Tactics of Warfare - Warfare Stratagem Thread

[Omni]

deleted---

[Omni]

deleted---

[Ernie Nemeth]

Why do you think warfare strategy has developed to such a degree?

If there is a warfare strategy, which I agree there is, then is there its counter-part - peacefare strategy?

If there isn't, which I don't think there is, not operationally at least, then why is that?

Can peacefare strategy even be developed while warfare strategy exists?

Wouldn't warfare strategy require the destruction of a peacefare strategy? And vice versa?

As long as warfare strategy is considered prudent, peacefare strategy cannot even be contemplated...

[Kindred]

Since this thread deals with 'warfare', I think it important to post this item from Seth (by Jane Roberts); "The Seth Material".

Near the end of the book, there was a discussion about the recent assassination of Dr. King during a class of both young and older adults. Seth had this to say:

“You have been given free will. Within you there are blueprints; you know what you are to achieve as individuals and as people, as a race, as a species. You can choose to ignore the blueprints. Now: Using your free will, you have made physical reality something quite different than what was intended. You have allowed the ego to become overly developed and overly specialized. In many respects, you are in a dream. It is you who have made the dream too vivid. You were to work out problems and challenges, but you were always to be aware of your inner reality, and of your nonphysical existence. To a large extent you have lost contact with this. You have focused so strongly upon physical reality that it becomes the only reality that you know.”

“When you kill a man, you believe that you kill him forever. Murder is, therefore a crime and must be dealt with – because you have created it. Death does not exist in those terms.”

“In the dawn of physical existence, in the dawn before history began, man knew that death was merely a change of form. No God created the crime of murder, and no God created sorrow or pain. … Again, because you believe that you can murder a man and end his consciousness forever, then murder exists within your reality and must be dealt with… the assassin of Dr. King believes that he has blotted out a living consciousness for all eternity… but your errors and mistakes, luckily enough, are not real and do not affect reality, for Dr. King still lives.”

At a point in the ensuing discussion during the class in which this excerpt was given, an attendee blurted out, “Well, I’m against violence, too. But sometimes it’s justified…”

She hardly got the words out of her mouth before Seth interrupted her. Everyone jumped due to the booming voice:

“There is never any justification for violence. There is no justification for hatred. There is no justification for murder. Those who indulge in violence for whatever reason are themselves changed, and the purity of their purpose adulterated.”

I have told you that if you do not like the state of your world, it is yourselves that you must change, individually and en masse. This is the only way that change will be effected”

“If your generation or any generation effects a change, this is the only way it will be done. What I am telling you has been said before through the centuries. It is up to you (nodding to the younger people in the class) as to whether or not you will listen”

“It is wrong to curse a flower and wrong to curse a man. It is wrong not to hold any man in honor, and it is wrong to ridicule any man. You must honor yourselves and see within yourselves the spirit of eternal vitality. If you do not do this, then you destroy what you touch. And you must honor each other individual also, because in him is the spark of eternal vitality.”

“When you curse another, you curse yourselves, and the curse returns to you. When you are violent, the violence returns… I speak to you because yours is the opportunity [to better world conditions] and yours is the time. Do not fall into the old ways that will lead you precisely into the world that you fear.”

“When every young man refuses to go to war, you will have peace. As long as you fight for gain and greed, there will be no peace. As long as one person commits acts of violence for the sake of peace, you will have war. Unfortunately, it is difficult to imagine that all the young men in all of the countries will refuse to go to war at the same time. And so you must work out the violence that violence has wrought. Within the next hundred years that time may come. Remember, you do not defend any idea with violence.”

“There is no man who hates but that that hatred is reflected outward and made physical. And there is no man who loves but that that love is reflected outward and made physical.”


In Unity, Peace and Love

[ramus]

I've been a big student of jane roberts .... Good to hear her influence being spread ..

[Satori]

This reminds me of a quote from Confucius, if I recall correctly. I may have a word or two wrong but it goes like this: "Not knowing what truth is, man seeks it far away. It is like he who in the midst of water, cries out in thirst so imploringly."

[Omni]

deleted---

[Praxis]

Sorry to be a pedant but the terms are being used interchangeably and they are not the same.

Strategy wins wars.

