"Is war a science or an art?" Topic

A craft…I rather like that.

After having studied war for decades as well as having been a professional soldier for almost half my life, I would have to say that war is both art and science.

Professional knowledge is needed to wage it as there is a technical side to warfare. And to wage it requires skill which applies that knowledge and professional study.

You have to know and understand what you are about.

War involves the application of amoral science to the goal of immoral killing on a grand scale. War is a pathology and thus the only arts in this regard are diplomacy and compromise (the art of avoidance of war) by any and all means possible. Once war begins, art, science, ethics, honour, humanity, law, justice and morality go out the door and are cast on the midden heap while desperate, rabid and unrestrained savages struggle to survive and kill with whatever technology is at hand. War is bestial and ugly in the extreme and we must never forget that nor fail to drive that truth home to new and naive generations.

This 'interesting' conclusion reminds me of two quotations that are very applicable today, especially when too many people believe that war should be avoided at all costs, no matter what the circumstances and without regard to what may eventually take place. The world is a dangerous place and you cannot wait until the wolf is at the door to take action if necessary.

‘War is an evil thing…but to submit to the dictation of others is far worse…Freedom, if we hold fast to it, will ultimately restore our losses, but submission will mean permanent loss of what we all value…To you who call yourselves men of peace, I say: You are not safe unless you have men of action on your side.'-Thucidydes

'To declaim against war…is to beat the air with vain sounds, for ambitious, unjust, or powerful rulers will certainly not be restrained by such means. But what…must necessarily result, is to extinguish little by little the military spirit, and some day to deliver up one's own nation…to the yoke of warlike nations which may be less civilized but which have more judgment and prudence.'-Guibert

+1 Brechtel198

B

Neither… and Cezanne was more important to the development of cubism than Einstein.

+2 Brechtel198 On all you said.

The world is a dangerous place and you cannot wait until the wolf is at the door to take action if necessary.

Yes, and as you and I know. You have to prepare for war. If you wait until the wolf is at the door/the enemy is at the gate. It will most certainly be too late.

Somethings stay the same for centuries … i.e.

To you who call yourselves men of peace, I say: You are not safe unless you have men of action on your side.'-Thucidydes

Amen !

I would have to say that war is both art and science.

As I said in an earlier post. That is what I was taught waaaay back in '75 as a lowly ROTC Cadet. And reinforced many times at numerous military schools and courses during my time on active duty, '79-'90. From Infantry Officer Basic and Advanced Courses, Combine Arms Services Staff School, etc., etc. And it still seems to be applicable today and will most likely be in the future.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

- Some hippie peacenik

Maybe we should say:

Logistics is a science, strategy is an art.

I'd think … Logistics is more than "science" per se. I.e. I had a minor in "Military Science" from ARMY ROTC. That covers more than just Logistics. But Strategy is part of the Art of Warfare.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

Well that is too broad, much too "ideological", etc. Not realistic and/or pragmatic.

Say that to e.g. the Yazidis or Kurds in Iraq …

"Well that is too broad, much too "ideological", etc. Not realistic and/or pragmatic."

….. Indeed. For example, I wonder if the Israelis consider their military an unjustifiable expense.

B

Well that is too broad, much too "ideological", etc. Not realistic and/or pragmatic.

Say that to e.g. the Yazidis or Kurds in Iraq …

edit:

My contribution to this discussion is not furthering the discussion and I shall not be engaging any further.

Dwight D. Eisenhower apparently :)

FWIW, Weasel. I had no intention to disrespect, only to disagree with the statement in your post. If I caused offence, my apologies.

B

it has aspects of both – and depending on who you are fighting – "an amusing little jaunt"
Royal Navy officer on the Danube in ww1(fighting Austrians)

War in the defence of democracy or freedom? What utter claptrap. War is one of the most profoundly anti-democratic activites practiced by humans and its successful prosecution requires the suspension or permanent extinction of freedom for all involved, both military and civilian. War is hierarchy and authoritarian and has no room for democracy or freedom. War is a crime committed by a small minority of violent extremists/sociopaths who fully embrace and impose their militarism on a much larger majority of non-militaristic people. A majority of people who, if they were allowed to express themselves freely and without the yoking by relentless propaganda and jingoism, would seldom permit war.

