Chinese espionage

[tllwd]

Sun Tzu, The Art of War, chapter 13 - The Use Of Spies.

4. Thus, what enables the wise sovereign and the good general to strike and conquer, and achieve things beyond the reach of ordinary men, is foreknowledge.

5. Now this foreknowledge cannot be elicited from spirits; it cannot be obtained inductively from experience, nor by any deductive calculation.

6. Knowledge of the enemy's dispositions can only be obtained from other men.

7. Hence the use of spies, of whom there are five classes: (1) Local spies; (2) inward spies; (3) converted spies; (4) doomed spies; (5) surviving spies.

8. When these five kinds of spy are all at work, none can discover the secret system. This is called "divine manipulation of the threads." It is the sovereign's most precious faculty.

9. Having local spies means employing the services of the inhabitants of a district.

10. Having inward spies, making use of officials of the enemy.

11. Having converted spies, getting hold of the enemy's spies and using them for our own purposes.

12. Having doomed spies, doing certain things openly for purposes of deception, and allowing our spies to know of them and report them to the enemy.

13. Surviving spies, finally, are those who bring back news from the enemy's camp.

14. Hence it is that which none in the whole army are more intimate relations to be maintained than with spies.

None should be more liberally rewarded. In no other business should greater secrecy be preserved.

15. Spies cannot be usefully employed without a certain intuitive sagacity.

16. They cannot be properly managed without benevolence and straightforwardness.

17. Without subtle ingenuity of mind, one cannot make certain of the truth of their reports.

18. Be subtle! be subtle! and use your spies for every kind of business.

sntzx.gif

[mellie]

Sun Tzu, The Art of War, chapter 13 - The Use Of Spies.

4. Thus, what enables the wise sovereign and the good general to strike and conquer, and achieve things beyond the reach of ordinary men, is foreknowledge.

5. Now this foreknowledge cannot be elicited from spirits; it cannot be obtained inductively from experience, nor by any deductive calculation.

6. Knowledge of the enemy's dispositions can only be obtained from other men.

7. Hence the use of spies, of whom there are five classes: (1) Local spies; (2) inward spies; (3) converted spies; (4) doomed spies; (5) surviving spies.

8. When these five kinds of spy are all at work, none can discover the secret system. This is called "divine manipulation of the threads." It is the sovereign's most precious faculty.

9. Having local spies means employing the services of the inhabitants of a district.

10. Having inward spies, making use of officials of the enemy.

11. Having converted spies, getting hold of the enemy's spies and using them for our own purposes.

12. Having doomed spies, doing certain things openly for purposes of deception, and allowing our spies to know of them and report them to the enemy.

13. Surviving spies, finally, are those who bring back news from the enemy's camp.

14. Hence it is that which none in the whole army are more intimate relations to be maintained than with spies.

None should be more liberally rewarded. In no other business should greater secrecy be preserved.

15. Spies cannot be usefully employed without a certain intuitive sagacity.

16. They cannot be properly managed without benevolence and straightforwardness.

17. Without subtle ingenuity of mind, one cannot make certain of the truth of their reports.

18. Be subtle! be subtle! and use your spies for every kind of business.

sntzx.gif

I'll read this TLD, however I am thinking that it's a little late in the day for our political leaders to catch-up on a little light reading.
Perhaps Australia's best strategy is playing dead/dumb, and I have grossly underestimated the capabilities of my own government, however if their policies and performance is anything to gauge their intelligence capabilities by, we are already in over our heads.

I'd like to be wrong here.

[mellie]

Correction, I'll read highlights, pointless reading either of the two editions of the same title written by two different authors because these ancient texts are very limited in terms of modern warfare today.

Siege warfare is still relevant, ( think gaza) if you have a military big enough to surround a small nation, province or state, however modern technologies are capable of bypassing this ancient strategy, ie, drones, aircraft etc.

It's historically interesting however to note how China has always been a multi-facetted war-machine, even when it came to conquering their own people, and continue to do so today with their native ethnic and religious minorities.

Advanced in some ways, but rather barbaric and uncivilised still in many other ways.

[tllwd]

...these ancient texts are very limited in terms of modern warfare today.

The Art of War has been applied to many fields outside of the military. Much of the text is about how to outsmart one's opponent without actually having to engage in physical battle. As such, it has found application as a training guide for many competitive endeavors that do not involve actual combat.
This ancient text offers profound insights into strategy, decision-making, and human behavior, making it a timeless guide for leaders in various domains like statecraft and big business.

[mellie]

...these ancient texts are very limited in terms of modern warfare today.

The Art of War has been applied to many fields outside of the military. Much of the text is about how to outsmart one's opponent without actually having to engage in physical battle. As such, it has found application as a training guide for many competitive endeavors that do not involve actual combat.
This ancient text offers profound insights into strategy, decision-making, and human behavior, making it a timeless guide for leaders in various domains like statecraft and big business.

There's two versions of the same text, the earlier version which you've stated above, and a later version which is more tactile and forceful written by Sun Bin.

Both works of well known strategists Sun Tzu and Sun Bin have heavily influenced military philosophy and Chinese warfare. Have you read Sun Bin's version of the same book?

What is the main difference between the two that stand out to you?


For me, it's reminiscent of other wars currently happening elsewhere in the world, likely Taiwan is next cab off the rank, and we've been warned Stay out of it!

However, I've only had a glance, so....

[tllwd]

What is the main difference between the two that stand out to you?

IMHO, Sun Bin concentrate attention more on military aspect while Sun Tzu is about general strategy in any conflict.
That's why he is so popular in corporate culture.

[mellie]

What is the main difference between the two that stand out to you?

IMHO, Sun Bin concentrate attention more on military aspect while Sun Tzu is about general strategy in any conflict.
That's why he is so popular in corporate culture.

Would you say Sun Bin drew more on philosophical ideals, like say Confucianism, or would you say less so than his predecessor?

[tllwd]

What is the main difference between the two that stand out to you?

IMHO, Sun Bin concentrate attention more on military aspect while Sun Tzu is about general strategy in any conflict.
That's why he is so popular in corporate culture.

Would you say Sun Bin drew more on philosophical ideals, like say Confucianism, or would you say less so than his predecessor?

I don't think so as there is no evidence of Sun Bin being influenced by Confucian ideas or vice versa. His work is rooted in the practicalities of warfare, while Confucianism is a broader system of thought concerned with social and ethical order.

[mellie]

It's a shame isn't it though.

Because if Sun Bins art of warfare did lean-on benevolence, righteousness, social harmony, ethical conduct, and positive hierarchical relationships, with an emphasis on the education and self-cultivation to achieve a virtuous society and broader global understanding and respect for the practicality of warfare, then perhaps warfare itself would be a thing of the past, something earlier humans heirearchy did to protect their interests good/bad from disruption of order itself, rather than fostering a more homogeneous approach, way , society at large. The whole concept of them -vrs- us wouldn't have been the ideal, rather would have been the exception based on perceived necessity?

[tllwd]

then perhaps warfare itself would be a thing of the past

I doubt that, any life form is a predator by it's very nature, it as to eat to stay alive.