Isekai Maou to Shoukan Shoujo no Dorei Majutsu - Vol. 13 Ch. 61.1 - Using Our New Weapons II

[Chrona]

Triage is a separate issue. If you've got two guys shot, and one has been shot in the heart and one has been shot in the gut, you try to save the one who's been shot in the gut, because the guy who's shot in the heart will almost certainly die. But if you've got only the guy who's been shot in the heart, you still try to save the guy shot in the heart. (Unless you're being shot at, in which case you should prioritise staying alive, obviously)

There doesn't exist a medic alive that would attempt to save a soldier shot in the heart. Chest maybe, not heart. That's not even possible with modern hospitals let alone battlefields.

With case 2: If the ENEMY tries to kill the medics, first off, you can lambast the enemy soundly for being jerks, and get MORE recruitment, not less. Second, you can then move the medical staff further from the front lines or support them more, forcing the enemy to overreach to try to kill the medics and bomb hospitals, and thus seriously deplete the enemy's attacking force for trying to shoot the healers first.

Then you've successfully driven resources away from the front lines into defending other targets, thinning defence. If the enemy has to move the medics, more will die before getting to them. If the enemy has to defend the medics more, less manpower is being used to make meaningful gains elsewhere. It's a win/win for spreading your enemies resources.

Lastly, if the enemy starts attacking noncombatants and medical staff, you then can use that in the propaganda war and also commit atrocities of your own, citing "they started it". If the rulers of a country trying to kill the enemy's medical staff have a big part of their country bombed to smithereens in retaliatory strikes, that's both a loss to their military force AND their economy. They too can respond in kind, but wars tend to be fought over resources, and if both countries exhaust themselves in a total war both countries lose out, and it's far more likely one side will sue for peace or sign a peace treaty before that.

As I've already stated earlier in the thread, the mutual agreement on how to fight war is just an extended prisoner's dilemma that only works as long as both sides cooperate. It would be more effective to kill medics, but as you said, that would mean yours are free targets too. This doesn't mean that medics are bad targets, it in fact means the opposite, that they are very good targets.

Total war is very rare in the real world, because total war destroys the things you're trying to rule over - people and infrastructure. What's the point of doing total war if you lose a whole load of your own country's strength and gain back the bombed out shell of another country if you win, and you're completely wiped out if you lose? That's what bombing hospitals gets you - it's the tactic of people with nothing left to lose but their own lives, because escalating the fight to noncombatants and civilians will inevitably lead to YOUR noncombatants and civilians getting killed. Which is very, very unprofitable for everyone.

This doesn't refute medics as valuable targets, this just reinforces that they're such valuable targets that they get protected status in mutual prisoner's dilemmas. Which, as you said, only works out if one if both parties aren't willing to fight to death for victory. As you've stated that's rare, but being rare isn't the point. Rare just means most of the time countries aren't that dedicated to winning.

Most militaries aren't totally destroyed before one side sues for peace. When it's obvious one side has lost, they tend to surrender and agree on how much loot the winners get. It's relatively rare the winners say "we want to murder every single one of you", because they want money, not blood.

Again, rarity does not refute the point. Just because most wars fought aren't for actual victory doesn't refute the value of certain targets in those scenarios.

 

[Triot]

@Qelix
Also the concept of not hunting down a defeated enemy is nothing new. While slaughter did happen from time to time what usually happens was the wining side would let the routed enemy flee. Chasing them would waist energy and supplies while leaving you open to attack. If the wining side did start killing everyone it was usually because there was a personal grudge involved and that usually was followed by a town or city population being wiped out, men women and children. Plenty of those stories from history.

 

[Nk9bjP4A]

Oh that Maou, such a ladykiller.

 

[Chrona]

@Qelix

: I believe one of Red225's main points, which he didn't get across too well, is, that if you destroy the medical facilities of the enemy in a RL war, you'd also "relieve" him of his duty to care for his wounded soldiers. You deliver the perfect excuse. "The inhuman enemy is at fault." Sure, there is a blow in moral and there will be more deserters, but it wouldn't be as much of a moral blow, as if a modern human would have to acknowledge, "Yupp, my own side doesn't give a damn about me." 'It is the enemy, who is the arsehole and not my government.'

