MilitaryStrategy

I have heard this with a wonderful movie "Blood and Bones" a few years ago. Interestingly, the hero quoted a famous word "I am wrath of God ...". However, the bibliography listed in the title of this article makes me think, I would like to know your explanation, too.

At first, there were a few eye-catching things here. The first one is my expectation. Focusing on defense will not win nothing. For example, this is not a way to win in sports. But this is not a game. Grandson is not talking about winning or losing, but talking about contrast between invincibility and victory. The word of invincibility is also very striking. It is because I have never heard of such a termination clause when talking about military strategy. Problems occur frequently and little can always be expected to work.

My next eye to eye is the possibility. do not know. This means there is a risk of attack. In defense, that is for sure. I think that aggressive action puts you in a weak position, exposes you, and expands your power so that you will not concentrate more. I patiently waited looking at the best, so I often sat down, spelled other people in the field, weakened, and made me hurt. opportunity

However, I think it is interesting that the grandchild of this great Asian conqueror cited the certainty of defense and the danger of attack, but his nature is the main attacker. So, what do you think about this explanation?

It is an interesting idea, but we need to be aware that the defense is not decided. After all, enemy attackers can win. If he thinks he does not have the chance to win, he will not attack. Secondly, pure defense will not solve the immediate true problem: we are willing to attack you and there are enemies possible. Pure defense keeps enemies in front of you, and always exists. He can recover, arrange the equipment, refill it, and try again. If you actually do not take an unpleasant action to solve the enemy's underlying problem, you will be able to satisfy the opportunity for the future to fail your defense. Pure defense is not sure as there is no certainty of attack.

Clausewitz thinks that the attack power is weak (including the reasons you mentioned), but there is a positive purpose - it can change this situation. Defense is more powerful, but there is a negative goal - it holds this. Therefore, pure defense holds only the contingent situation - it holds the situation that you have an enemy that you can gladly attack you.

Finally, the defender can not prepare forever. Permanent military preparation is impossible in general and behaviorally. If you wait patiently, enemy attackers will always have an opening. And the attacker will always confirm that he is more ready than the defender, while he can prepare the exact moment.

As you have noticed, pure defense will not let you win. But it can not make you unbeatable - in theory it seems reasonable, but the reality hinders it from being actually achievable. Therefore, Clausewitz considers (as exactly) that any defense is a shield of (aggressive) systematic attacks ranging from technical / tactical attacks to bullets / tactics / combat / strategy. Please fight back and counterattack. The best way to make sure that successful defenses are still successful is succeeding in attacks and eliminating the enemy's fundamental problems. Otherwise you are basically just waiting for the enemies to get bored trying to attack.

Judging from reading grandchildren's words, if he takes a defensive position, it has two necessary situational factors.

The art of war tells us to rely on ourselves to be prepared for accepting him rather than relying on the possibility that enemies will not come; he has no chance of attack Not from