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

91–100 of 211 posts

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#91

Post by Razengan »

shakow wrote: post #52
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…

> the president is also the top military commander 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.

As if they can't just ignore the civilian commander if they really wanted to?

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#92

Post by fedeb95 »

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 .

I have no military background, but I like Sun Tzu's Art of War for some ideas about one's stance when engaging in "battle": I know it is more of a poetic liking than actual military advice.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#93

Post by brazzy »

mcv wrote: post #70
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 m…

> 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

It's not "good advice in many cases", it was (prior to the availability of first railroads and then trucks, and with the very notable exception of all-cavalry armies operating on grass steppe) an extremely basic fact on how an army works. Bringing your own supplies was, over long distances, not just bad advice, nor just hard to do, it was logistically impossible. Napoleon did not (yet) have the choice to do it any other way, the alternative was not to invade Russia, or to do it piecemeal while consolidating and developing conquered parts before moving on, which would have taken decades.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#94

Post by eru »

Sakos wrote: post #82
eru wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Germany the (civilian) defense minister is the head of the armed forces. (Though I think that role might go to the chancellor in times of war. Not sure.)

According to the wiki, it's the chancellor in wartime ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr ). Either way, it's a civilian position that's temporarily filled by the ruling government which was democratically elected.

> Either way, it's a civilian position that's temporarily filled by the ruling government which was democratically elected.

Yes, just like in the US.

My main point was that the chancellor is not the commander in chief by default. Only under exceptional circumstances.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#95

Post by eru »

sofixa wrote: post #90
Xenoamorphous wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Spain it’s the King… anachronic af, I know.

It's traditionally the head of state, so King makes sense. In Bulgaria the president is mostly a figurehead with very limited power (basically easily repeatable veto, appoint ambassadors and temporary cabinets when there's no active government pending elections), but is still the commander in chief of the armed forces.

In Britain, you have the Royal Navy, Royal Airforce, Royal Marine, but no 'Royal Army'.

That might have something to do with a leftover from the English Civil War. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Model_Army

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#96

Post by paradox242 »

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…

[dead]

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#97

Post by TheBigSalad »

zakki wrote: post #42
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.

I think he meant god with lowercase G not God with uppercase G.

What do you mean?

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#98

Post by AnimalMuppet »

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…

"Commander", yes, but they command very little. During World War II, President Roosevelt gave exactly two direct commands to the military - that they had to divert 50 long-range bombers to help protect Atlantic convoys, and that North Africa be invaded in 1942. In a four-year-long war, he gave two commands. Contrast that with Hitler, who micromanaged his military, and did them no good by doing so.

So, yes, he does have final command (subject to "legal orders" and similar restrictions). But he's not commanding in the normal sense of a military commander.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#99

Post by denton-scratch »

mcv wrote: post #65
UweSchmidt wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 poss…

> And he believed the West to be weak (or at least divided and disorganised), so he attacked.

That makes it sound as if Putin attacked because an opportunity presented itself.

I don't think that's why he attacked. I think he attacked because he felt he had no choice. Not because NATO was crowding into his borderlands, which is Putin's story; but because following the collapse of Soviet communism and the USSR, the rump Russia was clearly a state dependent mainly on resource-extraction, which desn't promise a great independent future. Especially with Europe's increasing development of non-fossil energy, earnings from fossil fuel exports could be expected to diminish rapidly.

But why Ukraine? Well, setting aside his deranged opinions about the historic unity of Ukraine and Russia, and the historic destiny of the "Rus", Ukraine was rapidly becoming closer to Europe, and Ukrainians were clearly happy with that prospect. Having a successful, happy fragment of the USSR on his border threatened his control over his own population.

> Turns out he incorrectly believed the strong appearance of his own army.

Agreed! In fact everyone overestimated the strength of his army.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#100

Post by SamBam »

Razengan wrote: post #91
shakow wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the president is also the top military commander 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.

As if they can't just ignore the civilian commander if they really wanted to?

They can, but you have over a million members of the military who have all sworn an oath that they will "obey the orders of the President of the United States." If they had all sworn an oath that they will "obey the orders of General McEvilFace," it would be a lot easier to maneuver all your coup pawns into place even over the protestations of the president, even without those soldiers needing to fully realize that a coup was being set up.
Post reply on HN