172
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2026
172 points (100.0% liked)
Chapotraphouse
14427 readers
589 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Is that a quote? I know ive read something almost exactly the same by someone before. Probably just cause im far from the first person to notice this. Telling your populace they have an enemy that is weak snd strong at the ssme time can work until they meet the enemy, who time and time again turns out to know what the fuck theyre doing in their own land and csn defend it quite well or at least make every victory as empty and strategically meaningless as possible. And much like their prison system, the people they unfairly expose to war end out getting better at it.
Its a piss poor doctrine cause that's what gets the doctrine guys paid the most for the longest time. Those who profit from war usually also suck at conducting it. A big major trick to beong good at war id having a fucking goal.
I mean, sounds kinda like Sun Tzu's whole "win without fighting".
All the people they lost against still suffered devastatingly while the American citizen was just fine and dandy. They fought a lot and materially and human cost wise lost quite a bit more in comparison. America hust didnt get what it wanted after killing all those people. They can force a vert pyrric victory
I meant that's what the quote sounds like.
Sun Tzu's whole thing for that is basically, before you decide to go to war, make sure you understand exactly what you are trying to achieve first. Which is literally basic effective project management tactics in a nutshell.
If you can achieve that objective without ever having to field soldiers, then you should always achieve it without fielding soldiers. As well, fighting simply to fight is not a good enough reason, as you will usually lose to the defender's advantage, even if you have vastly superior numbers and technology. It is better to use the threat of overwhelming force to force your opposition to do something than actually test it, as warfare can be extremely unpredictable, like casting dice on a craps table. Moreover, any amount of damage you sustain, even if you are victorious, leaves you vulnerable to a third party who did not participate in the conflict.
The annals of history are littered with the corpses of empires who defeated their primary political opposition in war, only to lose to a player that wasn't even considering playing the board until the other two players had weakened themselves.
Makes the whole "know your enemy" thing a lot more difficult
Not quoting anyone directly tho like you I'm sure I'm not the first to say this or express this sentiment
Something about it is dettimg off my 'ive resd this somewhere else' brain. It felt like a wuote by someone who i probably should remember. Most likely a coincidence but now I wanna know who it reminded me of, cause its someone
It's almost certainly some paraphrasing of Sun Tzu.
Copying Sun Tzu's homework is a pretty common way to write wise leader characters. You've probably seen a dozen variations on this.
Well definitely let me know if you find out... Curious who I am channeling...