51–60 of 211 posts
This had me laughing out loud. Very visual and effective image. It almost hurts.
As both a former army officer as well as someone who appreciates historical Chinese, it pains me to say that I found it underwhelming. I’m not saying that any one on here is like this, but in my experience it def attracts a certain type who, among other things, have a zero sum, “business is war” mindset that’s a tad creepy. Unlike everyone I know who has actually served .
Sun Tzu's work was aimed at nobled who had zero experience and knowledge in warfare; a lot of it is low-hanging fruit, but you have to build up the basis for these things like "make sure your soldiers have food" and "don't tell your opponent what you're up to" in these people. It's why I don't understand why in the US, the president is also the top military commander. I'm sure they have good advisors and the good one…
It's also true in quite some other countries, and it is to ensure that the military remains subordinated to the civil government, after the many examples of military coups in History.
This is a weirdly specific complaint that imho makes far too much of the 'death ground' thing. Sun Tzu certainly talks about this on several occasions, but he doesn't present it as an ideal; it's for when you don't have other good tactical or strategic choices and you have to go all in. The western equivalent is 'burning you boats' to emphasize (to your own and perhaps to opposing forces) that you are fully committed…
Many of Napoleon's most famous victories were won with a significant numerical disadvantage. If you had tried to determine the outcome of a battle at the time by simply comparing the number of men on each side, you would have failed often.
For me Sun Tzu is the first man who told something atheistic. He told that no god can predict or help in the combat. Very impressive as for 500 b.c.
I think he meant god with lowercase G not God with uppercase G.
As both a former army officer as well as someone who appreciates historical Chinese, it pains me to say that I found it underwhelming. I’m not saying that any one on here is like this, but in my experience it def attracts a certain type who, among other things, have a zero sum, “business is war” mindset that’s a tad creepy. Unlike everyone I know who has actually served .
Sun Tzu's work was aimed at nobled who had zero experience and knowledge in warfare; a lot of it is low-hanging fruit, but you have to build up the basis for these things like "make sure your soldiers have food" and "don't tell your opponent what you're up to" in these people. It's why I don't understand why in the US, the president is also the top military commander. I'm sure they have good advisors and the good one…
Somebody has to be in charge of the military. If that person is just someone promoted from within, you're never more than one person's decision from a coup d'etat, "A republic, if you can keep it". So, an elected leader it is.
Of the three branches of the US government, only one is intended to provide an executive function, to decide, in an instant where necessary, without deliberation and compromise. The President. So that's the right person for the job of ultimate military commander, and it's one of the few things about that job which the voters seem to actually have some idea about.
Both the US and UK systems are under-staffed. The UK shares the job of executive leader and legislative leader (very different skill sets) under one role "Prime Minister" - while the US shares the job of executive leader and head of state (a figurehead) which also require totally different skill sets under the role of "President". This would make sense with a very small population, but it's crazy to imagine these huge countries couldn't find two people to do these very different jobs even a little better than one man (and in the US it has always been a man somehow) can do both.
This is a weirdly specific complaint that imho makes far too much of the 'death ground' thing. Sun Tzu certainly talks about this on several occasions, but he doesn't present it as an ideal; it's for when you don't have other good tactical or strategic choices and you have to go all in. The western equivalent is 'burning you boats' to emphasize (to your own and perhaps to opposing forces) that you are fully committed…
True that, but there has been plenty of more substantive critique. e.g. https://scholars-stage.org/not-everyone-likes-sunzi/
As a descendant of Sun Tzu, I'm surprised to see a discussion about him at HN:)
I would certainly like to hear more about your inheritance of the family tradition and how discussions about it read to you.
As both a former army officer as well as someone who appreciates historical Chinese, it pains me to say that I found it underwhelming. I’m not saying that any one on here is like this, but in my experience it def attracts a certain type who, among other things, have a zero sum, “business is war” mindset that’s a tad creepy. Unlike everyone I know who has actually served .
Sun Tzu's work was aimed at nobled who had zero experience and knowledge in warfare; a lot of it is low-hanging fruit, but you have to build up the basis for these things like "make sure your soldiers have food" and "don't tell your opponent what you're up to" in these people. It's why I don't understand why in the US, the president is also the top military commander. I'm sure they have good advisors and the good one…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sun Tzu's work was aimed at nobled who had zero experience and knowledge in warfare; a lot of it is low-hanging fruit, but you have to build up the basis for these things like "make sure your soldiers have food" and "don't tell your opponent what you're up to" in these people. It's why I don't understand why in the US, the president is also the top military commander. I'm sure they have good advisors and the good one…
> It's why I don't understand why in the US, the president is also the top military commander. Somebody has to be in charge of the military. If that person is just someone promoted from within, you're never more than one person's decision from a coup d'etat, "A republic, if you can keep it". So, an elected leader it is. Of the three branches of the US government, only one is intended to provide an executive function,…
(Though I think that role might go to the chancellor in times of war. Not sure.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sun Tzu's work was aimed at nobled who had zero experience and knowledge in warfare; a lot of it is low-hanging fruit, but you have to build up the basis for these things like "make sure your soldiers have food" and "don't tell your opponent what you're up to" in these people. It's why I don't understand why in the US, the president is also the top military commander. I'm sure they have good advisors and the good one…
They're not, really. The way that you advise the president on military issues is you give them prepackaged "decisions" that are limited variations on the same choice. The president's authority over the military is a legal fiction much like many other legal fictions that keep the system going.
Of course, that style is a lot harder, and thus consumes a lot more limited attention.