Wars are planned, prepared for, provoked and executed by a very small minority of the population and imposed upon a much larger majority. Wars rarely involve more than 5% of a population seizing control of a society that would otherwise be content to act peacefully, while the remaining 95% are conscripted into an orgy of privation, destruction and killing to satisfy the violent drives of the militant minority and their financial backers. Rarely do wars involve more than 5% of the population hijacking the lives of the vast majority of their fellow citizens. During the Great Patriotic War the whole Soviet military was only about 10% of the population. The percentage could be expanded to perhaps 15% if one includes non-military martial roles directly related to the prosecution of the war between 1941 and 1945. Even Nazi Germany at a maximum and fighting for its wicked survival only involved between 20 and 30% of the population.

So militarists and their wars hijack a society to serve the desires and goals of usually tiny, pugilistic minorities whose vain-glory and infatuation with war or the desire to profit from war enslaves the vast majority of others in the state. In the modern USA less than 1% of the population serves in the military at any given time and perhaps one or two percent more directly benefit from the vast military-industrial-management complex the Americans have created for themselves. At least 600 billion dollars a year is spent feeding the rapacious appetites of militarists in the USA and that is paid for by deficit financing which cannot be sustained. This means that 97-99% of the US population are slaved to deal with the public expenditures and lethal consequences imposed upon them by just 1-3% of the population! That is not democratic nor does it ring of freedom.

Now some here will no doubt argue that it is the danger of other foreign militarists and their supporters which require us all to be prepared for war and often to act pre-emptively in defence of our ways of life. Hogwash, for the most part. The vast majority of wars fought since the end of WWII have been created, provoked, initiated and prosecuted by "freedom loving" and democratic states as they bully and impose economic and diplomatic terms on other states and peoples through rampant militarism. We are sold war by fear-mongers and proselytising, paranoid pundits of pugilism who would divide and sunder peace-loving folk to serve militaristic and economic agendas. While some of the threats have been real and needed to be addressed, most have been exaggerated and amplified to serve the war-like purposes of the militarists and their grand vision of increasing the frequency and intensity of war by the powerful against the weak.

It's gotten so bad that we don't even declare wars anymore as such formalities hinder the smooth expansion and domination of militarism on foreign people's and our own societies. Now we languish in a paranoid forever-war mentality which kills too many people, impoverishes public coffers, enslaves millions to militarist agendas, erodes rights and freedoms, expands surveillance, twists truths and hawks 'fear of the other' to the detriment of the vast majority of humanity. We are now collectively captives of a peace-time-war-mentality which closes our minds to other options for solving disagreements and potential conflicts with foreign states and peoples. We cut budgets for diplomacy and statesmanship to feed our ever-growing reliance on the military as the primary tool for state policy. The enemy is more often our own politicians, their subservient warriors and their power and financial backers then devilish foreigners with vile appetites plotting cruel machinations abroad. The degree to which militarism and the readiness to prosecute war has seized and taken over our own "peace-loving" societies is perhaps the greatest threat we face in the early 21st century. We have been infected by paranoia and militarism and we are septic, the sickly-sweet gangrenous miasma reeks of war and crusade.

So please don't speak of militarism and war as either an art or a science. That war uses both science and art as tools is true. But the preparation and practice of war is a profoundly evil programme which is rarely a necessary evil. That is neither art nor science but is malignancy, pure and simple. And also consider carefully the notion that war is fought in the service of freedom or democracy. Can we really say this without pondering some of the less-talked-about and socially ignored aspects of our own less than free and less than democratic societies, which spread war like a contagion.

War is a pathology, it's drivers are fear and greed and its vectors are power and propaganda.

Rod Robertson

I believe we/many(?) knew that quote was from Eisenhower. However, I thought Weasel was setting up for a further point. So thought he'd continue the discussion. Regardless, Ike after being the Supreme Allied Cdr, during WWII, he better than most anyone else could say, that.

After the millions upon millions of people killed in WWII. I've heard estimates of 50-70 million. And Billions of dollars expended. He was in a position and had the CV to say that. With some weight and relevance at that time …

However, he said that over 70 years ago. Today, in many places of the world. Like Iraq, A'stan, etc., that quote has little to no real relevance to those like the Yazidis and Kurds, etc. And of course the Israelis …

All those people are not too concerned about what Ike or anyone else said 70 years ago. They just want to stay alive.

youtu.be/nzNbfa1QyYg

Painting my 15mm Napoleonics (Art) is killing me (War).

