sort of training stimulus.

The slow grinding strength would require much more substantial eccentric strength and density. Instead of a horse you'd have a bull, but a fast fucking bull. Bulls can run quite fast actually. As one may guess, going a mile with 300 lbs on is not impossible at all. Some athletic sorts can go with 200 lbs on for a mile on flat land though they'd be sore and exhausted. I've personally, without any training and being a shut-in that doesn't work out, felt a surge of motivation and gone 3.75 miles up and down hills with 80 lbs on on a hot day without water. It took I believe 55 or 65 minutes. That's not 200 lbs but I'm nobody. I ended strong and felt refreshed and renewed at the end. I felt I could go longer but was satisfied. I spent the entire time exerting effort on my mental state, my focus, my will - I kept myself ready and in mentally-emotionally-motivationally good form. I took a small rest for a minute or three half way through, taking the weight off. I'm 160 lbs.

300 lbs on flat ground for a mile is very feasible for a 150 lb person. I believe it could be done without extreme willpower in six months if they have decent starting fitness.

All it takes is proper periodization, incremental progressions. I believe most of this is mental, creating your own program, going over the numbers. The goal is important, but it's about focus and will.

<Thus concludes my thoughts on physical training.

>Military discussion but future discussions will be about Intelligence

Don't put military before intelligence. Intelligence can (and does) render military unnecessary.

Infowar is non-central to the process. Republic is the theater. Infowar is the method of theatrics. And all theatrics are peripheral, and not even necessary in the grand scheme of things. The theater makes the economics more profitable, is all. Thus all infowar is actually economics; PR, simplifying the process.

The people are not central to the process. They like to think that they are, and hence we have Republic. And hence we have infowar.

Intelligence can (and does) render all military unnecessary. Much military action is now infowar. Vietnam was infowar.

Focus first on what you know, what you think you know, what your enemy knows, who your enemy is, and what your enemy thinks he knows, who you are, why you are here, and just what the hell is going on anyway, and you can eliminate all need for military action.

>>135989

>desperately looking for information on acausal reality

It's not hard to find.

>>136036

>walmart chair murrica guy, the post

China is another fake enemy to maintain the status quo, shill. America's (((overlords))) fake it into wars against its interests time after time, like shooting fish in a barrel.

>>136042

>>eliminate all need for war

>No.

>>136056

I think God (or perhaps lesser gods) are acausal.

>>136042

A persons value is determined by he who perceives.

>>135996

>It's not hard to find.

Feed me. ;^)

>>136113

Start with Jung. He had most of it figured out, FFS.

>>136146

>Get out /fringe/.

We are all looking forward to the announcement of your graduation and that you can finally do first grade math anon.

>>136129

Thanks fag.

>>136146

>Only thing preventing war is the extreme readiness for war

You can start by going to a modern u.s. military academy moron. They'll teach you sun tsu and the art of not being a gung-ho murrican LOSER

>>136169

Yeah but seriously read Jung.

>>136088

>vastly underrated post

Consider all the (((names))) talking up cold war with china, and if you don't see history repeating itself, you're murrican. That's the new murrican test.

>>136402

>still humming and ready to blow shit up

>>156406

The food chain?

Really? That is not a 'hierarchy' it is predator prey relationships.

Natural Law? WTF does this have to do with hierarchy?

Flocking species? Who gives a fuck? Are we 'chickens now' anon?

No hierarchy is a uniquely Jewish social system and it is you who needs to fuck off because you are a spiritual kike, anon.

>>156442

mfw distributed networks = hierarchies in a niggerkikes mind.

You are one dumb fucking nigger anon.

>>156432