Editing Military science (section)

===Military strategy and doctrines===
{{Main article|Military strategy|Military doctrine}}
Military strategy is in many ways the centerpiece of military science. It studies the specifics of planning for, and engaging in combat, and attempts to reduce the many factors to a set of principles that govern all interactions of the field of battle. In Europe these principles were first defined by Clausewitz in his [[Principles of War]]. As such, it directs the planning and execution of battles, operations, and wars as a whole. Two major systems prevail on the planet today. Broadly speaking, these may be described as the "Western" system, and the "Russian" system. Each system reflects and supports strengths and weakness in the underlying society.

Modern Western military art is composed primarily of an amalgam of French, German, British, and American systems. The Russian system borrows from these systems as well, either through study, or personal observation in the form of invasion ([[Napoleon I of France|Napoleon's War of 1812]], and [[World War II|The Great Patriotic War]]), and form a unique product suited for the conditions practitioners of this system will encounter. The system that is produced by the analysis provided by military art is known as doctrine.

Western military doctrine relies heavily on technology, the use of a well-trained and empowered NCO cadre, and superior information processing and dissemination to provide a level of battlefield awareness that opponents cannot match. Its advantages are extreme flexibility, extreme lethality, and a focus on removing an opponent's [[C4ISTAR|C3I]] (command, communications, control, and intelligence) to paralyze and incapacitate rather than destroying their combat power directly (hopefully saving lives in the process). Its drawbacks are high expense, a reliance on difficult-to-replace personnel, an enormous logistic train, and a difficulty in operating without high technology assets if depleted or destroyed.

Soviet military doctrine (and its descendants, in [[Commonwealth of Independent States|CIS]] countries) relies heavily on masses of machinery and troops, a highly educated (albeit very small) officer corps, and pre-planned missions. Its advantages are that it does not require well educated troops, does not require a large logistic train, is under tight central control, and does not rely on a sophisticated C3I system after the initiation of a course of action. Its disadvantages are inflexibility, a reliance on the shock effect of mass (with a resulting high cost in lives and material), and overall inability to exploit unexpected success or respond to unexpected loss.

Chinese military doctrine is currently in a state of flux as the [[People's Liberation Army]] is evaluating military trends of relevance to China. Chinese military doctrine is influenced by a number of sources including an indigenous classical military tradition characterized by strategists such as [[Sun Tzu]], Western and Soviet influences, as well as indigenous modern strategists such as [[Mao Zedong]]. One distinctive characteristic of Chinese military science is that it places emphasis on the relationship between the military and society as well as viewing military force as merely one part of an overarching [[grand strategy]].

Each system trains its officer corps in its philosophy regarding military art. The differences in content and emphasis are illustrative. The [[United States Army]] principles of war are defined in the U.S. Army [[List of United States Army Field Manuals#FM 100-5|Field Manual FM&nbsp;100–5]]. The [[Canadian Forces]] principles of war/military science are defined by Land Forces Doctrine and Training System (LFDTS) to focus on ''principles of command'', ''principles of war'', ''operational art and campaign planning'', and ''scientific principles''.

Russian Federation armed forces derive their [[Principles of War|principles of war]] predominantly from those developed during the existence of the Soviet Union. These, although based significantly on the [[Eastern Front (World War II)|Second World War]] experience in conventional war fighting, have been substantially modified since the introduction of the nuclear arms into strategic considerations. The [[Soviet–Afghan War]] and the [[First Chechen War|First]] and [[Second Chechen War]]s further modified the principles that Soviet theorists had divided into the operational art and tactics. The very scientific approach to military science thinking in the Soviet union had been perceived as overly rigid at the [[military tactics|tactical level]], and had affected the training in the Russian Federation's much reduced forces to instil greater professionalism and initiative in the forces.

The military [[Principles of War|principles of war]] of the People's Liberation Army were loosely based on those of the Soviet Union until the 1980s when a significant shift begun to be seen in a more regionally-aware, and geographically-specific strategic, operational and tactical thinking in all services. The PLA is currently influenced by three doctrinal schools which both conflict and complement each other: the People's war, the Regional war, and the Revolution in military affairs that led to substantial increase in the defense spending and rate of technological modernisation of the forces.

The differences in the specifics of military art notwithstanding, military science strives to provide an integrated picture of the chaos of battle, and illuminate basic insights that apply to all combatants, not just those who agree with your formulation of the principles.