Eisenhower is not the best reference for waging war as he never saw combat. He was the overall commander, but was not a combat commander. There is a difference. He and Bradley both were in the US training troops in War I while Patton and others were in combat in France.

Patton's comment on Bradley and Eisenhower was that when the two got together they turned timid.

And Eisenhower never thanked Patton for saving the situation, and Eisenhower, at the Bulge.

War in the defence of democracy or freedom?…it's drivers are fear and greed and its vectors are power and propaganda.

Your diatribe is noted. It is comparable to the left-wing and violent (as well as inaccurate and infamatory) rhetoric of the US anti-war movement during the Vietnam period and the anti-nuclear 'movement' in the 1980s which demanded US nuclear disarmament but said nothing of the Russians/Soviets.

In my long study of warfare, its causes and how it was waged over the last forty years or so I have discovered that the mindset that you have promulgated here is one of the main causes for war in the modern world.

And your obvious distaste for the Western Democracies is also noted as well as your false accusations of 'militarism' in the modern world along with your comments on 'militarists.'

Instead of being part of the solution to problems in the world you are contributing to those problems and being de facto part of them.

Has anyone noticed that this is a trick question anyhow?

Again, I agree with all you posted Brechtel.

And Rod is well known for his "views", which are generally 180 degrees from you and I as former Soldiers. So I don't waste anymore time than I have in the past to post my POVs on his comments.

Meanwhile, yesterday 3 US Soldiers were WIA in A'stan by a "member" of the ANA.

Saw an interview with a Yazidi girl who escaped from Deash. On the CNN yesterday. After her Mother and 6 Brothers were executed by Daesh. She was raped repeatedly, and sold along with other Yazidi young women. As sex slaves. If that does not upset anyone. Than they have less compassion and feelings than some say I and those like me do.

So yes, many can go on criticizing and vilifying the US Military and it's members. Who volunteered to go in harms way to try to prevent such medieval acts. Which occur as a policy and standard by sub-humans like Daesh daily.

So yes, too bad all the money the US spends on its military. Can't be all spent on food, clothing, shelter, medicine, etc. But as many know and some fail to admit. It's still a very, very dangerous world out there. And not just by groups like Deash, AQ or the Taliban, etc. In places like Syria, Iraq, Libya and A'stan, etc.

North Korea and Iran are trying to get deployable nuclear devises. Is the #1 threat in my mind.

Plus the Russian moves in Eastern Europe and China's expansion of it's territorial waters, etc.

And there are other geopolitical situations as well.

So it's not time to shut down the US Military, IMO … Not by a long shot. And I think I'm safe in saying. People like Brechtel and/or I didn't join the military to make $$$$ or get rich, etc.. We volunteered for whatever our reasons. And none had anything to do with what some have posted here.

Art and the application of methods and principles are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

War in the defence of democracy or freedom? What utter claptrap.

So if someone attacks a democracy, it should just surrender?

"It is the Soldier, not the reporter,
Who has given us Freedom of the Press.

It is the Soldier, not the poet,
Who has given us Freedom of Speech.

It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer,
Who has given us the Freedom to demonstrate.

It is the Soldier, not the lawyer,
Who has given us the right to a fair trial;

And it is the Soldier--who salutes the flag,
Who serves the flag, and
Whose coffin is draped by the flag--
Who allows the protester to burn the flag."

source unknown

"If you would have peace, prepare for war."

source unknown (some ancient Roman or Greek)

…And Rod is well known for his "views", which are generally 180 degrees from you and I as former Soldiers. So I don't waste anymore time than I have in the past to post my POVs on his comments.

It's my first run-in with the 'gentleman.' And thanks very much for your support-it means a lot.

His postings remind me of a popular Marine Corps 'bumper sticker' that is quite evident in our neighborhood (I live in Jacksonville, North Carolina, where the Camp Lejeune Marine Base is located):

'For those who have fought for it, freedom has a taste that the protected will never know.'

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

donlowry:

So if someone attacks a democracy, it should just surrender?

