A soldier so brave he doesnt need a gun.

So can we all discuss the philosophical thought of being such a good soldier that you dont need a weapon? That you can turn an army around with just your name. the fact that you have the ability to difuse a situation without resorting to violence.

Thoughts?

Oh and PS the doctor totally met or maybe even helped sun tzu write the art of war.

 

thats the job of diplomats and politicians not soldier.
in sun tzu's art of war he talks about the importance of diplomatic relations in some depth as well as how he ideally would run a state.

now i have provided my thoughts, please provide yours (and not TV show ideas)

 

"That is, with rapidity. Only one who knows the disastrous effects of a long war can realise the supreme importance of rapidity in bringing it to a close. Only two commentators seem to favour this interpretation, but it fits well into the logic of the context, whereas the rendering, "He who does not know the evils of war cannot appreciate its benefits," is distinctly pointless."


That is commentary from the art of war on this website. will post a link in the bottom of this post.

"to win 100 battle out of 100 battles is not the height of skill to subdue the opponent without fighting is" -sun tzu

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/aow/aow10.htm#fn_205

 

I don't know man. The group of guys I ran with would have liked nothing better to hear about some super badass guys and try to put a bullet through his brain housing group. We call those "High Value Targets" and it's a total hard on when you drop one. xD


Plot twist, the super soldier's name is Pinky Bronie!

 

Soldiers exist to kill other soldiers. A good soldier is one who can do that efficiently.

 

Again im asking for your own thoughts.
"to win 100 battle out of 100 battles is not the height of skill to subdue the opponent without fighting is" - sun tzu
I interpret this to mean not scaring an enemy with the name of a warrior but to find alternative means either through pre-emptive attack, manoeuvres to drain enemy resources or diplomatic solutions.
do you interpret this differently?

 

I interpret it in doing anything to win the battle without having to actually fight weather verbally or physically.

 

i would argue that sun tzu's art of war doesnt have a place in the context of modern warfare.

he talks a lot about the roles of the state and military and how costly war is but in recent times (WW2 onward) it has been used to boost the economies of more powerful countries.
and advances in technology such as drones have taken away even the most basic elements he describes (soldiers themselves and their need for resources) and has therefore changes strategy quite dramatically with the integration of new elements.

drone technology would probably be regarded by sun tzu as the ultimate form of warfare requiring little in put from each side.

 

War doesn't boost the economies of the countries fighting, but it can boost the economies of other countries who are providing equipment etc. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan really messed up the US economy. It personally enriched a small number of peoples (including many of the people involved in the decision making), but at a country level, it tends to be a really bad thing.

 

Well being a good soldier and being a good warrior are two different things, a soldier must shoot, move and comunicate well with other soldiers a warrior can be more free lance he can work alone and should be a badass, able to handle up on at least three guys if need be, also familure with a variety of weapons systems and vehicles some medical training is a plus as well as skill with computer and technology.
A soldier does not pick when or where he will fight or die, often he must go where and when he wishes not too, warrior can pick his fight and he must know how to do this, the art of the ambush takes on a whole new meaning for the warrior, he has no base to retreat to, no safety, no place to relax and never any time to take chances.
I once met a special forces officer, it was impressive, he was a thing of odd splender, he was able to talk whenever he wanted and when he did everyone would listen. Sargents are not the special forces officers equal by any means. The sargent is a consumate soldier the spec ops officer is a warrior. The police officer is a strange thing because he is like the warrior and the soldier.
Just a small rant, now lets listen to flute music and drink Tequila as we ponder greater things.

 

So the special forces officer is a warrior who can choose his own fight? In what nation's armed forces?

 

The U.S. Baby...Who else lols. Really just about all spec op forces get to operate in a more mobile fashion than the rest of the Army, the navy seals is the best example I can think of, regular army marches where its told and fights and dies where it stands.

 

Okay, but you initially didn't say that they were more mobile (and I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that), you inferred that they were 'warriors' who could choose their own fight. I'm far from being a military expert, but that has not been my understanding of how special forces operate. On what basis do you say this?

 

I've always had a couple of thoughts about aliens.

1) It's really easy to accelerate an asteroid to an appreciable fraction of light. Wouldn't have to be a big asteroid, just something the size of the space shuttle could easily wipe out the entirety of Earth.

2) These relativistic missiles would not be where we think they are - instead they would be much closer to our little planet. Detecting and intercepting them would be impossible as far as I know.

3) The alien critters would consider their survival more important than our own.

4) Wimpy creatures don't become the dominant life forms of their planet, able to exploit their planets resources to fuel their own civilizational development. As an n=1 (well, we have a few examples) study, all of the neato hippy primitive cultures that were in tune with nature left massive waves of extinctions behind them.

5) They will assume that those characteristics apply to us as well.

So if you had a planet filled with creatures willing to exterminate other species, that could launch an unpreventable attack very easily, what would you do with them? What do you think would most likely ensure their survival? Something tells me we should stop beaming repeats of "I Love Lucy" into space.

 

You shrink one of their cities and put it into a jar and then blow up the planet. Repeat until you have collected samples from every inhabited planet.

 

^fixed it

 

While aiming an asteroid at someone's planet wouldn't be that hard, it still wouldn't be easy. Look at all the fuss we rased over just being able to stick something to one. They you'd need to attach fuel and a big rocket, do all of the telemetry... and that's a projectile at definitely-not-relativistic speeds, within our own solar system. What you're suggesting is way beyond our capabilities, and will be for the forseeable future. If there are aliens who have the capability of doing this kind of thing, then we don't pose any realistic threat to them. When humans exterminate technologically inferior civilisations we do it to take their land, not because we think they pose a threat.

At the same time, creatures who can't cooperate or empathise don't form civilisations, let alone ones advanced enough to travel all the way to some random, distant planet just to exterminate some poxy little monkeys stuck on a ball of rock.

You mean what would two civilisations do when either one could launch a devestating, unstoppable attack on the other?

Of course, I wouldn't say that such a pre-emptive attack is impossible. There are, however, lots of other possibilities. And the "we had better annihilate them before they learn we're here" mentality is a bit depressing.