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

171–180 of 211 posts

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#171

Post by _0ffh »

jrm4 wrote: post #157
_0ffh wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rationality is not assumed, and therefore not required. Only purposeful action.

Oh, please, same thing here. Let's do us all one better and nail this down. "Predictable, repeatable action"

Predictable only insofar as it has to follow some simple rules. For example, if you own a good G, that you could use to satisfy either a desire D1, or a competing desire D2, you will choose to use G to satisfy the greater one of these two desires at that point in time.

Repeatable is even untrue, unless I misunderstand your meaning. First of all, the ranking of your goals or desires is not assumed to be constant over time. Also, it is not assumed that your world model is constant. Quite the opposite, it is often explicitly emphasized that humans have the ability to change their mind about things, for example by learning.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#173

Post by abudabi123 »

deafpolygon wrote: post #8
smitty1e wrote: post #2

Sun Tzu's chief virtue, and weakness, is brevity. Compared to Clausweitz, Sun Tzu would have been a Twitter guru, inviting the question: So, what?

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

You mean to see: Sun Tzu's The T_eets of War

[new management is whitewashing the W in the logo/banner name of T_itter]

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#174

Post by anigbrowl »

bambax wrote: post #53
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…

> Clausewitz's military experience was in the Napoleonic wars and while he has much wisdom to share on strategy - choosing the time, place, and general shape of battle - his view of battle itself basically a slugfest in which size of force x intensity of violence gives you the answer. Many of Napoleon's most famous victories were won with a significant numerical disadvantage. If you had tried to determine the outcome…

That's why intensity matters as well. Napoleon was keenly aware of this, writing that the moral factor was equivalent to about 3x the physical. But he also organized his armies to move faster and lighter, using cover and concealment to find ways to flank his enemy or attack in the rear rather than seeking an open plain for a head-on clash. Later in his career, when he developed a taste for pure mass over maneuver and position, he suffered several defeats similar to those he had inflicted on others.

What I meant in my comment above, though, is not that Napoleon didn't care about such topics, but that Clausewitz doesn't always do a good job of writing about them on the tactical level. I absolutely think he's worth reading, but he's the opposite of Sun Tzu - a mass of dense, heavy, and often abstract text. There are multiple poor or incomplete translations of his famous On War which don't help. His smaller works like Principles of War and Tactics are much better starting points.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#176

Post by denton-scratch »

trashtester wrote: post #141
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…

> I think he attacked because he felt he had no choice. The feeling of having no choice tends to be influenced by incentives, though. Had NATO mobilized 5 million soldiers in eastern Poland in late 2021, with the clear message that they would send those forces into Ukraine if Putin attacked, he would probably feel differently. Personally, I think he may have felt "it's now or never". It appears he started preparing d…

> Personally, I think he may have felt "it's now or never".

Yes, That's exactly what I think.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#177

Post by michaelt »

kjs3 wrote: post #163
michaelt wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Getting shot is a cost, even if it isn't necessarily 'money'.

Maybe, but we're evaluating the quote "For war, you need three things: money, money and money" which is presumably about money.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#178

Post by denton-scratch »

mcv wrote: post #134
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…

Of course he has a choice. "Not having a choice" is just his own excuse for the choice he made. He could have continued trading with the EU while investing in the development of Russia, but that takes actual work and isn't glamorous. (Not to mention that much of that investment would probably be eaten by corruption.) I think he saw a rapidly closing window of opportunity. A successful Ukraine would be a threat to his…

> and Ukraine possibly even joining at some point

That wasn't possible, and as far as I'm aware it remains impossible for now. I believe it is a prerequisite for joining NATO, that you should be in control of your internationally-recognized borders. Otherwise, at the moment of joining, the whole of NATO would instantly be at war with Russia, because NATO's supposedly a mutual defence treaty organisation.

Same goes for Georgia, as far as I can see; Georgia's internationally-recognized borders place South Ossettia inside Georgia. But South Ossettia remains occupied by Russia.

[Edit] FWIW, I don't think NATO is in shape to go to war in Eastern Europe. Western countries took advantage of the end of the Cold War and the "peace dividend" to hollow-out their armed forces and ammunition reserves. As a Brit, I'm particularly ashamed of Britain's conduct, which has involved committing huge amounts of money to two spiffy aircraft carriers, which still don't carry a full complement of F35s, and which can't operate without a fleet of destroyers and frigates, not to mention supply ships. And a new generation of strategic nuclear missile submarines. Having a stockpile of 122mm artillery shells would be massively cheaper, and a better use of money.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#179

Post by denton-scratch »

sofixa wrote: post #146
denton-scratch wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 r…

> And regarding the Baltic states: they weren't in NATO They have been in NATO since 2004. Narva in Estonia is > 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 think you can understand his thinking by listening to what he says. I think he really believes "there's no such thing as Ukraine". I guess…

> They have been in NATO since 2004.

My mistake, you're right. But not Finland. And I wasn't counting Poland, which was a former European imperial power; I don't think of Poland and Sweden as being Baltic states, even though their coastlines are Baltic coastlines. In the same way (roughly), I don't think of Greece as a Balkan state.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#180

Post by feoren »

kjs3 wrote: post #169
js2 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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'

Those prominent Americans include the original authors of said constitution: they always knew it would be a living document to be modified via amendments. Constitutional "originalists" who believe we should be totally beholden to a 240-year-old document with no changes are the ones who are not following either the spirit or the letter of the constitution.

Post reply on HN