Ninth: A Tactical Decision (Text; anon)

[corpsewarblade]

(TW: Murder/Sororicide, Betrayal, DR Spoilers)

[The last few months had given Mukuro a lot to think about- especially with regard to her own death back home. One part still didn't make any sense to her:

What had she done wrong? Why had Junko killed her?

...It was with those thoughts swimming around in her head that she sent another late night message to the network.]

27 AUG XX, 0324

Reviewing the strategy from a recent battle at home. I want to understand the rational for the decisions taken.

A soldier is engaged in a stealth/undercover mission. However, they have made a mistake that risks the operation's success, and have not realised their error.

The mission commander is in a position to eliminate the operative to preserve their mission, without exposing themselves in the process.

Is that course of action reasonable? To put it another way- under what circumstances would you consider sacrificing one of your own men to ensure a mission's success or to prevent it's failure?

Don't feel you have to answer.


🔪

Comments

text; anon

[ichoosefight]

[ This is an interesting question, but Steph's not quite that comfortable with people knowing her history, so. Anonymous it is! ]

That's not enough information. What's the point of the mission? What's at stake? When you say 'eliminate', do you mean without warning?

[corpsewarblade]

So you think it would depend on the objective and whether the soldier in question was aware of that potential course of action?

What level of stakes would you consider it acceptable, then?

On the second point an operative should be aware of the risks without needing to be told.

[She'd get to her own case in a moment...but Mukuro wanted to dig a little deeper into those questions first.]

text; anon

[leicesters]

A good commander doesn't rest an entire operation on the shoulders of one person. And if they had to, they'd come up with a backup plan should that go awry, not blame the person who made the error.

Strategy is all about planning for every eventuality.

[corpsewarblade]

[Another anonymous person, hm?]

What if killing them was the backup plan? Or do you believe that is an unacceptable consideration?

You're right that strategy is about making sure you have plans or orders in place to deal with changes as a combat progresses, but the question is which of those plans are discarded due to being unreasonable.

Perhaps

Perhaps the key flaw, then, was trusting someone unreliable to carry out such a key role in an operation.

[...Junko should have known she'd let her down eventually.]

text; un: tuge

[yunxiguang]

I would never consider sacrificing a life to be a reasonable course of action. Regardless of any mission's success or failure, the preservation of life should be the highest priority.

[corpsewarblade]

[That wasn't a username she recognised, but having someone putting a name to the message was nice, in its own way. Perhaps more so that it wasn't someone she knew.]

Would you try to preserve a person's life no matter who they are?

I'm a soldier. A mercenary. I've taken many lives in the past.

text; un: maou

[owarifool]

if the operative knew that termination was one of the possible consequences of failure, and its made clear to them, then the matter is consensual between the operative and their commander. theres nothing to discuss there, the matter is understood.

[corpsewarblade]

[Oh no this was- she found her cheeks heating up a bit. But at least, she respected him, and when it came to tactics he knew what he was talking about.]

Agreed. If they were warned on the possibility of elimination should they ever let their guard down or fail in carrying out orders then. Yes.

The only part that remains to be understood is why then and where the point of failure was.

text; un: dunmer dragonborn

[fireandhoney]

You know, it probably depends on the circumstances and how important the mission is.

[corpsewarblade]

What circumstances would you consider that to be acceptable then?

text; un:mitth'raw'nuruodo

[admiralchiss]

Those are the sorts of questions that leaders face all the time, and the answer is never easy.

Ideally, there would be a solution so that the mission could be completed without sacrifice.

[He could certainly find a way, because that's what he does.]

However, to answer your question, and based on what little information this scenario has given me, I would choose the life of the operative over the mission.

[corpsewarblade]

I don't know if the mission would have been successful if the operative were not killed. That would require further insight on her part.

You'd really choose to save your operative over your mission no matter what? Why?

text; un: ensignledo

[ferrytale]

In the Galactic Alliance, without question, this course of action would be reasonable. It is understood that lives may need to be sacrificed for the overall good of the mission. If the mission fails, it is not only a failure for the unit assigned to undertake it but also endangers humanity's continued existence.

It is also understood that each individual has value. The Galactic Alliance does not waste resources needlessly. Therefore, if one must make sacrifices, clear regulations determine the best course of action.

Nonetheless, sometimes there are those who break regulations and make decisions based on sentiment and not reasoning, as they should, and this I still do not understand.

