Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I do not like this.
This difference is politic.
I think there are more worthy examples, but they hide it. This book dates back to the end of the Han era, a state that was truly military. The "classical" Chinese were peasants, they made up the unprofessional mass infantry. There was a tough discipline of the slave army.Here is the beauty of science. It does not care what you like.
It has nothing to do with it. Both were previously ordinary armies, the difference is that the militia in ancient times was a local, possibly tribal army, and the police were imperial colonial army of polises. In this sense, the American police are the militia.And your saying that just proves you do not understand the difference.
To say it simply, "Military Science" is not only studying the strategy and tactics, but even more importantly the logistics behind how to run a military.
Talking about modern, nuclear age, conflicts I would like to recommend you Herman Kahn, 'On Thermonuclear War', in the commented Russian translation.Is there some kind of classic of military literature that introduces the basics of military affairs and is recommended for a military specialist of any profile as elementary knowledge of military affairs?
The Art of War - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I agree to disagree, our Second Amendment is quite unambiguous and very clear as to what is Necessary to the security of a free State.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;View attachment 566188
If the police are your militia also as the previous poster suggests, then the above cannot work.
I have read some of the descriptions and quotes in this book. I do not like this. There is little concret methods and a lot of reasoning that supposedly cunning should be superior to direct collisions and softness wins hardness. This is roughly what has been taught in martial arts since the 60s. But all these disciplines are just show, and all these cunning and "strategists" avoid fighting with Muaythai fighters who can simply break skulls without any cunning.
All of this looks like a profanity, and it can be seen even in the way the Chinese transform traditional martial arts such as qigong.
Why?If the police are your militia also as the previous poster suggests, then the above cannot work.