5 ms·

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 gr

by _8j50 4y ago

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 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 start a battle or war with you. Even in the middle of war, a great and terrible victory demoralizes the enemy but a victory with no bloodshed only delays when the next battle will happen since you only won a battle and not the whole war. I could pick many examples from WW2 and the ensuing peace we enjoy to this day (relative to before that time). Or how the US sabotages and enables regime changes all over without actual (at least acknowledged) conflict but time and time again it only delayed and worsened the threat. My philosophy is that you should never start a war except as retaliation of an actual attack or immediate and impending attack (NK firing missiles not Iraq is about to get missiles). But if you start a war it is your duty to finish it fast and without witholding your aggression so long as that aggression contributes to preventing even more aggression from your enemies and resentment from your people (US and country building/preserving in a time of war in vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq comes to mind). Happy to be corrected and educated on this. My point is that if you are not careful you can interpret that one teaching of his to mean you should avoid battle as much as possible. And a few others I have thought about are also like this. Surprising your enemy or deceiving them is not always the best idea either, what is more terrible to your enemy than telling them you will cause enormous damage at a specific date and time and doing exactly that despite their desperate attempts to counteract that, it crush their spirits and allow you to decieve them later on more effectively.

labster 4y ago
I think that quote is just a corollary to this one: "War is the continuation of policy with other means." — Carl von Clausewitz A foreign policy that achieves your aims is better than a foreign war; a functional domestic policy is better than a civil war. But sometimes people won’t compromise and the only policy left is war.
- _8j50 4y ago
  And I don't agree with that point in general except when someone starts being violent against you, a peaceful resolution is not desirable for long term peace. Similar to a school bully or when you get in prison and you start getting picked on. Resolving things peacefully with that bully only lets other bullies come after you later on. But harming that one bully effectively ensures your safety long term.
  - labster 4y ago
    You can disagree with it but Clausewitz is central to modern military doctrine. Analogizing interstate anarchy to bullies is fine but a bit limited; you’re never going to capture IR neorealism that way.
  - steve76 4y ago
    [dead]
jltsiren 4y ago
The main point of that quote is that a battle is a negative-sum game. Reaching the same ultimate outcome without a battle is better than fighting for it, because both sides will suffer losses in the battle. Trying to achieve a lasting peace through a decisive victory rarely works, because people don't work like that. In a more likely outcome, you are simultaneously not aggressive enough to prevent future conflicts and too aggressive, creating enemies motivated by revenge. Revenge is a dangerous motive, because it can turn battles into positive-sum games. Any enemy losses – both combatant and civilian – become victories, while your losses only matter by reducing your ability to kill more enemies.
- csydas 4y ago
  Agreed, and to add, I never understood that the old "war texts" were supposed to be detailed workflows for war and more just stating in plain language from people who've fought wars knew for the general public to understand. I've not read the old war texts since I was forced to in High School, but my takeaway from books like Art of War and The Prince was the authors trying to shatter the concept of Romantic wars with the boring reality of everything that comes with war. That is, I understood that the point of the books was more to get governments and people to engage with understanding the practical elements of war, like: - Wars are very very very expensive - They're expensive even when you're not at war - Your troops probably don't want to be fighting cause it means they probably will get hurt or die - No one likes being conquered, so don't assume that the war is done once you've killed enough soldiers - It's really expensive to supply an army - Seriously, do you know how much a horse eats? How about a thousand horses? My takeaway from the books was first teenage disappointment that the books weren't super deep or evil like I had been led to believe, and second that the books really seemed to try to deglamorize war by talking about all the stuff involved with it besides the killing/conquering, and showing how expensive and exhausting it really is.
  - websg-x 4y ago
    Yes, those are the main points. Sun Tsu realized that war is a terrible thing, especially the human suffering. He wrote "Art of War" to admonish rulers to understand and avoid war.
mrbungie 4y ago
Sabotage and propaganda are examples of making war without direct combat. I've always interpreted that as what Sun Tzu was referring to. I'm also sure that said position is not absolute, but rather just the idea that one should not look into prolonging battles (except when you're consciously participating in a war of attrition, obviously) and to hopefully evade them altogether as they at least reduce morale and exhaust resources.
samus 4y ago
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, and to continue long after the attacker has started to become war-weary. IMHO, winning an asymmetric war against a sufficiently motivated opponent is only possible by engaging in genocide and large scale population relocations.
- _8j50 4y ago
  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)
  - samus 4y ago
    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.
dale_glass 4y ago
There was an argument made that this is a misunderstanding: https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2020/6/15/sun-tzus-fighting-words https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2020/6/15/sun-tzus-... TL;DR Sun Tzu doesn't mean "Try to win without having a fight", but "Try to win without having a formal 1-on-1 engagement". "Battle" shouldn't be understood as generic violent conflict, but a specific formal affair in which two armies gather up and clash with each other. So for rather than reading this as "Try to solve things non-violently", this post suggests the meaning is more like "Try not to be forced into an engagement on even terms. If you can just poison them all, or starve them, that'd be much better".
lelanthran 4y ago
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 start a battle or war with you. The counterpoint is WW2, which was a result of how horrifically Germany was defeated in WW1. So, no, it's not always true.
- _8j50 4y ago
  > 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.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  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.