No. If attacked, states have the right and the duty to protect themselves. However, twisting the word 'defend/defence' into a pretext for engaging in wars of aggression abroad is different. That is at the core of my critique of militarism as most such wars fought since WWII have been wars of choice and have been driven by militarism which promotes such wars. A physical attack on a nation is a legitimate casus belli, presuming it can identify a state or definable group as the attacker and has evidence to back up its allegations. However when foreign states are attacked for refusing to cooperate with or serve the interests of a dominant regional or global power, that is not defence, that is aggression. Most of the wars fought in the latter half of the 20th Century and the first 16 years of the 21st Century have not been wars of defence but rather wars of adventure/aggression to promote the economic and political interests of powerful states over weaker states or weaker nations/peoples.

Many of those wars, at least in western democracies, have not had popular backing and have been generally opposed by large segments of the aggressor state's citizenry. However the domination of a small but powerful militarist bloc has trumped the objections of much larger blocs of anti-war citizenry who oppose such aggression. Yet the wars still happen and the citizens still die and pay for wars which many of them oppose.

It is the Soldier, not the reporter,
Who has given us Freedom of the Press.

It is the Soldier, not the poet,
Who has given us Freedom of Speech.

It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer,
Who has given us the Freedom to demonstrate.

It is the Soldier, not the lawyer,
Who has given us the right to a fair trial;

I shall assume you are referring to the US experience with respect to your citation above. The US Bill of Rights was championed and introduced by James Madison, who while he held a commission during the Revolutionary War/American War of Independence never commanded troops in battle due to ill health and a fragile constitution (pun intended). Madison was highly suspicious of the power of a US Federal standing army and cautioned against allowing such a force without ensuring the existence of countervailing forces held by state governments to fight it if necessary. So Madison who was an academic far more than a soldier gave Americans the Bill of Rights in 1791 and politicians, not soldiers voted it into effect.

And it is the Soldier--who salutes the flag,
Who serves the flag, and
Whose coffin is draped by the flag--
Who allows the protester to burn the flag."

It is the constitutional amendments which allow citizens to burn flags. The idea that soldiers 'allow' this is indicative of the arrogance of the militarist mind-set which thinks it has the power to 'allow' other citizens to exercise their legal rights. Far from being the guarantors of liberties and rights, and in spite of their oath to defend the Constitution, the uniformed militarists and their civilian militarist allies are gutting the constitutional protections of American citizens. Examples of this are promoting extra constitutional powers like Continuity of Government policies which suspend constitutional protections for the citizenry, suspending habeas corpus, promoting illegal domestic espionage, illegal internment without trial, the creation of an unbridled surveillance state and the militarization of law enforcement.

So my suspicion and harsh criticism of militarism is well justified, I think, and certainly bears consideration if one values both peace and liberty.

Rod Robertson.

War isn't an art or a science. It's a trade.

Brechtal 198:

If you want to debate and discuss my argument then refute it. Offer evidence and authorities to rebut what I say. If you want to attack my personality and motives for stating what I say, that is your pregogative but such a strategy does not make for a convincing counter argument. Calling to arms other posters to form a bloc in opposition to my expressed ideas (as Legion 4 likes to do) is just a sign of weakness. Make a case and I will listen. Heap scorn and derision and your own diatribes will fall on my deaf ears.

Respectfully.
Rod Robertson.

Legion 4:

I do not attack soldiers. They do what they must to survive and to win. I am attacking the militarists (both uniformed and civilian) who rely too much on war to promote their interests and agendas and who put soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen/women in harm's way and in danger unnecessarily. To dress up war as an art or a science attempts to hide the barbarity and savagery of war and thus reduces the revulsion for war which all sane people should have. There is no art in cleaving an enemy's skull in with an entrenching tool, no art in disembowelling a foe with a bayonet or shredding an adversary with a claymore mine or cluster bomb.

War uses science but war is not a science in and of itself. The definition of science is, "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Soldiers and warriors don't study the world as part of their trade, they destroy portions of it. To say that soldiers practice science when they examine the grisly portions and remnants of war in order to better destroy the physical and natural world in the next war is a cruel libel against science, all creation and life itself. The soldier's primary purpose is to kill and destroy in service of the state, so let's not try to dress this cruel fact up with notions of art and science. Such delusions lower the barriers to using war as an instrument of selfish state policy and therefore indirectly promote the use of war, thus serving the interests of militarists.

