14 books
—
16 voters
Military Science Books
Showing 1-50 of 1,052

by (shelved 29 times as military-science)
avg rating 3.95 — 559,591 ratings — published -500

by (shelved 14 times as military-science)
avg rating 3.96 — 14,378 ratings — published 1832

by (shelved 9 times as military-science)
avg rating 3.92 — 2,315 ratings — published 1935

by (shelved 8 times as military-science)
avg rating 3.95 — 60,493 ratings — published 1645

by (shelved 8 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.12 — 8,585 ratings — published 1976

by (shelved 6 times as military-science)
avg rating 3.77 — 4,206 ratings — published 1961

by (shelved 6 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.08 — 3,093 ratings — published 1941

by (shelved 4 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.14 — 189 ratings — published 2004

by (shelved 4 times as military-science)
avg rating 3.95 — 763 ratings — published 1976

by (shelved 4 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.23 — 19,595 ratings — published 2001

by (shelved 4 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.26 — 1,096 ratings — published 1994

by (shelved 4 times as military-science)
avg rating 3.96 — 585 ratings — published 1977

by (shelved 4 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.18 — 7,977 ratings — published 2002

by (shelved 4 times as military-science)
avg rating 3.66 — 1,833 ratings — published 2003

by (shelved 4 times as military-science)
avg rating 3.93 — 921 ratings — published 2005

by (shelved 3 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.01 — 1,838 ratings — published

by (shelved 3 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.30 — 22,501 ratings — published 2002

by (shelved 3 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.20 — 167 ratings — published 1955

by (shelved 3 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.16 — 1,000 ratings — published 2013

by (shelved 3 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.11 — 3,651 ratings — published 2012

by (shelved 3 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.07 — 2,817 ratings — published 2001

by (shelved 3 times as military-science)
avg rating 3.94 — 23,175 ratings — published 2016

by (shelved 3 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.20 — 3,456 ratings — published 1937

by (shelved 3 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.11 — 312 ratings — published 1985

by (shelved 3 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.33 — 40,577 ratings — published 1998

by (shelved 3 times as military-science)
avg rating 3.96 — 126 ratings — published 1993

by (shelved 3 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.02 — 1,195 ratings — published 1964

by (shelved 3 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.11 — 1,078 ratings — published 1937

by (shelved 3 times as military-science)
avg rating 3.97 — 2,608 ratings — published 2009

by (shelved 3 times as military-science)
avg rating 3.79 — 427 ratings — published 1993

by (shelved 3 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.10 — 1,028 ratings — published 1988

by (shelved 2 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.36 — 15,695 ratings — published 2007

by (shelved 2 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.01 — 13,371 ratings — published -50

by (shelved 2 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.49 — 3,813 ratings — published 2010

by (shelved 2 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.24 — 6,160 ratings — published 1985

by (shelved 2 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.01 — 77 ratings — published 1992

by (shelved 2 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.08 — 59 ratings — published 1997

by (shelved 2 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.37 — 27 ratings — published 1994

by (shelved 2 times as military-science)
avg rating 3.98 — 59 ratings — published 2019

by (shelved 2 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.03 — 134 ratings — published 1999

by (shelved 2 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.00 — 345 ratings — published 1911

by (shelved 2 times as military-science)
avg rating 3.90 — 168 ratings — published 2007

by (shelved 2 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.22 — 63,150 ratings — published 2000

by (shelved 2 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.40 — 30 ratings — published

by (shelved 2 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.09 — 217,229 ratings — published 1999

by (shelved 2 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.22 — 725 ratings — published 2013

by (shelved 2 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.34 — 6,341 ratings — published 2012

by (shelved 2 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.03 — 139,837 ratings — published 2012

by (shelved 2 times as military-science)
avg rating 4.14 — 694 ratings — published 1965

by (shelved 2 times as military-science)
avg rating 3.84 — 285 ratings — published 1973

“Our knowledge of circumstances has increased, but our uncertainty, instead of having diminished, has only increased. The reason of this is, that we do not gain all our experience at once, but by degrees; so our determinations continue to be assailed incessantly by fresh experience; and the mind, if we may use the expression, must always be under arms.”
―
―

“Military analysis is not an exact science. To return to the wisdom of Sun Tzu, and paraphrase the great Chinese political philosopher, it is at least as close to art. But many logical methods offer insight into military problems-even if solutions to those problems ultimately require the use of judgement and of broader political and strategic considerations as well. Military affairs may not be as amenable to quantification and formal methodological treatment as economics, for example. However, even if our main goal in analysis is generally to illuminate choices, bound problems, and rule out bad options - rather than arrive unambiguously at clear policy choices-the discipline of military analysis has a great deal to offer. Moreover, simple back-of-the envelope methodologies often provide substantial insight without requiring the churning of giant computer models or access to the classified data of official Pentagon studies, allowing generalities and outsiders to play important roles in defense analytical debates.
We have seen all too often (in the broad course of history as well as in modern times) what happens when we make key defense policy decisions based solely on instinct, ideology, and impression. To avoid cavalier, careless, and agenda-driven decision-making, we therefore need to study the science of war as well-even as we also remember the cautions of Clausewitz and avoid hubris in our predictions about how any war or other major military endeavor will ultimately unfold.”
―
We have seen all too often (in the broad course of history as well as in modern times) what happens when we make key defense policy decisions based solely on instinct, ideology, and impression. To avoid cavalier, careless, and agenda-driven decision-making, we therefore need to study the science of war as well-even as we also remember the cautions of Clausewitz and avoid hubris in our predictions about how any war or other major military endeavor will ultimately unfold.”
―