Most humans, modern or not, would be more freaked out at the higher chance of dying rather than caring which side exactly is responsible for his reason for having a higher chance of dying. Simultaneously, you're stating hospitals are a "burden" on the army that is supporting them, yet an "asset" in the aftermath. Which is it? Are they valuable or are they not valuable? If they are valuable the correct move is to destroy them, if they aren't then they should be left to drain enemy resources.

And while each lost soldier live, who died because he couldn't get threaded, is a loss of a raised and educated citizen in the aftermath of the war (always assuming he could still work in some way), within the war it is a "quasi-relieve" as he would have slowed down the war efforts. Therefore bombing hospitals, doesn't just let you look bad in the eyes on onlookers (other parties), you would have a bigger advantage in modern war, if you keep those facilities intact.

This assumes you would want slaves or subjects of enemy civilians. Even assuming as such, it doesn't matter how valuable they are after the war is over if you don't win the war in the first place. Prioritizing future gains over today's realities is foolhardy.

 

[KuroYuugo]

And dead. He had 0% chance winning against fully-equipped Diablo-sama. Especially when he's been outranked

 

[starburst98]

@Chrona
Then why is there war at all? If the soldiers were so scared of dying no one would ever fight.

 

[Chrona]

Then why is there war at all? If the soldiers were so scared of dying no one would ever fight.

Because death isn't a personal guarantee in war, it's a possibility, and most lay soldiers can be propagandised into taking those odds. This works in reverse as well.

 

[bythos]

Wow, that demon has never lost a war or even an important member of his army to be reacting like this.
As they say, if you're prepared to kill, be prepared to die too.

 

[Qelix]

@Chrona:

Most humans, modern or not, would be more freaked out at the higher chance of dying rather than caring which side exactly is responsible for his reason for having a higher chance of dying.

Most humans also assume, they are the protagonists and can't be killed or won't be hurt, as that would be too horrifying to imagine. So I wouldn't count on that working. Even invading forces always find more fresh soldiers to send into the fray. If anything, showing the enemy soldiers, that you are evil, will more likely boost the moral.

Simultaneously, you're stating hospitals are a "burden" on the army that is supporting them, yet an "asset" in the aftermath. Which is it?

That is correct.
...
Okay, I'll answer that honestly: Both. Or better said, they are a necessity for war parties, which use them, or the moral of their own troops will drop. So it isn't a question, if those parties want to run them in first place. They have to. Those facilities are a burden to run, but in the long run they yield advantages. Still they are a burden in the current war efforts. That just seemingly is the way it is and I do not see any contradiction here.

Many of the soldiers, who need hospitals, won't return to the front line anyway and most likely they won't be able to bolster the enemies economy at home in wartime enough to break even, what they costed.

Assuming you are facing an enemy, who isn't bulldozing you, you are indeed better off keeping them standing. Even if you are not taking those juicy citizens as slaves, you want to make the enemy surrender. But what comes next? "Good game"? "See ya in 30 years for the next round?" You want to enemy to pay for the war. Keeping the enemy's economy so far intact, that he is capable to do so, would be nice. So you have to find something that hinders the enemy's war efforts in wartime, yet helps to preserve his economy years later...Keep those hospitals standing, as you won't lose the war because it. Those facilities are the enemy's after-war efforts, that he has to make, because he is forced to. They are weakening him. Also keep as many people, who can tell tales about how they got terribly wounded and scared for live, alive.

 

[YanDaMan263]

LMAO MC has no chill. Jealousy is a hell of a drug that you'd even kill all dem evil waifus.