The notion that the world is a dangerous place is largely true only because militarists in foreign states threaten militarists in our own states. It is the militarism which makes the world as dangerous as it is and thus militarism is a self-justifying and self-perpetuating ideology which acts like a pathogen to infect societies and thus drives them to war. It is a bestial and bloody-minded symbiosis which allows both sides of militarists to cooperatively marshal their greater populations to war by mass deception in order to serve the militarists' interests. The vast majority of the population is peaceful and would normally avoid war, but the militarists seize control of the means of communication to project their pathological fears through unrelenting and intensive propaganda in order to whip the greater population into a temporary war frenzy. This lasts long enough to initiate the war. But the population sobers up and shakes off the deception eventually and may begin to refuse to support such unnecessary wars, thus making such wars unsustainable. Then the militarists turn to authoritarianism and coercion when propaganda and deception no longer are effective to keep the population in check and to keep them subservient to the militarist agenda.

So yes, too bad all the money the US spends on its military. Can't be all spent on food, clothing, shelter, medicine, etc. But as many know and some fail to admit. It's still a very, very dangerous world out there. And not just by groups like Deash, AQ or the Taliban, etc. In places like Syria, Iraq, Libya and A'stan, etc.

Case in point above.

Rod Robertson.

Again I'm with you Brechtel, Rod and I have gone round & round over this sort of topic. For a few years now. He is dug in like a Georgia Tick on his views. But so am I, like a Tick with Lime disease !

So I try not to waste his or my time. With verbal volley ball, which again still changes no one's mind, beliefs, POV, etc. And may get me in the "Dawg Haus" or even banned … I'm already not allowed on the Ultramodern Warfare boards. So it's it just not worth it.

@ donlowery +1

@ 28mm – You really can't go wrong with Sun Tzu, IMO ! +1

Bello te prepares.

Sun Tzu knew it, those of us on here who served understand it, many of those on here, who may never have worn a uniform, appreciate it. Conflict has been a facet of human history, I agree has often been a human tragedy, but then the OP wasn't asking us to solve the moral dilemma posed by the concept and execution of war.

"War is lists" plays to the idea of warfare as a science, the bane of staff officers the world over. Understanding the information those lists provide, and applying it in the pursuit of your mission and the wider aims and objectives, requires a flair and talent for warfare that might be described as an art.

Again I'm with you Brechtel, Rod and I have gone round & round over this sort of topic. For a few years now. He is dug in like a Georgia Tick on his views. But so am I, like a Tick with Lime disease !
So I try not to waste his or my time. With verbal volley ball, which again still changes no one's mind, beliefs, POV, etc. And may get me in the "Dawg Haus" or even banned … I'm already not allowed on the Ultramodern Warfare boards. So it's it just not worth it.

Truer words were never spoken. Well done.

War is not a science. The purpose of sciences is to obtain a certain type of knowledge about something, while the intrinsic purpose of war is not to obtain any knowledge about anything.

But you may study several aspects of war using the scientific method, but this does not mean that war is a science. War, like every human activity, may be an object of scientific study, but it is not a science in itself.

Technological innovations and scientific matters (mathematics, organizational methods, systemic theories, …) may be tools or instruments used in war. But, again, this does not mean that war is a science.

War is not an art. The purpose of art is the creation or recreation of something according to certain principles: beauty, emotion, spirit, religious feeling, nature, symbolism, and so on. The main purpose of war is not the same, even although you could consider that certain aspects of war could be artistically implemented, and this is the real meaning of The Art of War (Sun Tzu). By the way, this Chinese masterwork refers to every kind of human conflict, not just war (psychological and sociological conflicts as well).

So sciences, arts and war are different human activities, and they have different purposes, procedures and meanings.

Don Lowry,
You've been critiqued by the professor, now go back to your seat and quit asking questions. It's only going to lower your GPA.

Wolfhag

War is not a science. The purpose of sciences is to obtain a certain type of knowledge about something, while the intrinsic purpose of war is not to obtain any knowledge about anything.
But you may study several aspects of war using the scientific method, but this does not mean that war is a science. War, like every human activity, may be an object of scientific study, but it is not a science in itself.
Technological innovations and scientific matters (mathematics, organizational methods, systemic theories, …) may be tools or instruments used in war. But, again, this does not mean that war is a science.
War is not an art. The purpose of art is the creation or recreation of something according to certain principles: beauty, emotion, spirit, religious feeling, nature, symbolism, and so on. The main purpose of war is not the same, even although you could consider that certain aspects of war could be artistically implemented, and this is the real meaning of The Art of War (Sun Tzu). By the way, this Chinese masterwork refers to every kind of human conflict, not just war (psychological and sociological conflicts as well).