Tactics wins battles.

A peaceful strategy requires the assumption of rationality on both parts and a common understand of the way the world should be.

Do you believe there could have been a peaceful solution between the Khanate and the Song Dynasty? The mongolian people saw ANY settled people as less than their herd animals. When a nomadic civ encounters a settled one, there is a fundamental difference in assumptions that may not be possible to bridge. When the emissaries of the Khan went forth, they would say to the people they just met first the first time, "Nice to meet you, now that you know we exist come pay tribute to your lord who has been your lord all this time but just now you know it."

By the way, Occams razor is often misquoted and mischaracterized. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

It is not the simplest one that is best, it is the one with the fewest assumptions. While easy to confuse, they are definitely not the same.

[Omni]

deleted---

[Omni]

deleted---

[Praxis]

Not all dictionaries are created equal.

I recommend this website (http://www.etymonline.com/). It is very excellent. It is also a common reference used by Linguists.

http://www.etymonline.com/word/strategy

http://www.etymonline.com/word/tactics

So you can look up where the words came from before they entered into the English Lexicon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactic_(method)

"Strategy is a set of choices used to achieve an overall objective where as tactics are the specific actions used when applying those strategic choices."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_tactic

"In chess, a tactic refers to a sequence of moves that limits the opponent's options and may result in tangible gain. Tactics are usually contrasted with strategy, in which advantages take longer to be realized, and the opponent is less constrained in responding."

As we saw in the history of tactics

"1620s, "science of arranging military forces for combat," from Modern Latin tactica (17c.), from Greek taktike techne "art of arrangement,""

This seems to align with my definitions stated previously.

Generally languages do not have true Synonyms. Most synonyms overlap mostly or somewhat but almost never entirely. When those exist, one tends to fall out of use and eventually becomes forgotten. Like thin and slender. While meaning almost the same thing, you could probably tease out subtle distinctions if you put your mind to it.

And since we are here: Stratagem is

http://www.etymonline.com/word/stratagem

"artifice, trick," late 15c., from Middle French strattegeme, stratagème "trick, especially to outwit an enemy" (15c.), from Italian stratagemma, from Latin strategema "artifice, stratagem," from Greek strategema "the act of a general; military stratagem," from strategein "to be a general, command," from strategos "general" (see strategy). Related: Stratagematic; stratagemical. The second -a- is a Romanic misspelling (compare Spanish estratagema).


http://www.etymonline.com/word/Occam's%20razor
You can check Occams too.

" "Neither more, nor more onerous, causes are to be assumed, than are necessary to account for the phenomena." Named for English philosopher William of Ockham or Occam (c. 1285-c. 1349), who expressed it with Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter neccssitatem. "

This Latin translates to

Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity

From your link:

"a scientific and philosophical rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities " Bolded for emphasis

[Ernie Nemeth]

So is there a difference between tactical advantage and strategic advantage?

[Omni]

deleted---

[Praxis]

So is there a difference between tactical advantage and strategic advantage?

Yes there is a quite a difference between the two.

Yes

Its like bringing a gun to a knife fight. The knife wielder is at a tactical disadvantage.

Not having the resources to produce the bullets needed for the gun is a strategic disadvantage.


So if you are anything like me and cant stop consuming history. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCx-dJoP9hFCBloY9qodykvw

Check this channel out. He details many interesting battles. Like check the battle of Alesia(sp) when Julius Ceasar surrounded a town in a siege with a wall, then surrounded himself with yet another wall because he himself was being attacked. Spoiler alert, celts lost. But at least the dude had a sweet name(vercingetorix )SP.

[Omni]

deleted---

[Ernie Nemeth]

Looking at some of those battles reminds me of when I was writing a book about an epic war. The logistics involved, bringing everyone to the same place at the same time with the proper supply chains set up and the required armies of support personnel, spanned almost two years. Some had to begin their journey early on, others at the very end, and all in between. The calculations took up a large length of banner paper - and three comprehensive maps.

People in olden times thought further ahead, even through generations. To a large extent it is a lost art.

Imagine using that generational mind-set to plan a strategy spanning decades (Rockefeller and the CFR comes to mind), or centuries (most empires), or millennia (???).