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

111–120 of 211 posts

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#111

Post by runlaszlorun »

anigbrowl wrote: post #34

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…

Lidell Hart. That’s the name I was reaching for a second ago. Admittedly, I read his stuff decades ago.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#112

Post by sofixa »

rippercushions wrote: post #12
PostOnce wrote: post #6

There is a reason people still read Sun Tzu 2500 years later, and it's not because he's been on a press tour promoting his book. The man was a consummate master of his art, if he was indeed one man. My favorite reading of The Art of War, because Baldermort has an awesome voice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDlW3WqXisM

The article notes that Sun Tzu's celebrated victory over the Chu was very short-lived, since the Chu remnants promptly allied with the Qin and the Yue to roll them back within two years, and his Wu clan was entirely exterminated within three decades.

And the articles notes there were multiple reasons for that, including an invasion by a third party and a coup attempt. Even the best military strategy won't survive first contact with the enemy, especially multiple ones from different directions.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#113

Post by jerf »

bruce511 wrote: post #11

As with all advice, context matters. It is good to know the rules, the best practices, the proven strategies. But it is also good to understand the context of those strategies to understand when the context has changed. SQL is clearly the right way to store large quantities of data (some would say the only way.) Until some folk realised their context was different, and NoSql was born. Strategy is hard because it play…

This reminds me of people complaining about how terrible Agile is, because Scrum is terrible. Not that Agile is immune to criticism any more than Sun Tzu is, but complaining that a philosophy built around deep understanding of a problem and flowing like water around it is bad because this sword isn't sharp is basically a category error. Sun Tzu has specific examples but it is not his examples that have kept his work alive for thousands of years. The examples became useless centuries ago. It is the principles that have kept it alive. It is not Sun Tzu's fault if a commander pays so much attention to a specific manifestation that he loses track of the underlying principles.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#114

Post by misja111 »

_0ffh wrote: post #74
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.

> like the study of economics [...] There are no universal laws that always hold true in all situations I've got great news for you! There are universal economic laws that always hold true in all situations. For example, "man acts". You can't deny that, because denying it would be an act in itself, leading to a (performative) contradiction. From this law, and just a few others of a similar kind, you can build a whole…

Since OP didn't provide any, I looked up some sources for the "man acts" economic axiom. I found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology, which is used by the so called Austrian Economic school. Actually the axiom is "man acts purposefully". There is also quite some criticism on it, which can be found on the wiki page as well.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#115

Post by runlaszlorun »

jcranmer wrote: post #109
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…

> 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 ones have done their homework, but it's not their profession in the end. War is ultimately a political endeavor; the goal of a war is to compel, by use of military force, some sort of political objective. It only makes sense then that the person in charge of directing when and w…

I’m not sure about the “military hammer for a solution”. At least not these days. Sure there are some- Wesley Clark’s push into Kosovo seemed suspect to me at the time. But there are many of the Colin Powell types who resist these unnecessary entanglements.

I wouldn’t be surprised if back in the Grenada/Panama era of the 80’s that there may have been many chomping at the bit. These days, I’m guessing not so much.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#116

Post by detourdog »

rramadass wrote: post #86
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 .

While you are correct that these sort of books can be taken too far (i.e. they are not an answer to everything) there is much value in studying these sorts of books (Chinese/Japanese/Indian etc.) since they are a repository of various stratagems/techniques/aphorisms/quotes which can be adapted to context (not necessarily explicit Warfare) to derive value. Human Nature has not changed much over the years though its ex…

My interest in ancient cultures is how those people coped with life. Gilgamesh, torah, Aesop's fables, 1001 Arabian nights are interesting to me for how each culture dealt with and documented the human condition and social interactions.

To me Sun Tzu writings and all the ancient writings are about preparing one's "mind" for an attitude that can be used to cope. The commonality of story to a culture strengthens the social structure. The commonality is used to apply old wisdom to seemingly new and complex events. These writings become the common thread.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#117

Post by runlaszlorun »

eru wrote: post #95
sofixa wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Interesting point. I never knew that.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#118

Post by baybal2 »

mcv wrote: post #72
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. There are some. An army marches on its stomach. For war, you need three things: money, money and money. Except in a guerilla war maybe. Maybe you're right after all.

[dead]

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#119

Post by maxiepoo »

_0ffh wrote: post #74
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.

> like the study of economics [...] There are no universal laws that always hold true in all situations I've got great news for you! There are universal economic laws that always hold true in all situations. For example, "man acts". You can't deny that, because denying it would be an act in itself, leading to a (performative) contradiction. From this law, and just a few others of a similar kind, you can build a whole…

Austrian economics is truly indistinguishable from parody

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#120

Post by _8j50 »

lelanthran wrote: post #68
_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 st…

> how horrifically Germany was defeated in WW1.

I'd argue not horrifically enough. I mean their defeat eas decisive and the toll on their morale was huge but their idea of greatness through war and appettite for war in general was obviously not resolved.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the other hand swiftly resolved Japan's appetite for violence (not that I neccesarily agree).

WW1 and Germany to me are good examples of how not to finish a war. I ask why Germany was allowed to continue to be a free state? Why not divide up Germany as a foreign territory or colony between victors? Why not make sure no military or hostile government ever rises up again like the US did with Japan (still has no offensive military!).

If you want to see how effective what I am saying is, look at Genghis Khan. Any sign of resistance and your entire town or village was burned and erased out if existance. Many of his enemies surrender long before he ever arrives there.

You cannot take half-measures with an aggressor. Victory can't be partial for it to last.

If you merely wound your enemy he will regain strength and come back at you many times stronger or at least keep coming back until you surrender (Taliban). You must do what it takes to kill off your enemy fully even after victory.

Post reply on HN