First, The Narrative Was Being Set Up To Make Ironwood The Bad Guy, So Shit Was Going Down The Way It

First, the narrative was being set up to make Ironwood the bad guy, so shit was going down the way it had to. Writer's prerogative and I'm not a writer on RWBY.

Second, your point relates to the morality of Ironwood's plan. Which is not related to this post, and also something most of RWDE would agree with you as being morally gray.

I like saying the plan is moral because its fun to do so.

So on both counts, your fears can be put to rest.

What Was Ironwood's plan?

For V7, Ironwood only had one plan. Turning Amity arena into a satellite, and telling Remnant about Salem's existence. The steps and contingencies for this Amity plan is outlined in episode 2, and V7's narrative generally deals with the Amity Plan's implementation, and its failure.

Ironwood's 'plan' toward the end of V7:

Is not so much a plan as it is a tactical decision. Ironwood finds himself in an un-ideal situation and makes a choice to act on the circumstances to get out of the un-ideal situation.

In Ironwood's case, a plan and a decision is not the same. Ironwood's diplomatic personality is a distinct vibe compared to his tactical mood.

Outside of a tactical situation, Ironwood is someone who can consider multiple perspectives and was able to work with other people to do what was best for Atlas. Trusting RWBY with the relic, and standing together with Robyn Hill, are both examples of Ironwood's flexibility outside of tactical situations.

Ironwood's 'Mettle' semblance emphasizes this distinction as it helps Ironwood hyper focus on a single difficult decision. However Ironwood's Amity plan was a fairly complex, multi-stage affair, that probably wouldn't be possible if Ironwood was hyper-focused.

This distinction is important as clarification. It indicates that Ironwood's plan from the start wasn't to abandon Mantle. Instead, Ironwood made a tactical decision to isolate Atlas in response to a threat Ironwood prioritized over the Grimm. It was not as if Ironwood had planned to abandon Mantle from the start.

However, if we are forced to only consider Ironwood's tactical decision at the end of V7, we need to understand the nature of the threat Ironwood is prioritizing responding to.

During the episode gravity, Ironwood's plan is:

"The timeline has changed. And so we must change accordingly. We are going to take our plan for Amity Tower and apply it to the city of Atlas. It was Oz's plan in a former life. But he didn't take it far enough. If we harness the power of the Staff and raise ourselves high into the atmosphere, the city's artificial climate will keep citizens and food supplies unharmed. Always out of reach of whatever Salem may try to send our way."

At this point, I will state that while I accept Ironwood's plan as stated in this line, I am going to read this line as divorced from the language the writers had Ironwood use for this line. In this part of the narrative, Ironwood is set up to be the antagonist to RWBY, and the dialogue reflects this. However sensible Ironwood's plan may be, the way it is presented is meant to make Ironwood an opponent, which is a bit of a bias that may influence the audience's perception of Ironwood's tactical decision.

At its most essential, Ironwood's plan is to isolate Atlas by lifting it to a height where the Grimm can't survive without the aid of Atlas's artificial climate technology.

The conflict here isn't that the plan won't work, its just that Ironwood won't give Mantle time to evacuate onto Atlas.

"Blake: But we're nowhere near finished evacuating everyone! You'd be leaving Mantle to die.

Ironwood: Yes… I would."

No one questioned the validity of Ironwood's plan, only the morality of Ironwood's execution of the plan, and that is something I may write about some other time.

But if we were forced by fndoomers (eh-heh) to question the validity of Ironwood's tactic, we have to approach the question on two fronts.

Firstly, what is the threat Ironwood is responding to? I believe that Ironwood wasn't focused on the Grimm, at this moment, but on the infiltrators who had breached his security. Just like what happened during the Fall of Beacon.

Infiltration was a threat that occupied Ironwood's mind over the course of V7. Now, I'm not going to say 'Ironwood was always worried about infiltrators and lifting Atlas into space was some endgame thing'. However, Ironwood was cautious about the possibility of infiltration, and the fact that his security was breached, as represented by the queen piece on his desk and Salem showing up in his office, pushed Ironwood to isolate Atlas.

Just as how quarantine is a measure against infection, the validity of Ironwood's tactic is made obvious when one considers that Ironwood is focused on trying to deal with the security breach, and not solely on the Grimm.

Secondly, RWBY's plan at the end of V7 was to hold ground and fight the Grimm. The episode doesn't exactly say how RWBY intended to fight the Grimm, but like Ironwood's response to his security breach, RWBY's 'plan' is a tactical decision in response to an un-ideal situation.

In fact, RWBY's tactic isn't unfeasible at this stage. No one right then really had a plan to beat Salem, but they needed to come up with a response to the circumstances unfolding around them. With support from Atlas, RWBY could feasibly hold Mantle for as long as it was needed for the plot to help RWBY beat Salem.

However, RWBY failed to grasp that Ironwood's focus was on the security breach. A security breach that RWBY may have contributed to, to an extent. The Grimm was not as big a threat as the infiltrators who may be operating in Atlas, and would likely exploit the chaos of combat to execute whatever plans they may have. (Namely, stealing the relics. Which was always Salem's priority, but that is a separate topic.)

