Pros And Cons Of Sun Tzu

Over the course of history, the strategic environment has changed rapidly and is now more complex than ever before – it is currently characterized by unpredictability and disorder, and may yet manifest itself in the collapse of nuclear armed nations, destabilizing conflict in geo-politically vital regions, and humanitarian crises. A world of disparate actors – not all nation states – now exists. Unpredictable events will continue to cause strategic surprise. The widespread effects of past conflicts such as World War II, Vietnam and the Iraq war are still being felt and have created significant strategic repercussions. The failures of these conflicts are the result of our military and political leaders’ failure to quickly adapt to wartime conditions. This occurs because of a general refusal to commit to a military culture of learning that encourages serious debate, critical assessments of our military operations, and challenges to our doctrine in the face of emerging change. Additionally, leaders have struggled with the critical responsibility of forecasting and providing for a ready force, one that is well-resourced and prepared to conduct future operations. It is the responsibility of our military and political leaders to send our military to war with a ready force, and a strategy that will ultimately result in victory. But understanding war and warriors is critical if societies and governments are to make sound judgments concerning military policy.

How should leaders approach the ideas of peace and war? This question has fascinated those in positions of power for ages. Ancient Chinese philosopher Lao-Tzu believes that war should only take place in the direst of situations and should not be considered virtuous (61; sec. 31). On the contrary, Niccolo Machiavelli, a fifteenth-century Italian philosopher, states, “A prince, therefore, must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war…” (86). While Lao-Tzu formulates an ideal approach to war and Machiavelli a practical one, neither one of their strategies would be effective in the real world; leaders must conduct their military with a balance of serenity and brutality.

As important as education is to these two great historical figures, it doesn’t come easy. In my opinion Frederick had it much harder than Tzu for

Clausewitz’s attack of enemy centers of gravity and Sun Tzu’s prioritization of attack of important elements of national power provide contrasting approaches to the development of effective strategy. These contrasts are reflections of each author’s perspective on how war should be waged, the proper use of force, their definitions of the ideal victory and how best to achieve that victory as well as their methodologies,

Sun Tzu and Machiavelli have similar views on preparation before battle. Both believe that appropriate preparation ultimately causes victory to lean in the favor of those with little reliance on circumstance. Machiavelli stated that “rulers maintain themselves better if they owe little to luck.” Leaders prepared for battle will not falter under the weight of pressure unlike opposition who rely on a specific circumstances for their strategy to be effective. Sun Tzu practically implies that the same exact tactic be used by generals of armies. He says, “Therefore, the victorious military is first victorious and after that does battle. The defeated military first does battle and after that seeks victory.” Sun Tzu’s statement seems to provide a more precise strategy which is clearly tailored more towards a military interested in winning battles rather than a ruler governing a principality. Sun Tzu’s directions are all about

7.) To what extent is Lao-tzu in favor of military action? What seems to be his views about the military?

Lao-Tzu’s stand on war is not what one might expect; he believes that peace has more power than war and that all men with a good set of morals look down upon the men who seek to fight. Along with war being an unnecessary product of compromise, Lao-Tzu view’s weapons as a disgrace as well; this idea is shown on page 209 when he adds, “Weapons are the tools of violence; all decent men detest them.” He later then states, “There is no greater illusion than fear, no greater wrong than preparing to defend yourself, no greater misfortune than having an enemy,” (page 210). Lao-Tzu detests war and sees it as a shame to even take part of the hate that is involved with fighting. On the other hand, Machiavelli suggests that it is fit for a leader to show close to perfect fighting techniques on and off the battlefield. War is shown as a lesson of fortitude for leaders during his time, Machiavelli explains, “Its institution, and its discipline; because that is the only profession which befits one who commands; and it is of such importance,” (page 221). He later discusses, on page 222, how a leader must train in his free time to prepare and become the most powerful fighter of all the men by mentioning, “and in peacetime he must train himself more than in time of war; this can be done in two ways: one by action, the other by the mind.” One can conclude that Machiavelli defines a strong leader through both psychological warfare and hand to hand combat. He also sees war as a learning curve for the men who wish to become a leader; Machiavelli’s understanding off a strong leader

This essay will explore the influences of Sun Tzu in the Second World War. Sun Tzu (544 – 496 BC) was a Chinese general and strategist in times of the Zhou dynasty. His techniques, even today are highly respected. The teachings of Sun Tzu were used not only in Asia and Europe but have also been applied today by the western society.

