AlphaS520

The Art of War:
VIII Maneuvering

1. In war, the general receives his command from the sovereign.
2. Having collected his forces and concentrated his forces...

AlphaS520

He teaches you how to win even if the factors are against your odd, if anything, the book advises you. So if certain situations you have a disadvantage, the book advices you to do certain things, and not do certain things etc The same principles Sun Tzu wrote down, can also be applied to economy, resources, technology and politics, that's why it is so popular among business these days.

scholar

You don't understand. The modern era opens up the realm of aviation, spy satellites, weapons of mass destruction, biological weapons, land mines, and other things innumerable. Sun Tzu's ideologies and his methods would need to be updated with the times or he would lose his position. Just because his general concepts are highly praised and utilized by modern militaries means nothing, because his concepts were altered and adapted to the modern era. Even the Vietnamese altered it, keeping the spirit of his lessons intact as they changed it for their own purposes. Sun Tzu would never have deemed a 10:1 loss rate acceptable, yet the Vietnamese said they were happy to trade off 10 civilians for 1 American soldier. It is also very different to respect and use it as a tool for basic strategy in warfare, and it is quite another to use it word for word in every aspect of it without adaptation or alteration.

AlphaS520

I think you misunderstand The Art of War. The Art of War is not a book on tactics or field strategies, but it is a book of Grand Strategy, where it allows you to see the bigger picture. Grand concepts such as:
I: 18. All warfare is based on deception.
19. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; etc etc

The entire book of The Art of War, teaches you to the level of grand strategy, his concepts can be applied anywhere, in air, naval or land. Weapons of mass destruction can be related to Sun Tzu, as similar to the concepts of The Art of War, it is better to capture then destroy (where as weapons of mass destruction would literally cause huge scales of destruction), and he tells you why it is never wise to aim to exterminate (concepts of Clausewitz or Hannibal etc etc) the enemy force.

The Vietnamese have not altered any strategy from the Art of War, they followed every single laws of Sun Tzu.

AlphaS520

I think most of you misunderstand The Art of War.

It doesn't teach you to place heavy infantry in front and cavalries at the flank (which would be completely outdated in modern military), nor does he teaches you how to starve a castle (in The Art of War, this is more related to destroying the enemy supply route or base).

He teaches you the effectiveness of deception, he teaches you the importance of not only knowing when to avoid the enemy, but when to confront (especially where to confront), he teaches you the importance in morale of the soldiers (examples such as when soldiers are trapped, they will fight to the death, this isn't exactly the case in modern military as they'll surrender, but the same concepts applies in all fields. Such as the enemy, when he sees a way out, he would not try to counter your initial plan, thus, that is when he is taking that way out, you can carry out your plan), the mentality of your enemies (the most important thing is to never push your enemy too hard, and always lead them into arrogant confidence), etc etc

He teaches unlike any other military strategist in all of history, that is why it is valued so highly in modern military academies, and that is why, exploit efficiently, it can be used in the fields of business, or sports competition etc

AlphaS520

This is utterly false. Sun Tzu says that a wise general would know how to use the "wise" men and the "stupid" men, and we can assume that those 10 men are the "stupid" men, where their actions could be extremely important in the process of the "wise" men to achieve success.

scholar

It is far from false.

In addition to this, modern militaries do not share Sun Tzu's harshness in regards to discipline. Surely you are aware of Sun Tzu actions in regards to the King's harem?

But this is Sun Tzu's ideology when he wrote this. His methodology was intrinsically linked to this. Further, his black and white views of army discipline and other factors means that he most certainly would have to update his thinking if he wanted to remain in his position as he most certainly would be let go.

Note: I said Ideology, not the overarching grand strategies.

I'm referring to the man.

scholar

Further, I am compelled to inform you that Sun Tzu makes exhaustive references to Chariots and other specific materials. He also states that one should rouse the anger of soldiers. The first can be forgiven out of time, but the later is completely contrary to what the modern vision of a disciplined army is. Plundering the enemy is hardly even allowed anymore because its now seen as criminal.

Jake10

I've read the book. The truth is that the way Vietnam is used to illustrate his genius is overrated. The Vietnamese took such heavy losses and paid such a high price, yet only came out on top when their enemy left the war.

While his philosophies are helpful and worth studying, today's economy is global and has everyone applying every different philosophy possible to get ahead. A general today would have little influence.

AlphaS520

That's not the point. The "stupid" men could be the inefficient unit group, where it could be sent as a decoy, while the "wise" men will be sent in to frontal assault etc etc
Again, this can be applied in many fields.

A lot of historians would completely disagree with you on this. Sun Tzu do not look on the battlefield, he does not care about the formation of an army in the battlefield (made very clearly in the concepts of chain of commands, where officers should be responsible for this), he only cares in the level of grand strategy.

I went over my text, and are unable to find any mentions of the chariot in The Art of War, therefor it is irrelevant.

This is again, false. Although you could claim that it is accurate, it is not. As modern disciplined army have the same concept as Sun Tzu, in fact, the same concept are applied in many fields of work. Simply put it, if you disobey the high superior, you would be punished, if you are a leader of the group, you would be made an example off, if you constantly obey, you would be reward etc