Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

thestrategybridge.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 211 posts

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#61

Post by eru »

chaostheory wrote: post #43

I’m not sure how Sun Tzu is complete garbage when his strategies were vague and often not specific, so you can adapt them according to the situation To me the problem is that the study of war, like the study of economics or any other social study; isn’t a real science. There is no repeatable theoretical model, including The Art of War. There are no universal laws that always hold true in all situations.

> There are no universal laws that always hold true in all situations.

You could still apply statistics. That's what people who breed animals or plants do. Every organism is different and individual, too.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#62

Post by mcv »

I read Sun Tzu ages ago because it was this legendary book by an undefeated general, but I found it underwhelming. It's not that it's wrong; a lot of it is vital core strategic stuff. But a lot is tautological, a lot is obvious, a lot is very circumstantial, and quite a lot is vague nonsense.

I honestly don't see how you can possibly apply just Sun Tzu is battle. Much of it is vague or superficial. And that may be why it endures: the details of with change constantly, with every new technology and every new idea. But you can't fight a war with just basic principles; you've got to understand the weapons, the soldiers and the terrain and other circumstances you're fighting with.

In a sense, Sun Tzu even addresses that: you've got to know yourself and your enemy. So in a sense, the example that the article starts with, where Ma Su got to lead an army based just on his knowledge of Sun Tzu, was completely counter to Sun Tzu's advice: Ma Su may have known Sun Tzu, but he didn't know his own army or that of the enemy. That's what experience is for.

So it's not that Sun Tzu is nonsense; it's that it's not enough. And it's old. It's valuable because it was the first major treatise on strategy and war, but it has been improved upon for thousands of years. It doesn't trump anything that was written later. Later books address the same issues and more, but in a more appropriate context. It's not that Sun Tzu is bad, it's that more recent works are better, more up to date, more relevant, and more applicable.

That said, I recognise a lot of Sun Tzu's principles in the war in Ukraine. A blatant one: all over the summer they were talking about the battle for Kherson, and I thought: is it wise to announce that? That way Russia can prepare for it. And Russia did. And then Ukraine took a large swathe of land east of Kharkiv, on the complete opposite end of the frontline. "When you are going to attack nearby, make it look as if you are going to go a long way; when you are going to attack far away, make it look as if you are going just a short distance."

Later they did take Kherson, but only after Russia had withdrawn from it, because Ukraine had made it impossible for Russia to continue defending it. "Attack where there is no defense." Of course to accomplish that, they used long-range artillery that Sun Tzu couldn't even dream of.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#63

Post by detourdog »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #48
runlaszlorun wrote: post #28

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…

A civilian leads the country and soldiers lead armies.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#64

Post by mantas »

UweSchmidt wrote: post #37
runlaszlorun wrote: post #28

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 .

Modern militaries don't seem to enjoy the freedom to act and maneuver that a classic general enjoyed in the field (for good reasons). Modern requirements for transparency and democracy, and the interest of the military industrial complex don't help when you try to "appear weak when you are strong" or to "disguise a plan". For a mid-level army officer these things are probably even less applicable. I still think there…

On the other hand, Russians employed „appear strong when you're weak“ very well leading up to Ukraine war. Everybody believed the myth of the 2nd army of the world. However, they ate their own propaganda...

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#65

Post by mcv »

UweSchmidt wrote: post #37
runlaszlorun wrote: post #28

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 .

Modern militaries don't seem to enjoy the freedom to act and maneuver that a classic general enjoyed in the field (for good reasons). Modern requirements for transparency and democracy, and the interest of the military industrial complex don't help when you try to "appear weak when you are strong" or to "disguise a plan". For a mid-level army officer these things are probably even less applicable. I still think there…

> Modern militaries don't seem to enjoy the freedom to act and maneuver that a classic general enjoyed in the field (for good reasons). Modern requirements for transparency and democracy

I think modern democracies do a much better job of separating military and civilian leadership than dictatorships do. Putin seems to be too personally involved in micromanaging his war, insisting on conquests that are simply not possible (like Bakhmut and some other places). Hitler similarly interfered with his generals and hampered his war effort that way.