 

[Liquidxlax]

@starburst98 dude everyone is scared of dying at least at 1 point in their lives. People fight wars out of desperation whether it be because their countries were greedy, starving, offended, listening to the whims of the rich or w.e. People are willing to fight to defend the lives of their families friends and loved ones. If it is kill or be killed, it is better to kill. I would say that is a reason why men are willing to fight in wars. Life sucks for a lot of men on both sides and the women and childreen of the countries that are invaded.

 

[Chrona]

@Qelix

Most humans also assume, they are the protagonists and can't be killed or won't be hurt, as that would be too horrifying to imagine. So I wouldn't count on that working. Even invading forces always find more fresh soldiers to send into the fray. If anything, showing the enemy soldiers, that you are evil, will more likely boost the moral.

Is that how you think most soldiers think? That would explain a lot.

Okay, I'll answer that honestly: Both. Or better said, they are a necessity for war parties, which use them, or the moral of their own troops will drop. So it isn't a question, if those parties want to run them in first place. They have to. Those facilities are a burden to run, but in the long run they yield advantages.

Then they are valuable during war and make for good targets. Things that are required are good things to get rid of.

You want to enemy to pay for the war. Keeping the enemy's economy so far intact, that he is capable to do so, would be nice.

Again this assumes you want slaves or citizens of conquered territories. If you as assume as such, you are correct, but only if you assume.

 

[starburst98]

@Liquidxlax
I was responding to Chrona saying people to stop fighting if the doctors get attacked.

@Chrona
Well yes, you want citizens of the conquered place, otherwise who will run all the industries in those areas? If you kill everyone then your current citizens will have to take over those jobs, and if your country is being run properly unemployment will be low, because having 1000000 new jobs is pointless if you only have 10000 people that are currently jobless.

 

[kanade_alter]

Bruh. ‘Kill Normies’ buff is very scary and OP.

I wonder if the red-haired gunner Onee-san will fall for Diablo after this.

 

[Chrona]

@starburst98

Well yes, you want citizens of the conquered place, otherwise who will run all the industries in those areas? If you kill everyone then your current citizens will have to take over those jobs, and if your country is being run properly unemployment will be low, because having 1000000 new jobs is pointless if you only have 10000 people that are currently jobless.

Why is the underlying assumption that you want the industries in the area? Most conquests are concerned with taking natural resources such as land and sea access. If you have a robust national sense of favouring reproduction you'll fill the jobs eventually.

 

[starburst98]

@Chrona
And how to you intend to use the natural resources? Industries are about utilizing resources, the mining industry is how you get the ore from the mines. Taking over a country rich in ore and killing all the miners means you now have to wait many years to get enough citizens to bring the mines back to full capacity. If you take over without killing everyone the mines can start working again tomorrow.

 

[Chrona]

@starburst98

And how to you intend to use the natural resources? Industries are about utilizing resources, the mining industry is how you get the ore from the mines. Taking over a country rich in ore and killing all the miners means you now have to wait many years to get enough citizens to bring the mines back to full capacity. If you take over without killing everyone the mines can start working again tomorrow.

This only seems to indicate if you're patient you won't have to deal with the problems of ruling over second-class citizens to maximize long term gains over short term ones.

 

[Brimstone]

@Chrona

If morale is important, I go back to a point made earlier where killing medics hurts morale. In that case, the enemy is more likely to have worse morale, so it's still beneficial to kill the enemies medics in that case, and it's important to protect your own medics.

Either medics are important enough to kill or they're a non-factor. There's really no in-between. The only reason medics wouldn't be valid targets is the concept of a pre-established prisoners dilemma where both sides agree it's mutually beneficial to keep their medics alive. That falls apart when either side stops cooperating though.

Yeah, tbh I agree with that 100%. I will say too that I have no clue how the discussion started or what the original points were, just wanted to chime in on the whole "in that case, why not just let soldier's die" question. From all sides with the bits that I've read here and there though it seems like everyone's been calm and not at all resorted to shit flinging and insults, so good on you all. Good to see debates and discussions aren't entirely dead yet.

 

[Belkin]

This dude got no chill lol

 

[vidopnir]

I would like to know what Diablo's tax policy is.