Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Sun Tzu - The Art of War Explained In 5 Minutes" video.

  1. +Commander Shepard you have to get something: there's a difference between a tactical victory and a strategic victory. For example, the Battle of Mogadishu was a complete tactical victory for the US and United Nations, but the events lead to the withdrawal of US and UN forces meaning it was a strategic victory for Somalia. Vietnam achieved a strategic victory by managing to outlast the US's will to fight.
    7
  2. Deponensvogel discouraging public support for war is one of the ways to secure victory.
    6
  3. Cole Mt political/cultural victory is still victory.
    5
  4. +Jesse Weinert okay, right now we are talking about two different subjects, Sun Tzu's Art of War and the difference between tactical and strategic victories. To stay within context, do you think the Art of War is about achieving tactical victories or strategic victories? If we're being honest, it's about strategy. If you implement the Art of War correctly, you'd pretty much retreat from every single battle you cannot win so that when the enemy is ready, you're not there to suffer the attack. That means you'd rack up tactical losses at an astonishing pace. But the point is winning strategically. Vietnam was on home turf. All they had to do was not suffer a strategic loss. The tactical losses cost them greatly but in the end they prevailed over the invading force. You think that according to Sun Tzu, they lost?
    5
  5. +j Nemes you seem to not be getting the point so let's not say that America lost. You claim that America won, so logically the North Vietnam had to lose, right? But by unifying the country under communist rule they accomplished their main strategic goal. Isn't that the definition of a win? Do you challenge the notion that Vietnam won?
    5
  6. +j Nemes I mean, now you're just in denial, the objective wasn't to kill as much people as possible or else the US would have caused even more collateral damage with even more carpet bombing, even more Agent Orange, etc. If anything wars are fought with the intention to kill as little as possible, by targeting the industry, crippling supplies and routes, damaging the country economically so that people lose the will to fight, etc because the more you use strategy the less you'll need to fight at the frontline. If you focus on killing as much people as possible, you'll always be fighting on heavily defended areas and casualties will be high on both sides.
    5
  7. +j Nemes the fall of Saigon and unification of Vietnam under a communist regime was a win? Strategic loss, look it up.
    3
  8. j Nemes the subject is that you don't need to outfight the enemy. The US outfought Vietnam but still failed it's strategic objective.
    1
  9. +j Nemes [citation needed] By the way, that sounds like a strategic goal you'd set when you knew you couldn't win. It was still a political defeat.
    1
  10. According to the Geneva convention illegal combatants are not signatory parties. The North Vietnamese used illegal combatants extensively.
    1