So sciences, arts and war are different human activities, and they have different purposes, procedures and meanings.

Oh, Good Lord!

I haven't read anything that reeked of such nonsense in quite some time.

I suppose we should expect such 'answers' to such an open-ended question.

Incredible.

Yes

In Panzer war we break down the tactical order system on whether the nation's doctrine reflects the art of war or the science of war.

There are two general types of doctrines practiced. The first one is called the Art of War doctrine or type 'AOW' for short. Many western armies, including German, American and British attempted to practice this doctrine. It allowed for greater flexibility for the individual tactical commander. However, without good tactical leadership tactical units sometimes worked at cross purposes. The AOW system issues tactical orders to each platoon.

The other type of doctrine will be called the Science of War doctrine or 'SOW' doctrine. This doctrine sees warfare as a science not an art. Tactical commanders are given very little flexibility as that is reserved for the operational level commanders. The Soviet army used this type doctrine. Actually, there are some that say the British used this doctrine (with their 'drill' training method) as much as they did AoW. The SoW issues tactical orders to each company. This translates into a delay at the platoon level.

Seminal to the structure of Soviet military theory is the Marxist perception that the historical process is governed by discoverable laws in much the same way that natural processes are governed by discoverable laws of nature. According to this perception, laws are defined as "… the essential, stable or repetitious interrelationships according to which the seemingly chaos of observable historical phenomena or facts interact" Although observed facts and phenomena have a number of interrelationships, not all are essential or repetitious. Thus, relationships that are unique to a specific event, even if they were critical to that event, do not qualify as laws and are therefore scientifically unimportant.

Brechtel,

No, what is really incredible that you do not know the basic meaning of words and concepts. It is disappointing.

Please look for the meaning of the words science, art and war, using a good dictionary.

And then, if you really want to learn, I will give you a good bibliography on Aesthetics (theory of Art), Epistemology (theory of Science) and Anthropology (especially about the origins of violence in human behaviour). Surely you will find lots of ‘nonsenses' in the work of many philosophers, scientists and anthropologists.

Even a high school student knows how to distinguish what a science is from what it is not. So you have to do a lot of homework.

I am not interested in discussing with you about the basic meaning of words such as science, art and war. It is an absurdity. You are looking for a conflict where there is none. And your comments are rude, disrespectful and useless.

If you consult any serious classification (taxonomy) of the sciences and the arts, I assure you that you will not find war among them.

I was going to say war is an art when I'm slapping paint on these poor little lead animals, and it's a science when I'm trying to justify/rationalize/understand a rules mechanism. But that would presuppose that we were on a site dedicated to playing with toy soldiers, and we are far too august a council for that ;)

With regards to the OP, how about this: War (with a capital 'w') is… human nature. In the words of the immortal Master Ugwe, and I'm paraphrasing: anything else is simply wishing to get apples or oranges from a peach tree ;)

And Rod, brother, you sound like a stark, raving mad loon! You know, the kind who ultimately discovers the only way to save the planet is to liquidate all the humans. Relax, man, play some toy soldiers, have a good time ;)

V/R,
Jack

My Lord. What could Sun Tzu have been thinking when he titled his book ?!?!?!?!?

B

Sun Tzu was a Taoist so it's easy to know what he was thinking when he titled his book.

Carl Von Clauswitz had this to say on the matter. Good luck sorting it out. He seems to agree with SJDonovan. I have spared you the first two points he makes which take prevarication and dissembling to stratospheric levels. For the brave or masochistic you can find more here:

