QA：《孫子兵法》是關於什麼的？它有什麼用處？_風聞

【來源龍騰網】

評論原創翻譯

Sam Eiji, art of war

It is very useful if you can learn something from it.

It is not very useful if you learn nothing from it.

The books would been  particularly useful if you could grasp something from those books and it let you to defeat a  much superior army.

Vietnam warAfghan warSomalia warIraq warYemen war911 attack.You could apply those theory in other field too.

Many people apply it in the field of business, share market, and politics.

Maybe Donald trumps are well versed in those Sun Tzu theory.

Trumps beats all his competitor easily.

Trumps make all kind of mistake, yet he can still prevail over his competitor.

The Media cant kill off his popularity.- smearing campaign, hatred.

The Media cant destroy him.

【回答】

如果你能從中學到一些東西，那它就非常有用。

如果你從中學不到任何東西，那它就沒多大用處。

如果你能從書中學到一些東西，並且能夠打敗一支強大得多的軍隊，那麼這書就特別有用。

越南戰爭、阿富汗戰爭、索馬里戰爭、也門戰爭和911襲擊，你也可以把這些理論應用到其他領域。

許多人將其應用於商業、股票市場和政治領域。

也許唐納德特朗普精通孫子的理論。特朗普輕而易舉地擊敗了所有的競爭對手。

雖然特朗普犯了各種各樣的錯誤，但他仍然可以戰勝他的競爭對手。媒體抹殺不了他的聲望。媒體毀不了他。

Abu Kedem (Rechavia Berman), I translated the Sun Tzu into Hebrew

Many, but to pick two you may have heard of: Mao Tse Tung and Vo Nguyen Giap, the commander of the Viet Cong who defeated the mighty USA. Both utilized Master Sun’s principles and defeated opponents who were, on paper, far stronger than their own.

There’s an anecdote (true or apocryphal, it’s so good I have to share it) about an American retired general meeting with a Vietcong counterpart many years after the war had ended and both nations resumed relations. The two men shared a beverage and talked about the war.

The American said: You know, you guys never beat us in a battle. Not once.

The Vietnamese said: This is true. It’s also irrelevant.

【回答】我翻譯了希伯來語的《孫子兵法》

許多關聯，我選擇兩個你可能已經聽説過: 毛和越共指揮官武元甲，他們都打敗了強大的美國。 兩人都運用了孫子的原則，打敗了名義上比自己強大得多的對手。

有一則軼事(不管真假，我必須要分享)是關於一位美國退休將軍在戰爭結束兩國恢復關係的多年後，與一位越共同僚會面的。 這兩個人喝着酒，談論着戰爭。

這個美國人説：你知道，你們這些傢伙從來沒有在戰鬥中打敗過我們。 一次也沒有。

而那個越南人説：這是事實，但也是無關緊要的事實。

Ricky Sng

In the past, most of the leaders in the Sengoku Jidai in Japan all used tactics based on or straight out from the book.

In modern times, some similarities in how IJA’s General Yamashita blustered and bluffed his way and cheated Malaya out of AE Perceivals and the British hands.

Many generals in WW2 used some tactics that were listed such as the use of spies for espionage etc. Would recommend this volume.

【回答】

在過去，日本四國時代的大部分領導人都使用基於或直接從《孫子兵法》中出來的戰術。

在現代，日本帝國陸軍的山下將軍是如何虛張聲勢並欺騙馬來亞脱離英國人的手中的。

第二次世界大戰中的許多將軍使用了一些戰術，例如進行間諜活動等。 我推薦這本書。

Lawrence Wong, AI Blockchain Cloud Mobile

Absolutely! The numbers, venues and weapons may be obsolete, but the strategic considerations are as relevant today as in Sun Tzu’s time. To think otherwise is to be ignorant of current affairs and business practices. Sadly, USA is paying the enormous costs of such monumental stupidity.

Compare and contrast the costs/benefits and consequences of the two Iraqi wars..

thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy’s plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy’s forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy’s army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.。

Bush 41 isolated Saddam Hussein by skillfully exploiting internal Shiite, Kurdish divisions; building a UN-approved coalition such that even Russia abandoned Saddam. Attacking remotely, where Saddam least expect it, victory was swift and devastating. Saddam was already lost when he ordered a chaotic, withdrawal, leading to the biggest Turkey shoot in history. Desert Storm was universally applauded as a text-book case of overwhelming strategic and tactical success. US even made a nominal profit. Bush 41 wisely allowed Saddam to stay in power to maintain strategic balance in the region.

In contrast, Bush 43 made the worst decision to “besiege the city.” Drunk with misguided pride and missionary zeal after initial success against the Taliban in Afghanistan, he asserted that Saddam was behind the 911 attacks, sextively denying American intelligence reports that Al Qaeda, no friend of secular Saddam, was responsible. Then, failing to show credible proof of weapons of mass destruction and thus no UN resolution, he twisted arms to attack with only the “coalition of the willing.” Winning battle after battle but at enormous costs, and seeing no crowds bearing flowers and sweets. Instead, decade-long insurgencies and the rise of DAESH. The total tab is $2 trillions and counting, thus arguably losing the peace.

So indirectly, the path of China rising is cleared by strategic failure of Bush 43 administration in understanding Sun Tzu’s philosophy.

【回答】AI區塊鏈雲移動

當然！雖然數量、地點和武器可能已經過時了，但戰略考慮在當代和孫子的時代同樣重要。如果不這樣想的話，就會對時事和商業慣例一無所知。 可悲的是，美國正在為愚蠢透頂付出巨大的代價。

比較兩次伊拉克戰爭的成本、收益和後果……

“故上兵伐謀，其次伐交，其次伐兵，其下攻城”

因此，將軍最高的謀略是阻止敵人的計劃，其次是阻止敵人的軍隊匯合，其次是在戰場上攻擊敵人的軍隊，最糟糕的是圍攻有城牆的城市。

老布什通過巧妙地利用什葉派內部的庫爾德人分裂孤立了薩達姆，建立了一個聯合國批准的聯盟，甚至連俄羅斯也拋棄了薩達姆。在薩達姆最意想不到的地方進行遠程攻擊，這場勝利是迅速而毀滅性的。當薩達姆下令進行撤退時，導致了歷史上最大規模的土耳其槍擊事件，他已經失敗了。“沙漠風暴行動”被普遍稱讚為戰略和戰術上取得壓倒性勝利的教科書案例。 美國甚至得到了名義利潤。 老布什總統明智地允許薩達姆繼續掌權，以維持該地區的戰略平衡。

相比之下，小布什做出的最糟糕的決定是“圍攻城市”。在阿富汗打擊塔利班取得初步成功後，他帶着被誤導的驕傲和傳教士般的熱情，堅稱薩達姆是9.11的幕後黑手，有選擇性地否認美國情報機構關於基地組織跟薩達姆沒有關係。然後，由於沒有大規模殺傷性武器的可靠證據，也就沒有聯合國的決議，他只好在“自願聯盟”的支持下，進行攻擊。贏得了一場又一場的戰爭，但付出了巨大的代價，沒有看到人羣捧着鮮花和糖果迎接。 相反，十年之久的叛亂和伊斯蘭國的崛起。 總賬單是2萬億美元，而且還在增加中，因此可以説失去了和平。

所以間接地，中國崛起道路的障礙被小布什掃清了，只因為他未理解孫子的哲學。