[corpsewarblade]

So you have strict regulations governing when sacrifices of that nature are necessary. That is reasonable.

Then your regulations weigh out the value of the operative versus the value of what would be loss should the mission failed. On my own I don't have much worth.

What would you consider sentiment vs logical reasoning?

text; anon

[notquitetamed]

A soldier would know that losing their life is a potential for any action they take, even more so for something undercover. The risks for failure for such a mission could result in far worse consequences than the death of one person. If I were the solider, I'd find it reasonable because I know that any mistake I make can be deadly to me. I don't need to be told that I could be killed by my own commander for a mission to realize that it could happen. People can killed by bad decisions, bad strategy and plenty more. That's just how battles go.

[corpsewarblade]

Yes agreed. In a larger battle you keep watch on your allies, but the priority is keeping yourself fighting.

In this case the operative made a mistake that was fatal to the mission objective. Maybe it shouldn't matter what that mistake was, only that the operative was dealt with accordingly.

Audio; Anonymous

[angel_of_death]

[And once again, Walter responds without creating an account. But he doesn't use text like the others. He wants her to know who is talking to her.]

...Did your commander kill you?

[Decisions taken. Past tense. She was writing about something that had already happened.]

[corpsewarblade]

[That question was frighteningly efficient, her breath catching in her throat- and she was very, very glad she stuck to text.

It took a while for Mukuro to reply, and when she did, she could only manage a single word: ]

Affirmative.

text; un: tacobell

[itsjiaheng]

the people i used to work for would say
yeah
sacrifice the operative to save the mission
100% of the time
but uh
in the case of Bees
capital B intentional lol
that's not really an option ?
so it doensn't really matter
Bees can be killed but they come back
i guess u learned something ?? maybe
i've had to die in order to get the job done so
it's a thing that happens ??

me personally tho
i wouldn't kill somebody who couldn't come back
not over a mission
i wouldn't wanna make that decision
i'd rather do the job myself
then if i fucked up its on me
but i guess that's why i'd never get promoted haha

[corpsewarblade]

Bees?
Where I'm from people don't come back after they've been killed but that would add an additional complication onto planning a mission strategy. Is return to active duty immediate? Are there any lasting side-effects of revival?

A commander would have to make decisions like that so I can see why you never reached that rank.
But you're right. You know if something goes wrong or you mess up then you're the one to blame.

text; un: manslayer

[hitokiri]

if everybody agreed to that then yeah. if u take a job and u fuck it up and knew the risk u deserve exactly what u get.

if that wasnt the agreement and someone tries to kill u heh then u better try and survive out of fuckin spite cuz now u gotta score to settle

[corpsewarblade]

[That was a cool username- she wondered who that belonged to.]

Yes, agreed. It was deserved. A number of people here seem to disagree with that logic, though.

A score?

Text | UN: mayorinfan35

[mayoninofukucho]

[This post got plenty of responses already, but considering the recent revelations Hijikata became privy to about Mukuro and this knife emote anon he can't bring himself to ignore it. He writes up several responses and deletes them again before ultimately starting out by simply answering the question.]

If my subordinate fucked up I'd get his ass out of the mess, even if the mission went to hell over it (unless more lives hinged on its success or such). Better for both of us to come out with some scratches than me losing one of my men. A shithead commander, though, would sacrifice the soldier, no question. That's the difference between looking at your men as comrades or as pawns.

[Okay, he totally may have turned his back on subordinates in dire straits before, but that was in comedic arcs!!]

[corpsewarblade]

[Hijikata...whilst she had no idea that he'd learned the truth, it still made her a little anxious speaking to him like this. On this sort of forum, it was a chance for her to speak to him as herself, without Junko's act- was that really okay?]

I wasn't a pawn. She needed me.

[After that defensive snap, though, she took the time to focus on the rest of the message. She couldn't help but think back to the mirror-defence mission as she replied...Mukuro fell into the role of bodyguard almost instinctively.]

If you went in and got yourself hurt, then you could both get killed. Your men wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't keep you safe.

Voice - un:IZZYGRRRL83

[notwearingthekeds]

What the fuck sorta question is that!?

No, never, not okay.

Why the fuck would anyone think that's okay!?

[corpsewarblade]

[That- that was an answer. She's sticking to anon text, all the same]

If the success of a mission takes priority over a single operative's life.

text; un: b.eisner

[hegemonwings]

It's an interesting question.