link

3.—War is part of the intercourse of the human race.
We say therefore, war belongs not to the province of arts and sciences, but to the province of social life. It is a conflict of great interests which is settled by bloodshed, and only in that is it different from others. It would be better, instead of comparing it with any art, to liken it to trade, which is also a conflict of human interests and activities; and it is still more like State policy, which again, on its part, may be looked upon as a kind of trade on a great scale. Besides, State policy is the womb in which war is developed, in which its outlines lie hidden in a rudimentary state, like the qualities of living creatures in their germs.
4.—Difference.
The essential difference consists in this, that war is no activity of the will, which exerts itself upon inanimate matter like the mechanical arts; or upon a living, but still passive and yielding subject, like the human mind and the human feelings in the ideal arts; but against a living and re-acting force. How little the categories of arts and sciences are applicable to such an activity strikes us at once; and we can understand, at the same time, how that constant seeking and striving after laws like those which may be developed out of the dead, material world, could not but lead to constant errors. And yet it is just the mechanical arts that some people would imitate in the art of war. The imitation of the ideal arts was quite out of the question, because these themselves dispense too much with laws and rules, and those hitherto tried always acknowledged as insufficient and one-sided, are perpetually undermined and washed away by the current of opinions, feelings, and customs.
Whether such a conflict of the living, as takes place and is settled in war rests, subject to general laws, and whether these are capable of indicating a useful line of action, will be partly investigated in this book; but so much is evident in itself, that this, like every other subject which does not surpass our powers of understanding, may be lighted up, and be made more or less plain in its inner relations by an enquiring mind, and that alone is sufficient to realise the idea of a theory.

Jack:

In a world which increasingly traffics in deception, disinformation and illusion the gap between a truth and madness seems to narrow dramatically. I'm not crazy, perhaps jaded, certainly angry, but not crazy. You try researching in depth the Kotluban operations just north of Stalingrad and the Rhzev meat-grinder and then see if you have anything laudatory to say about war and those who engineer it. For your edification I primed four T-62's yesterday and am assembling six 15mm T-55's this evening. One is missing a search light so I'm in a less than civil mood right now. We'll speak later when I'm more serene. Still in gaming doldrums too, curses!

Cheers.
Raving Rod Robertson.

War is not a science. The purpose of sciences is to obtain a certain type of knowledge about something, while the intrinsic purpose of war is not to obtain any knowledge about anything.

What?? What successful soldier would say such a thing? Even Sun Tzu, writing before science was a word studied war and gave his conclusions from observation and experiment…which comprised his experience.

sci·ence
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

"the world of science and technology."

The systematic study of combat and war in general is something that most all military men engage in, both on a technical level and a behavioral level.

But you may study several aspects of war using the scientific method, but this does not mean that war is a science. War, like every human activity, may be an object of scientific study, but it is not a science in itself.

"Science" isn't a thing, it is "a systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." So when someone speaks of the physical sciences or hard sciences, all they are noting is what is being studied and how. A scientist is one who uses particular methods in "studying the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

If you are saying that military men don't do that or that scientists aren't involved in military endeavors, I think that is an unsupportable position.

War as a profession, as a set of methods, as a technology as a set of principles and a subject of constant study, it is a science. The application of all that knowledge is the art.

War is both a science and an art just as the study of genetics and DNA is both a hard science and an art as Crick, of Crick and Watson notes.

YouTube link

No, what is really incredible that you do not know the basic meaning of words and concepts. It is disappointing.
Please look for the meaning of the words science, art and war, using a good dictionary.
And then, if you really want to learn, I will give you a good bibliography on Aesthetics (theory of Art), Epistemology (theory of Science) and Anthropology (especially about the origins of violence in human behaviour). Surely you will find lots of ‘nonsenses' in the work of many philosophers, scientists and anthropologists.
Even a high school student knows how to distinguish what a science is from what it is not. So you have to do a lot of homework.
I am not interested in discussing with you about the basic meaning of words such as science, art and war. It is an absurdity. You are looking for a conflict where there is none. And your comments are rude, disrespectful and useless.
If you consult any serious classification (taxonomy) of the sciences and the arts, I assure you that you will not find war among them.

What should be looked up and studied in respect to this subject is warfare and the study of it.

Have you done that?

If not, then you are only looking at the terms and definitions of 'art' and 'science' in a very narrow format, leaving out the study of the art and science of war.

It seems to me that you are looking at it and seeing what a person who is color blind sees-only in black and white.

I was educated in the art and science of war at a credible institution, and later actually practiced it, from the technical/science side, having a technical MOS, and from the leadership and psychological side, having been a commander a few times.

In short, unless you have experienced it, I can see why you have such a narrow viewpoint, with no common sense or practicality applied.

The systematic study of combat and war in general is something that most all military men engage in, both on a technical level and a behavioral level.
But you may study several aspects of war using the scientific method, but this does not mean that war is a science. War, like every human activity, may be an object of scientific study, but it is not a science in itself.
"Science" isn't a thing, it is "a systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." So when someone speaks of the physical sciences or hard sciences, all they are noting is what is being studied and how. A scientist is one who uses particular methods in "studying the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."
If you are saying that military men don't do that or that scientists aren't involved in military endeavors, I think that is an unsupportable position.
War as a profession, as a set of methods, as a technology as a set of principles and a subject of constant study, it is a science. The application of all that knowledge is the art.
War is both a science and an art just as the study of genetics and DNA is both a hard science and an art as Crick, of Crick and Watson notes.

