A question for sci-fi readers/writers

[Agentt]

I am writing a story which has a few elements of science fiction and I am having trouble covering some parts.

The main question is, in a story featured in present times/future times:

How do you explain the lack of administration?


A guy with mysterious superpowers appears, how do you explain it's perfectly normal to send him to the front lines instead of locking him in a cage and researching him for life?


How do you justify sending your best guy, someone the country probably spent millions upgrading and training, on suicide missions one after the other where he comes so close to death; while ignoring the idea of just shooting the problem from really far away?
Also,



I need a 'Saga of Tanya the Evil' or other similar works expert here ...

I am really envious of how the logistics and administration was present alongside very fun reckless bloodbath.

I probably need someone who is a fan of political stories to have a chat with...

 

[APieceOfRock]

It really depends on what kind of world it is. Is the world full of people with supernatural powers? Then sure, send the guy away.
Does the protagonist have political rivals or someone helping the protagonist has enemies? Then it makes sense that he's sent to the front lines.
Is the situation desperate enough? Then yes, send him away.

Let's assume that the media still exists in the world. It may not seem like it, but even America can't send missiles out willy-nilly. They have to have a cause, or else the public and media will do its thing. It's much better to discreetly send one man than to send an entire army.

 

[melchi]

Send them away because they want the best thighs for themselves.
As for logistics , the reality of a military conflict is that logistics win or lose it. I think somewhere it is said that the US has 2 people working logistics for everyone on the front line.
Look at the Ukraine conflict, in a way the war is boiling down to who can produce more altirary shells.

 

[Glitched]

I need a 'Saga of Tanya the Evil' or other similar works expert here ...

I'm here. What's the problem? If you want Youno Senki type synergy between administration and the mc, you have to establish a chain of command in whatever government/society he's in and have him have a perpetual source to connect him with his higher ups like a watch or something.

 

[Agentt]

It really depends on what kind of world it is. Is the world full of people with supernatural powers? Then sure, send the guy away.
Does the protagonist have political rivals or someone helping the protagonist has enemies? Then it makes sense that he's sent to the front lines.
Is the situation desperate enough? Then yes, send him away.

Let's assume that the media still exists in the world. It may not seem like it, but even America can't send missiles out willy-nilly. They have to have a cause, or else the public and media will do its thing. It's much better to discreetly send one man than to send an entire army.

The media stuff is a really nice argument ah, thanks for that.

As for others, those are certainly things I can use but ah, so complicated...I have to hit this noggin to work

I'm here. What's the problem? If you want Youno Senki type synergy between administration and the mc, you have to establish a chain of command in whatever government/society he's in and have him have a perpetual source to connect him with his higher ups like a watch or something.

@@). . .
You mind if we talk on a PM?

 

[Glitched]

@@). . .
You mind if we talk on a PM?

Na, go ahead and dm me.

 

[Hans.Trondheim]

I am writing a story which has a few elements of science fiction and I am having trouble covering some parts.

The main question is, in a story featured in present times/future times:

How do you explain the lack of administration?

Lack of administration? You mean government? I depict this via anarchy, or incompetent leaders.

A guy with mysterious superpowers appears, how do you explain it's perfectly normal to send him to the front lines instead of locking him in a cage and researching him for life?

He's your best guy. Unless you plan to have him duplicated, you'll definitely 'milk' his use up to the last drop. As such, a desperate state fighting for its very survival would send even the worst they have left just to stem the enemy advance.

This is also why you'd often encounter the best in the thickest of the fight. For example, Napoleon would send in the Imperial Guards once he broke through the enemy. Or the panzers once the defense lines are broken.

How do you justify sending your best guy, someone the country probably spent millions upgrading and training, on suicide missions one after the other where he comes so close to death; while ignoring the idea of just shooting the problem from really far away?

Experience. To have him gain it. Or possibly, the state simply wishes to eliminate him to avoid potential problems in the future. But the enemy gets to do it, so the state he serves can use plausible deniability to his death.

Also,



I need a 'Saga of Tanya the Evil' or other similar works expert here ...

I am really envious of how the logistics and administration was present alongside very fun reckless bloodbath.

I probably need someone who is a fan of political stories to have a chat with...

I love myself some political stuff, since one of my hobbies is connecting politics, news, geography and culture to make sense of what is going on in today's world.

 

[ThrillingHuman]

A guy with mysterious superpowers appears, how do you explain it's perfectly normal to send him to the front lines instead of locking him in a cage and researching him for life?

Human rights for experimentation? The guy willingly went to the front lines?

How do you justify sending your best guy, someone the country probably spent millions upgrading and training, on suicide missions one after the other where he comes so close to death; while ignoring the idea of just shooting the problem from really far away?

What else are you supposed to do with him? It's like saying "how do you justify flying a plane you spent millions on upgrading?". I use it, duh. How can you go from "Let's lock this guy up for life and experiment on him not because of what he did but because he's weird" to "noooo we can't use our pooow supew sowdiew, he's too pwecious!"
I mean you can orbital bomb a place but is it worth it? It's not like people don't use soldiers nowadays when we have drones and tactical missiles that can shoot from many kilometers away.

 

[Agentt]

Lack of administration? You mean government? I depict this via anarchy, or incompetent leaders

I do plan that, yes! Modelled after my own government, I already have prepared a bunch of jokes I wanna include. My favourite one is, "I lost all hope in humanity when our government thought injecting soldiers with jellyfish DNA to see if that would turn them into superheroes was a good idea"

I love myself some political stuff, since one of my hobbies is connecting politics, news, geography and culture to make sense of what is going on in today's world.