by _8j50 4y ago

labster 4y ago

I think that quote is just a corollary to this one: "War is the continuation of policy with other means." — Carl von Clausewitz A foreign policy that achieves your aims is better than a foreign war; a functional domestic policy is better than a civil war. But sometimes people won’t compromise and the only policy left is war.

_8j50 4y ago
And I don't agree with that point in general except when someone starts being violent against you, a peaceful resolution is not desirable for long term peace. Similar to a school bully or when you get in prison and you start getting picked on. Resolving things peacefully with that bully only lets other bullies come after you later on. But harming that one bully effectively ensures your safety long term.
- labster 4y ago
  You can disagree with it but Clausewitz is central to modern military doctrine. Analogizing interstate anarchy to bullies is fine but a bit limited; you’re never going to capture IR neorealism that way.
- steve76 4y ago
  [dead]

jltsiren 4y ago

The main point of that quote is that a battle is a negative-sum game. Reaching the same ultimate outcome without a battle is better than fighting for it, because both sides will suffer losses in the battle. Trying to achieve a lasting peace through a decisive victory rarely works, because people don't work like that. In a more likely outcome, you are simultaneously not aggressive enough to prevent future conflicts and too aggressive, creating enemies motivated by revenge. Revenge is a dangerous motive, because it can turn battles into positive-sum games. Any enemy losses – both combatant and civilian – become victories, while your losses only matter by reducing your ability to kill more enemies.

csydas 4y ago
Agreed, and to add, I never understood that the old "war texts" were supposed to be detailed workflows for war and more just stating in plain language from people who've fought wars knew for the general public to understand. I've not read the old war texts since I was forced to in High School, but my takeaway from books like Art of War and The Prince was the authors trying to shatter the concept of Romantic wars with the boring reality of everything that comes with war. That is, I understood that the point of the books was more to get governments and people to engage with understanding the practical elements of war, like: - Wars are very very very expensive - They're expensive even when you're not at war - Your troops probably don't want to be fighting cause it means they probably will get hurt or die - No one likes being conquered, so don't assume that the war is done once you've killed enough soldiers - It's really expensive to supply an army - Seriously, do you know how much a horse eats? How about a thousand horses? My takeaway from the books was first teenage disappointment that the books weren't super deep or evil like I had been led to believe, and second that the books really seemed to try to deglamorize war by talking about all the stuff involved with it besides the killing/conquering, and showing how expensive and exhausting it really is.
- websg-x 4y ago
  Yes, those are the main points. Sun Tsu realized that war is a terrible thing, especially the human suffering. He wrote "Art of War" to admonish rulers to understand and avoid war.

mrbungie 4y ago

Sabotage and propaganda are examples of making war without direct combat. I've always interpreted that as what Sun Tzu was referring to. I'm also sure that said position is not absolute, but rather just the idea that one should not look into prolonging battles (except when you're consciously participating in a war of attrition, obviously) and to hopefully evade them altogether as they at least reduce morale and exhaust resources.

samus 4y ago

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, and to continue long after the attacker has started to become war-weary. IMHO, winning an asymmetric war against a sufficiently motivated opponent is only possible by engaging in genocide and large scale population relocations.

_8j50 4y ago
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)
- samus 4y ago
  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.

dale_glass 4y ago

There was an argument made that this is a misunderstanding: https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2020/6/15/sun-tzus-fighting-words https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2020/6/15/sun-tzus-... TL;DR Sun Tzu doesn't mean "Try to win without having a fight", but "Try to win without having a formal 1-on-1 engagement". "Battle" shouldn't be understood as generic violent conflict, but a specific formal affair in which two armies gather up and clash with each other. So for rather than reading this as "Try to solve things non-violently", this post suggests the meaning is more like "Try not to be forced into an engagement on even terms. If you can just poison them all, or starve them, that'd be much better".

lelanthran 4y ago

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 start a battle or war with you. The counterpoint is WW2, which was a result of how horrifically Germany was defeated in WW1. So, no, it's not always true.

_8j50 4y ago
> 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.
denton-scratch 4y ago
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.