I am, or at least was, a pragmatist. The lives of the many were always prioritized before the lives of the few. If necessary, resources would be sucked dry from nearby smaller settlements for the sake of the war effort.
So, regardless of the ill-advised decision to hinge my country's safety on a single soldier, I will answer this hypothetical situation honestly.
Yes, for the sake of my country, for the sake of the many, I would sacrifice my men, the few. Death stands alongside us on the battlefield.
However, Anonymous individual, I will add this. You speak of this scenario as though it is your own. The weight of such a decision is only right to lay solely on the commander, and I only answer yes because I would do anything for the sake of my country's prosperity. I make this decision with a just cause behind it.
So tell me, in this hypothetical situation, would the sacrifice of this soldier be for the sake of a just cause? Is this mission truly worth the underhanded nature of shooting the soldier in the back?
If that is not the case, then you will find that my answer may change.
no subject
So, regardless of the ill-advised decision to hinge my country's safety on a single soldier, I will answer this hypothetical situation honestly.
Yes, for the sake of my country, for the sake of the many, I would sacrifice my men, the few. Death stands alongside us on the battlefield.
However, Anonymous individual, I will add this. You speak of this scenario as though it is your own. The weight of such a decision is only right to lay solely on the commander, and I only answer yes because I would do anything for the sake of my country's prosperity. I make this decision with a just cause behind it.
So tell me, in this hypothetical situation, would the sacrifice of this soldier be for the sake of a just cause? Is this mission truly worth the underhanded nature of shooting the soldier in the back?
If that is not the case, then you will find that my answer may change.