Aww, can I DM/discord you for it?

Human rights for experimentation? The guy willingly went to the front lines?

Does that matter really?

What else are you supposed to do with him? It's like saying "how do you justify flying a plane you spent millions on upgrading?". I use it, duh. How can you go from "Let's lock this guy up for life and experiment on him not because of what he did but because he's weird" to "noooo we can't use our pooow supew sowdiew, he's too pwecious!"
I mean you can orbital bomb a place but is it worth it? It's not like people don't use soldiers nowadays when we have drones and tactical missiles that can shoot from many kilometers away.

XD
Ah, I feel like I just have to adopt this mindset. Can't really wrap my head around it.

 

[foxes]

This may sound strange and out of place. But some dead ends are solved by changing the narrative sequence and working out the environment or exploring it.

It's not necessarily up to anyone to decide anything. It's just that a wall fell down and he had to go around the country to get his coffee, defeating the enemy.

If you have enough pros and cons to make the situation not in favor of the idea, then circumstances or personal motives of the decider can decide everything. An additional character out of nowhere with important information, a disaster, a broken electric chair, a forgotten bomb. All of this can have quite reasonable explanations, sometimes even at the end of the work. Just because it happened and it turned out better than anyone expected.

 

[ThrillingHuman]

Does that matter really?

That was what I offered.
They didn't lock him up because it is, surprise surprise, illegal and unethical and the govt do things for the sake of the citizens.
He went to the frontlines because he chose to. Because people do happen to go to war willingly sometimes. And he wasn't stopped because it was his right to go. Because if you establish the govt not violating the rights of citizens, they cannot stop his right to voluntarily go to war.

 

[ACertainPassingUser]

They dont just lock him up forever because sending him to the front line is a part of their experiment too.

If you have immortal destroyer soldier, you better dont just keep it in the labs. Not if he already proved himself to be near undestructibe in the test against weapon long time ago.


There's a war now, send him to the front lines to show the effort of the laboratory againts the war were facing right now.

We could send him to the front and leave him to see how long he could last.

He could also becoume our specialised unit for mission impossible to destroy untouchable enemy assets or logistically hard to reach enemies and the likes.

 

[QuercusMalus]

I am writing a story which has a few elements of science fiction and I am having trouble covering some parts.

The main question is, in a story featured in present times/future times:

How do you explain the lack of administration?

Distance plus a Laissez Faire attitude. The central administration keeps things running and keeps conflicts confined to a planetary level, otherwise the systems are mostly left to their own devices within a broad framework. Military power is great but widely spread. An individuals span of control is as large as they can manage, or their neighbors will allow. Local problems are dealt with locally.

A guy with mysterious superpowers appears, how do you explain it's perfectly normal to send him to the front lines instead of locking him in a cage and researching him for life?

Desperation. You need the immediate impact of them on the front line, well spending the time examining them would be nice, time is a luxury you don't have. That and their powers also make them a potential threat, so if they turn the tide, or even just induce a stalemate, great, if they die, it removes a potential future risk. Governmental bureaucracy isn't known for its long foresight.

How do you justify sending your best guy, someone the country probably spent millions upgrading and training, on suicide missions one after the other where he comes so close to death; while ignoring the idea of just shooting the problem from really far away?

cost benefit analysis. If he can get in and get the job done, good. If not, you try again with someone else. In an organization big enough to be interplanetary, even if he is your 'best', there is a second or third best. If you only have one skilled operator, your organization is a failure. Well shooting from afar is a good option if you just are trying to destroy an enemy or target, if it is a resource or facility that you need intact that is not the best choice, or if you are trying to sway a group to your side versus your enemy, limiting collateral damage can be a positive.

I need a 'Saga of Tanya the Evil' or other similar works expert here ...

I am really envious of how the logistics and administration was present alongside very fun reckless bloodbath.

I probably need someone who is a fan of political stories to have a chat with...

 

[RepresentingCaution]

your best guy

You need more than one.

 

[Hans.Trondheim]

I do plan that, yes! Modelled after my own government, I already have prepared a bunch of jokes I wanna include. My favourite one is, "I lost all hope in humanity when our government thought injecting soldiers with jellyfish DNA to see if that would turn them into superheroes was a good idea"


Aww, can I DM/discord you for it?
.

Yeah, I got no probs with it.

 

[Agentt]

You need more than one.

D:

 

[Thraben]

A guy with mysterious superpowers appears, how do you explain it's perfectly normal to send him to the front lines instead of locking him in a cage and researching him for life?

He's a guy with mysterious superpowers. They don't think that locking him in a cage would be safe at first. And if he's not the first mysterious guy or if he's got a particularly un-submissive mindset, it just... isn't worth it to keep them locked up. You'll still learn something by having him die on the front lines. Not every organization is the SCP foundation and even they fuck up a lot.

How do you justify sending your best guy, someone the country probably spent millions upgrading and training, on suicide missions one after the other where he comes so close to death; while ignoring the idea of just shooting the problem from really far away?

Because just shooting the problem from really far away means you've wasted money on your best guy, and if your best guy is particularly powerful or the issue sufficiently complicated, it might genuinely be the best option. ULTRAKILL solves this problem elegantly. Big fucking guys with big fucking guns can't hurt each-other meaningfully, but one random guy with no gun and nothing but speed is the most useful guy because the big guys and their big guns can't beat him.

For the politics angle, wouldn't it be awfully convenient for an antagonist to turn a blind eye to the protagonist being repeatedly sent on moronic suicide missions because no one else understands their value?