|
| ▲ | themafia a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| What exactly would that look like from the position of an individual low rank unit? What would $32k of risk look like on a foreign battle field? I'm struggling to understand this prerogative. What would be far larger source of risk is if they bet _against_ the operation and then personally sabotaged it. That's far more understandable but it's not what happened here. It apparently and sadly needs to be said on Hacker News, I'm not defending him, and he should be punished, but I genuinely can't apprehend the risk assessment logic here. |
| |
| ▲ | mizzao a day ago | parent | next [-] | | He's a master sergeant, once of the highest enlisted ranks, involved in planning the mission. Not low rank at all. | |
| ▲ | throwaway85825 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A lot of people were involved with the mission that were not themselves directly endangered but could still stand to profit. | |
| ▲ | HDThoreaun a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Easy to think of a scenario where he should stand down but instead continues with the mission, risking the lives of his team mates, or maybe civilians. |
|
|
| ▲ | b0rtb0rt a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| he was more incentivized for the mission to succeed? how horrible! |
| |
| ▲ | acdha a day ago | parent [-] | | He was incentivized to win the bet. The military does not want people to have outside loyalties because that creates problems any time they’re not perfectly aligned – for example, if they had orders to minimize team or civilian casualties you don’t want this guy starting a messy firefight because he’s thinking the target is getting away and willing to risk someone else’s lives for half a million dollars. You also have to think about leaning information: if people do this, bodyguards around the world are going to monitor betting markets looking for unexplained changes. The military doesn’t like anything which can leak timing information since that increases the risk of a mission failing. |
|