Zelensky is of course involved with the war, but he listens to his generals.

> "appear weak when you are strong"

That only seems useful if you want to lure the enemy into an attack in order to ambush him, but with our modern day sensibilities about the value of life, we prefer to have no attack at all. More applicable to us is "appear strong when you are weak", although such secrets never last long, so we prefer to appear strong when strong, in order to discourage any attack.

Also, Russia appeared strong while weak, and that didn't exactly work out well when Putin called his own bluff. Turns out he incorrectly believed the strong appearance of his own army. And he believed the West to be weak (or at least divided and disorganised), so he attacked.

It's not that these concerns are irrelevant, but they're a lot more complex than Sun Tzu makes them out to be, and it's possible to fall for your own disguise. Or maybe the civilian leadership can fall for the military's disguise.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#66

Post by layer8 »

eimrine wrote: post #3

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.

Atheistic thinking also came up in India and Europe 500-600 BC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#67

Post by dragonwriter »

mountainb wrote: post #58
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #48

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.

> The president's authority over the military is a legal fiction

No, its not; and its kind of odd to say that during the era when not omly does the President fully exercise that power, they have for all practical purposes had it augmented by delegation (substantively on paper, and even more broadly in practice) of Congress’ power to declare war.

It’s true that most Presidents don’t micromanage the military, but they very much do command it, and a power generally used with some discretion and reserve is not the same as a legal fiction.

But the important thing about the President’s Commander-in-Chief role is not that it is a power (though it is), but that it is a constraint on the Congressional power to orgabize and set rules for the military.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#68

Post by lelanthran »

_8j50 wrote: post #4

From what little I know Sun Tzu has a lot of "good rule od thumb" wisdom but you shouldn't stick to what he says as if he is infallible. For example: > The greatest victory is that which requires no battle He says a lot of stuff like that but this is only true if your aim is peace in the near term and appearances of victory. The carnage of war, the worse it is the more it avoids even more war. If you win without batt…

Everything is "it depends".

For every truism from Sun Tzu, there is a data point providing a counter argument.

For the truism you are presenting, to whit:

> The carnage of war, the worse it is the more it avoids even more war. If you win without battle then others will keep starting more battles because why not? But if you defear your enemy well and in the most horrific way then it becomes unthinkable to willingly start a battle or war with you.

The counterpoint is WW2, which was a result of how horrifically Germany was defeated in WW1.

So, no, it's not always true.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#69

Post by sour-taste »

mountainb wrote: post #58
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #48

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.

I can guarantee you that there have been times where the top military brass walked into a meeting with the president with 3 options and left with an order to come up with something better. I have no insider knowledge but at the end of the day the president has the final say. Now I don't know how frequently the president overrides his military advisers but it must happen.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#70

Post by mcv »

lordnacho wrote: post #16

Finally. I remember reading Sun Tzu and thinking "hmm all this stuff is either very specific to ancient China, or unsubstantiated". As in, everyone sounded like distilled wisdom, but it smelled. The thing that was missing I think was that normally when you read a text about something that's trying to make a general point, it cites a whole bunch of historical precedents. "Always drive deep into enemy territory, like X…

Well, it's a fairly brief text. I've got a copy of Art of War here, but most of it is commentary by others. Sun Tzu's own text is not a lot. He throws out some principles without explanation or examples, and that's limiting it's practical applicability quite a bit.

I suspect much of his more questionable advice is stuff that happened to work once for him in specific circumstances, and it'd be great if he told a bit more about those circumstances. But it won't necessarily work in other circumstances.

For example, his advice to live off the enemy's supplies instead of bringing your own (which would be very expensive and cause economic problems that he surprisingly addresses). This is good advice in many cases, and has been done throughout history, but it can also go very wrong. Consider Napoleon's invasion of Russia where Russia just burned down everything in the path of the French army in order to deny them supplies, then harassed French supply lines, and defeated the French army without a single fight. Also very Sun Tzu, incidentally.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, depending on circumstances. Which Sun Tzu rarely goes into.

Post reply on HN