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

121–130 of 211 posts

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#121

Post by trashtester »

sour-taste wrote: post #69
mountainb wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not only that, but it's not like the head of state is alone with the military brass in such meetings. There will be people there both from the permanent civilian bureaucracy as well as advisors of some type from the party in power.

Ultimately, military grand strategy is a domain of politics as much as it is about how to wage war. The agendas and objectives are ultimately continuations of political goals of whoever is in power. During a war, the fighting must be coordinated with diplomacy, economy/trade/manufacturing and public relations/propaganda, all of which generals tend to know little about.

And even if the President is not the one making the micro decisions, he/she definitely is responsible for making sure the war is waged in a way that is aligned with the general objectives of the administration.

This means defining objectives, access to resources as well as defining the rules of engagement. And equally importantly, listen to the military and determine when the time is right to actually provide additional resources or permissions, despite political costs.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#122

Post by denton-scratch »

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…

Germany wasn't defeated in WW1 on the Eastern Front, I think; and I believe that Hitler's attack on Europe in WW2 was incidental to his true goal, which was to occupy Poland and Ukraine. He didn't want to start a punch-up with the British Empire, and he initially thought Britain and Germany could be buddies.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#123

Post by mcv »

brazzy wrote: post #93
mcv wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sup…

This is not true at all. Supply lines have existed as long as organised armies have existed. Many major military campaigns have made use of supply depots, supply ports, supply trains (on pulled wagons, long before what we now call trains existed), etc. Napoleon also made use of them. Only, it's very expensive, and it's a lot cheaper to live off the land. Only living off the land also takes time, so if you want to move fast, arranging your supplies up front allows your army to move faster. But long supply lines deep into enemy territory are incredibly expensive, as well as vulnerable to raids. Which means you need to protect them, which makes them even more expensive.

It was not logistically impossible, it was incredibly expensive. And more so the deeper into enemy territory you get. But plenty of armies throughout history did bring their own supplies.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#124

Post by jimbokun »

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.

And the President can always fire their asses if he feels like he isn't getting good counsel.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#125

Post by _8j50 »

samus wrote: post #33
_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…

The counterarguments to the "total war" doctrine are nuclear deterrence and asymmetric warfare. Total war is the correct way to win a symmetric war against an opponent you can actually defeat . But nuclear deterrence creates big incentives to not ever bother. Everybody loses from unrestricted warfare between nuclear powers. Asymmetric warfare is destined to outlast the will of the attacker to maintain totally war, an…

Using nuclear deterrence as an example. Yes, it is effective at avoiding battle but if you get nuked you must effectively wipe the aggressor's country off the map so it can continue to deter future aggressors and MAD can continue to be relevant. You can't hold back because of the enormous civilian casualties. The only thing important is to make sure that will be the last nuclear war and that no one thinks about using nukes against you. This is entirely possible for example with US vs NK or maybe even China (or if they ever achieve effective icbm interception...anyone)

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#126

Post by baybal2 »

mantas wrote: post #64
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…

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...

[dead]

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#127

Post by Gud »

runlaszlorun wrote: post #115
jcranmer wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Not sure why you are using Colin Powell as an example. He’s one of the worst stooges, helping both covering up the My Lai massacre and presenting false evidence for the UN regarding the Iraqi WMDs.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#128

Post by rocket_surgeron »

maxiepoo wrote: post #119
_0ffh wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

I prefer "a doomsday cult but, somehow, even sadder".

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#129

Post by indymike »

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…

> It's why I don't understand why in the US, the president is also the top military commander.

Simple: the founders of the US thought it would protect our democracy to ensure that a elected civilian was in charge of the military. It's mostly worked.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#130

Post by denton-scratch »

sofixa wrote: post #104
denton-scratch wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 rum…

> 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. "Rap…

> I really don't think this excuse works.

I guess you're right, it doesn't. I don't know what I'm talking about; I'm just someone who enjoys strategy games.

I'm also extremely interested in trying to figure out what Putin was thinking when he attacked, and why he didn't just pull back when his initial blitzkrieg failed.

I happen to think his own utterances and writings are a largely-accurate presentation of what he really believes about geo-politics; but they don't answer the "Why now?" question. I think you can understand his thinking by listening to what he says. I think he really believes "there's no such thing as Ukraine".

And regarding the Baltic states: they weren't in NATO, and individually they have short borders with Russia. Ukraine has a very long border with Russia.

Post reply on HN