In the war I fought, we told ourselves there was no cost too great for victory. In truth, that was little more than sentiment. We all knew what lines we were and weren't willing to cross. If one of my subordinates had chosen to sacrifice themselves, or was captured or killed... that would be one thing. There is a risk to every operation, but unless the mission's failure would lead to even more death, I would always prioritize their safety over success at any cost.

A commander who places everything on one soldier's back has already failed.

[corpsewarblade]

They only fail if the soldier herself fails.

So you would prioritise their lives, unless there was a clear, immediate threat.

text; un: tartaglia

[commediadellanime]

The soldier doesn’t need to know the reasoning behind their commander’s decision
It’s a risk they’ve accepted and if they have a problem with it they shouldn’t have gone on this mission
Or they’ll just have to kill their commander first somehow!

[corpsewarblade]

I'd never kill h

[A pause, after she shot that half-message off. She remembered how she'd fought the 'Junko' at the rapids- because she wanted to give her the despair of being betrayed. She loved her little sister dearly, so...she wanted to give her the despair she craved, didn't she?]

Yes I suppose it isn't important for the operative to know where they failed. Not after it's over.

Even then it is hard to forget the question entirely.

< thearchitect >

[emet_sulk]

[ Hmm, this person again. ]

If the consequences of their failure rendered a situation unrecoverable then, yes, I would kill them in a heartbeat.

At least, such is what I would have done in my world. I suppose I wouldn't now.

Anon Text -> Private Text ; un: Fashiondiva

[corpsewarblade]

I don't know for certain if the situation was unrecoverable, but the Commander had a wider view of the situation than her subordinate.

Have your views changed since coming here?

[A pause. If she was going to ask him personal questions, then...

She locked the feed, and switched to her fashiondiva account.]

It's me.

text; un: lilmonix3

[peninhand]

No. Sacrificing the soldier is unforgivable. I'm nobody when it comes to military tactics, but life is precious no matter what any general will try to tell you!

Those in charge treat their soldiers as disposable tools. It's despicable. That lack of care when it comes to a soldier's life leads to a lack of proper planning. When the mindset is "this person is disposable," you plan things with their death as an option. But if the mindset was "this person is precious," you'd plan things very differently.

The fact that the soldier's life is a necessity for the mission to succeed is a failure of their leadership, not of the soldier.

[corpsewarblade]

[That was another username she recognised...and she felt that familiar little twist in her stomach. And it was that nervousness that lead to a somewhat self-deprecating response.]

That assumes that the soldier is a high value asset rather than disposable. A failure.

It wasn't. It wasn't the plan.
For them to die.

text; anonymous

[impostorsyndrome]

You've probably got all the answers you need by now to see that there's no one way people are gonna come at this. There're people who'd never even dream of it, and people who'd do it in a heartbeat. It all depends on how you break it down and which part of it you're focusing on.

It's obviously reasonable. But if you're really asking if you have to like it, you just as obviously don't. It's war. The whole point is that fucked up shit becomes reasonable for the sake of the mission.

[corpsewarblade]

The main agreement is that if one life needs to be sacrificed to save a large group, that is acceptable. Outside of that, opinions divided.

I don't like it. But it's for the mission. For my Commander.

You believe the strategy was acceptable?

text; un: saber

[excalibeam]

As many have said, the situation requires more detail, and one should not delegate such an important task to a single operative.

When entering a battlefield, a knight—or rather, a soldier, must always be prepared for the chance that they may lose their lives. This, however, is different.

In my life, I have led my army to many victories... though they weren't without sacrifices. Such is war, but if it meant protecting my country, I did so without a second thought. I take that burden entirely upon myself.

However I am a ruler. Such responsibility is my obligation. Such responsibility is not befitting of but a single soldier.

[corpsewarblade]

[Saber, huh?]

It was different to a battlefield. I wasn't under active fire, so. I let my guard down. That was my error.

So to protect your country, you would see one of your men as a worthy sacrificee to achieve that?

voice; UN: firstfallen

[corruptedsave]

[This kind of hits home for Chara, as they had once had a plan that should've worked if only a certain someone had actually gone through with things as he should have.

They see no reason to go anon with their reply.]

If the person the commander is relying on had become unreliable, then of course they should get rid of them.

[corpsewarblade]

[She'll stick to anon text, herself. She didn't want anyone knowing this was her.]

If the person had become unreliable.

If the Soldier disappointed their Commander.

I guess you're right.