In the situation where the toughest hardly even comes close to strength, I will take them out first....Then have fun brutally crushing the minions with sheer force and blood lust.

Assuming I'm alone, and if the toughest is quite powerful , and is in range of noticing me if I were to attack the minions, then I would go for the toughest first.

Assuming I'm alone and if the minions can be evaded with stealth, then I will go for the toughest first to conserve ammo, energy etc.

This depends on a lot of factors that need to be specified before I can give a definite response.

However, if one enemy is simply tougher, as in all around better, then I'd take out the strongest first. He would most likely be able to cause enough harm, at least compared to the others, and as a such I'd be wasting my time taking out the weaker ones.

Voting on both sides. Which would be the better strategy would fundamentally depend not only on the relative capability of the toughest vs the weakest, but also the absolute capability of each. The relative size of both my own forces and the enemy would come to play as well.

If we're talking about a battle with other humans in modern times, firearms make even the weakest of the enemies a potentially lethal threat in and of himself, and the toughest doesn't necessarily represent a significantly larger threat than the minions. They would also serve as a force multiplier for the toughest by covering the angles that the toughest cannot, amongst other things- and vice versa, the toughest boosting the morale of the minions. In a direct confrontation where I have equal or somewhat less numbers than the enemy, neither the weakest nor the toughest should be singled out, but rather attacks of opportunity should be made wherever they arise. If my forces significantly outnumber that of the enemy, on the other hand, I would attempt to single out the toughest, in hopes that the combination of superior numbers and loss of their best men would encourage a surrender. If my forces are significantly lower than that of the enemy, I would favor hit and run style attacks, bleeding the weakest of them to make the force more manageable.

See how it can go either way, even with a set assumed relative and absolute threat between the toughest and the minions, depending on the disposition of my own forces? Change up the relative and absolute threat of the enemy and things are complicated further. Add different types/classes of enemies than just 'toughest' and 'minion' and its complicated even further. Terrain and mobility are huge factors as well. These are just some of the reasons that education is so important to military officers; a one size fits all solution does not exist in my estimation.

Defeating the toughest would require more energy and presence of mind as in comparison with the others....

There are two ways

1 If you positively think that you are better than all of them the go for a fight

2 If you have a little doubt then defeat the other with an ease and look for his STRAREGY

Well we need more alliances and we're not getting through with ISIS

In my opinion, I think you should defeat the toughest enemies first. The tougher enemies have the potential to deal the most damage and are harder to take down than the minions. You will be too damaged to fight as effectively against the tougher enemies if you go for the minions first.