Very well done and right on the money.

YouTube link

I've read all of the above and more than ever I conclude that war is neither art or science. Those words have been thrown around so loosely as to be meaningless.

TNE2300 video shows the approach depends on the philosophy which underlies the society. It in some ways like a rorschach test. Persons living in these societies take on the biases of their environment. They can see one thing while those in another society see something quite different.

Rod,

Regarding Clausewitz, like I said, human nature ;)
Undoubtedly War (with a capital 'w') is both science and art; my comment on human nature was simply for the over dramatic Utopians among us ;)

Regarding the gap between truth and madness narrowing, I would submit it probably wasn't as wide as you thought it was in the old days, and probably isn't as narrow as you assume now. It's a status quo planet ;)

Regarding meat grinders, now it gets interesting. To my mind, this is conflating and confusing war with combat, two totally different things. To the nation's executive, war is the ultimate drama, the means for changing a nation's fate and/or destiny, maybe as debased as simply changing its fortunes, or simply for something to do (in the eyes of the jaded, I suppose). For the soldier, war is… boring, frustrating, lonely.

But combat is altogether different. The nation's executive doesn't see this portion of War (at least not in modern times), while combat is the crucible for the soldier.

To me, discussions of war seem trite, almost silly. While the soldier no doubt has insights that the civilian cannot have, the only ones really able to talk about war in concrete terms are the presidents, dictators, kings, prime ministers, etc…, i.e., those that run in those circles. With regards to his war, the soldier is but one billionth of the formula, whereas combat is nothing if not intimately personal.

Looks like even I'm not immune to taking myself too seriously on a toy soldier website… I'm glad to hear you're making some progress on the vehicles, and nothing sucks like sitting down to build some models (an aspect of the hobby I detest; I'd rather have to base troops!) and finding out your missing some stuff. I'm too impatient; I'd end up with a T-62 with no search light. Maybe even take them off the other T-62s so they're uniform ;)

V/R,
Jack

I would like to offer a few examples of definitions of sciences (Cambridge Dictionary):

- Chemistry: the scientific study of the basic characteristics of substances and the ways in which they react and combine.

- Astronomy: the scientific study of the universe and of objects that exist naturally in space, such as the moon, the sun, planets, and stars.

- Physics: the scientific study of matter and energy and the effect that they have in each other.

- Psychology: the scientific study of the way the human mind works and how it influences behaviour, or the influence of a particular person's character on their behaviour.

- Biology: the scientific study of the natural processes of living things.

And the definition of war: armed fighting between two or more countries or groups, or a particular example of this. (Cambridge Dictionary)

Another definition of war: any situation in which there is strong competition between opposing sides or a great fight against something harmful. (Cambridge Dictionary).

Conclusion: a science is the scientific study of something. War is not the scientific study of anything. So, war is not a science.

I would like to offer a few examples of definitions of arts (Cambridge Dictionary):

- Sculpture: the art of forming solid objects that represent a thing, person, idea, etc. out of a material such as wood, clay, metal, or stone, or an object made in this way.

- Architecture: the art and practice of designing and making buildings.

- Drawing: the act of making a picture with a pencil or pen, or a picture made in this way.

- Writing: the activity of creating pieces of written works, such as stories, poems, or articles.

And again the definition of war: armed fighting between two or more countries or groups, or a particular example of this.
Conclusion: an art implies making (creating) something following certain procedures. War is an armed fighting. So, war is not an art.

War is a complex concept which includes many different aspects: military, economic, social, demographic, psychological, moral, religious, ideological, etc. Military aspect (strategies and tactics) are only one among many others, and you cannot reduce war to a set of strategies and tactics. It is untrue and morally inacceptable.

Perhaps you may think that strategies and tactics should be considered as sciences and/or arts. It is your opinion, and it is respectable. But the whole concept of war cannot be considered as a science or art. It is an absurdity by definition.

I think that the question in this topic is inaccurate. The question ‘is war a science or an art?' should be reformulated: are strategies and tactics a science or an art?