There are no universal theories to explain the true nature and character of war, and any war theories are not a fact or absolute truth. All strategic principles are dynamic and contextual, so “every age had its own kind of war, its own limiting conditions, and its own peculiar preconceptions.” The battlefield environment of the 21st century will be the volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous, and nature of war will be completely different because of the Revolution in Military Affairs. Highly advance communication and information technologies, a dramatic increase in computing capabilities, developed of precision munitions, dominant air and space power ‘war could be waged by the projection of

We have covered the general accounts of human nature found in Confucianism and Taoism in light of the historical backdrop of the Period of Warring States. Use your responses to the following general questions below as an opportunity to refer either to the Smith text and accompanying assigned scriptures(s), Smith video(s) on China, Confucianism, and Taoism, or any additional material covered in class. Look ahead to the next question on the chun tzu in order to plan on avoiding repetition of answers verbatim within each essay if there are areas of potential overlap.

To look at how Lao Tzu’s philosophy influenced Sun Tzu’s, The Art of War, one must understand the point of view in context with the writers. Eastern philosophy is much different from those of its Western counterparts. The Western world has more of an inner focus on “determinism and moral responsibility.” Ones reasoning, logic, and ethics play a role with the decisions they make. While the Eastern world has more of a focus on the foundational beliefs of “fundamental connectedness”, and “personal liberation”. The

Who is Lao Tzu? What is the purpose of Tao Te Ching? Why did Lao Tzu write Tao Te Ching? “Lao Tzu was a Chinese philosopher credited with founding the philosophical system of Taoism…He is thought to have lived in the 6th century BEC” (Mark). Lao Tzu’s philosophy of non-action has a great impact on future generations, because it can make the country become peaceful. Tao Te Ching was primarily writing to the rulers and the emperors of that time, he wants all the countries and subsidiary countries in China can coexist together peacefully, hoping that there will be no more wars. The poetic style of Tao Te Ching makes it universal, because it teaches people how to think and to behave well in an manner that can be acceptable and understandable

Sun Tzu understood the nature of war as “the province of life or death,” and a “matter of vital importance to the state.”1 I agree. In my own experience, war awakens your primordial instincts and strips you of your self-rationalizations. Sun Tzu defined the character of war when he wrote, “water has no constant form, there are in war no constant conditions.”2 Accordingly, Sun Tzu’s principals of war offer a framework adequate to explain the nature and character of 21st century warfare, which I rationalize as a near-continuous battle of ideologies fought through asymmetric means to advance the values and interests of state and non-state actors.

This was a tactic in attempts to keep the enemy guessing and to cause the enemy to feel threatened and unsafe. It was a good strategy to trick the enemy into always thinking and feeling that an attack would happen at any given moment, something that would cause the enemy to develop stress or become restless with less chances of obtaining a sense of peace or assuming that an attack was not going to happen. If one was able to master the technique of deception, then it was likely that one will increase the chances of victory. In addition, it was crucial to become aware and analyze the enemy in order to determine if a planned and deceptive attack would work. Or, it was better to avoid confrontation if it was determined that the enemy would be stronger. Sun Tzu took into consideration that pacifism was also an important option which would benefit future and better planned attacks. He also made it clear from the beginning of his documentation that he took analytical measurements into account and the one that made more precise calculations than the enemy, one will win the war.

In the business world, if too much time is taken, the chance of error contributing to failure becomes greater. Sun Tzu says this: “If the war is long delayed, the men’s weapons will be blunted and their ardor will be dampened.” If too much time and energy is wasted, there will be less efficiency. The faster you do things, the better off you are. If you manage your time well, you will always be one step ahead of your opponent. You will have the luxury of looking back at them while they struggle to get to the point you are already at. Also, if you arrive at a position early, you will use less resources holding the position than others will use trying to reach that position. The defense of a position is always easier than that of taking a position away from the current leader. The longer it takes you to start, the more you will require. It’s as simple as that.