avalononline | Ninth: A Tactical Decision (Text; anon)

Entry tags:

Ninth: A Tactical Decision (Text; anon)

(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.

🔪

Threaded | Flat

[ 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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Edited 2021-08-27 19:24 (UTC)

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.

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.

[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.]

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

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

[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!!]

What the fuck sorta question is that!?

No, never, not okay.

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

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.

Edited 2021-08-28 02:16 (UTC)

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!

[ 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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

Threaded | Flat

text; anon

text; anon

text; un: tuge

text; un: maou

text; un: dunmer dragonborn

text; un:mitth'raw'nuruodo

text; un: ensignledo

text; anon

Audio; Anonymous

text; un: tacobell

text; un: manslayer

Text | UN: mayorinfan35

Voice - un:IZZYGRRRL83

text; un: b.eisner

text; un: tartaglia