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

161–170 of 211 posts

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#161

Post by samus »

_8j50 wrote: post #125
samus wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The scary part of nuclear deterrence is indeed whether it is able to continue to prevent nuclear warfare. As you imply, technical innovations can change the picture. And nuclear warfare with limited escalation remains a scary possibility. Especially between countries that don't have MAD capability. Let's be glad that so far cool heads prevailed.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#162

Post by rramadass »

detourdog wrote: post #116
rramadass wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 so…

>the ancient writings are about preparing one's "mind" for an attitude that can be used to cope [with whatever Life may throw at you]

This is exactly it!

One of my interests is the study of "Worldly Wisdom"(have a bunch of books from different cultures in my collection) categorized into;

1) "Idealistic"(Ethical/Moral) - Lots of Philosophies/Holy Books/etc. deal with this.

2) "Realistic/Pragmatic"(the World as it is and not how you would like it to be) - These are the common books of Wisdom/Aphorisms/Quotes/etc. from Culture/Daily Life.

3) "Crooked/Cynical"(how to further self-interest/getting-back on wrongs) - These are books on Strategy/Kingship/etc.

I find it quite transformational studying this subject since it teaches one all aspects of dealing with/making sense of Life. With the ascendancy of Scientific thought and decline of traditional Religions it has become even more necessary for each of us to chart our own ways with whatever advice (adapted to Modern Science/Times) we can glean from these ancient texts.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#163

Post by kjs3 »

michaelt wrote: post #149
t43562 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guerillas need money too. Weapons are not free and guerillas need to eat too.

As long as you've got some bootstrap weapons, you can always steal more from whatever force it is you're fighting against. In WW2 the US proposed sending resistance fighters a million single-shot handguns [1], allowing them to kill occupation forces and take their weapons. And while men with guns very often get shot, they never starve. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator

Getting shot is a cost, even if it isn't necessarily 'money'. Resistance fighters do go hungry. The resistance in the Warsaw ghetto had guns; they starved. On the Long March, Mao's men had guns, and they very much faced starvation. And ask the Confederates about the difficulty of feeding a rebel army. The idea that the answer to logistics issues is "moar guns" is comical and more than a little sad.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#164

Post by giraffe_lady »

indymike wrote: post #140
jeltz wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't there an even simpler answer? Back then most countries had their king ad their top military commander and the president of the US had a very similar role to a king.

> Isn't there an even simpler answer? Nope. There's a lot of writing about this issue from various founding fathers. There was great desire to avoid the President appearing to be a king or turning into one.

But it was still the model they were working from, the way of organizing state power that they understood and were familiar with. The three branches gov is in a lot of ways a secular and formalized form of the constraints religious and aristocratic political influence had on european monarchy in the era just preceding the revolution.

Plus what they say they wanted to achieve is not necessarily what they did achieve. That's not to say they failed and the president is a king, but the president is not entirely un-king-like either.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#165

Post by AnimalMuppet »

ggm wrote: post #20
PostOnce wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is like applying the "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" logic to war; it's a multifaceted thing, you can do everything right and still lose. It wouldn't still be mandatory reading at war colleges the world over if it didn't still have merit, or if it had no merit to begin with.

"infamous army" by Georgette Heyer (she pretty much invented the bodice-ripper genre which Barbara Cartland drove a long way afterward) was on the reading list at cranwell college. Best description of the battle of waterloo ever, alongside the romance. The lead characters include Harry Smith and his Wife, who are the stars of "the spanish bride" which is about the campaign in Spain, when not about smooching and teena…

Cranwell College is the Royal Air Force college (for those like me who didn't know).

But, while Georgette Heyer invented the Regency romance, hers are not "bodice-rippers". They're far better than that.

"An Infamous Army" is kind of a strange book. It's half a romance, and half a war story, and it doesn't quite work as either one, but it works well as itself.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#166

Post by hindsightbias »

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.

A relative told me in the 70's that I never had to worry about WW III until Yugoslavia disintegrates after Tito dies. He said all the realistic war plans revolved around that, which is why all the NATO cadres were all hysterical in the 90s.

Grenada, they never had time to think about it - it took three days for the most mighty military in the world to secure one of the tiniest nations in the world.

After 9/11, Rumsfeld asked the Army for their plans. They gave him a stack of plans on occupying Afghanistan and requirement for 600K troops (per doctrine) - they had no intention of volunteering. He was furious to be sidelined when the CIA guy convinced W it could all be done with small teams and airpower.

For Iraq, Rumsfeld agreed to all their plans and they saluted happily when he said to not make any occupation plans...

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#167

Post by kjs3 »

zigman1 wrote: post #85
deafpolygon wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see it now: Sun Tzu's The Tweets of War

War is inevitable but I see 99% of generals doing it wrong. Here is 10 tips how to win in every battle

This one weird trick with fool your enemy every time!

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#168

Post by scottLobster »

This reads less like a critique of Sun Tzu and more a critique of people who read Sun Tzu.

One thing that hasn't changed about human nature, everyone is looking for a quick solution that's guaranteed to work. If you can market yourself as an authority many people will listen to you whether you actually are an authority or not. Engaging with reality directly is difficult, painful, uncertain, and often unfulfilling, so people demand proxies to do it for them. In many cases these proxies are necessary, the world is too complex for everyone to know everything in perfect detail. But if you're going to devote 40 hours/week or more to something, it's probably best that you minimize your proxies for that thing.

Using Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, or any strategic work as an all-encompassing ground truth is to deny reality for the sake of comfort. Denying reality for the sake of comfort is not a competitive trait.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#169

Post by kjs3 »

js2 wrote: post #147
SamBam wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I just want to point out that their oath is first to uphold the Constitution, then to the President, then to their officers above them. https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/swearing-in-for-m... Americans disagree about a lot, including how to interpret the Constitution and which parts of it are more or less important. But I would really hope that myself and any other random American can at least agree that our…

I agree that's what Americans should agree on, but did you miss the part where certain very prominent Americans have been vocal about how inconvenient the Constitution is and that any provision of it which they disagree with should be 'terminated'? I'm afraid we're not all on the same page wrt the Constitution.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#170

Post by indymike »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #164
indymike wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't there an even simpler answer? Nope. There's a lot of writing about this issue from various founding fathers. There was great desire to avoid the President appearing to be a king or turning into one.

But it was still the model they were working from, the way of organizing state power that they understood and were familiar with. The three branches gov is in a lot of ways a secular and formalized form of the constraints religious and aristocratic political influence had on european monarchy in the era just preceding the revolution. Plus what they say they wanted to achieve is not necessarily what they did achieve.…

> That's not to say they failed and the president is a king, but the president is not entirely un-king-like either.

Since a king is literally all of the functions of government, there is really no way to argue that any part of a government isn't somewhat king like.

In the US, the Judiciary with lifetime appointments and review power was always viewed as the most king-like.

Post reply on HN