Would isolating Atlas in space have dealt with the security breach? Very likely so. For example, Robyn Hill did not know what Ironwood's plan for Amity was until she was TOLD by Blake and Yang. Ironwood's security in Atlas was not fully breached as while Ironwood's office was infiltrated, the Staff was not taken until V8, and by playing his cards close to his chest Ironwood was able to trap Watts. Even RWBY was deceived when Ironwood lied that the Amity Tower was operational to bait Watts.

It seems likely, therefore, that isolating Atlas would be a more suitable response to the infiltrators. While fighting the Grimm would just spread everyone thin, and leave them vulnerable to a more damaging surprise attack from their blindspot. Like in Beacon, and a bit like in V8, to be fair.

In conclusion:

Ironwood's plan is always to raise Amity Tower and tell the world about Salem.

Ironwood's tactical decision is viable if you consider that; no one in the show questions the workability of launching Atlas into space, and that Ironwood's priority was dealing with the infiltrators, not the Grimm.

This is ultimately a primer of sorts for Ironwood fans so that they'd be aware of what Ironwood likely intended to do for V7. A little clarity, perhaps, amidst the heated misrepresentations and misunderstandings that surround Ironwood and his role in V7 and V8.

Ironwood's actions in Ultimatium were so egregiously forced by the story going "We have to fill time" that it's insanity.

> Someone writes Ironwood blowing up the whale monster > "No that's too heroic we gotta make him evil" > "Well how the fuck else is the whale going caput? We gotta kill it somehow." > "Uhhhh cane nuke. The nuke in Ozpin's cane." > "The fucking what?!" > "Shut up and give me your laptop."

"Cool... except for the fact that Rhodes' flashback showed how badly things can go when individuals are calling the shots according to their own morals, preferences, and needs, rather than having a system to fall back on." That is the opposite of what Rhodes problems were, Rhodes issue was choosing to be complacent in a corrupt system instead of trying to do more.

You mean do more than tracking down a child who stole your weapon, retrieving it peacefully, spending years of your life secretly training her in the hope that she'll have better options once she comes of age, and then attempting to bring her in after she murdered three people only to die for your efforts?

I'm of the opinion that Rhodes did a lot. It's really easy to point fingers and say he should have done something more/done it better while standing on the far side of events: he should have gotten Cinder away, raised her himself, left her elsewhere, etc. all with the surety that nothing worse would possibly happen than what we ended up with because obviously a fans' imaginings of this fictional world is instantly fact. There's no possible way Rhodes would have been arrested for kidnapping a kid, or didn't have the means to raise a child himself, or that Cinder wouldn't have starved/been eaten by grimm/something equally horrific if he'd just gotten her away and left her somewhere else. Rhodes, as an individual, decided based on his own morals (being a huntsmen), his preferences (doesn't appear to want/be capable of raising Cinder), and needs (keep their training on the down low) how to handle the situation... and, as seen, things ended very badly.

To my mind, the solution here is not to say, "Rhodes didn't do enough. How dare this one man fail so spectacularly. Obviously he should have foreseen every possible outcome and chosen the route that didn't end in death. Practical concerns? The law? His needs? Cinder's? A non-omniscient perspective? None of that matters! He should have just tried harder."

The solution is to ask, "Why doesn't Remnant have a version of child protective services so that one man, whose profession it is to kill monsters, is not suddenly responsible for an abused child when she randomly steals from him one night?"

I'm not saying our own systems are perfect—far, FAR from it—but be real for a second: if you came across a presumably abused kid in a hotel, what are you going to do? Take it upon yourself to change their life from the ground up... or are you going to call someone who's part of a system capable of handling that? And if that system doesn't exist and you nevertheless try something that ends in your death, how are you going to feel if the response to that is a dismissive, "Well, you should have done more."

Outside of his responsibility as a human being, Rhodes didn't have to do anything. But he did. The fact that things went south is largely a failing of his society. The specific mistakes he made, like giving Cinder a sword, directly connect back to that Remnant culture, a perspective where giving children weaponry is seen as normal and inconsequential as giving them popsicles. This is the world where Ruby was wielding "one of the most dangerous weapons ever designed" as a pre-teen, where the whole world thought they saw Yang shatter Mercury's leg and then shrugged it off, where kids are capable of stealing military property, and the first thing Ozpin does after getting Oscar away from home is teach him how to throw a proper punch. In Remnant, teaching kids how to defend themselves is a common recreation/therapy/career trajectory, even when it ends in horrific outcomes. Given all that, we can't look at Rhode's very logical decision of, "Well, I don't know what else to do with this kid, so I guess I'll teach her my trade so she'll have a way to escape later. Now, after years of training, I trust her enough to give her a weapon of her own, just like all the Signal kids are getting right about now. Oh no, now she's killing people" and go, "Actually, he didn't do enough because we know it ends badly. The morality of these decisions is based solely on what outcomes we end up with, never mind that the character obviously can't see the future."

What is your stance on gay porn, art porn, and self-made porn on sites like Onlyfans?

I am against the commodification of human sexuality.

If money is changing hands, I'm not in favor of it.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY MINETA!!!!

'All but Ozpin were those teens not so long ago' Yeah for real, the show and the fandom both act as if the adults in RWBY sprang out of the ocean mist fully formed and ready to enslave the babes in the next generation in a war just because they wanted to do that.

That detail was so obvious to me even before Ruby started literally repeating Ozpin's choices: that the teenagers currently critical of the 30+ adults will, in the not too distant future, become the very same adults that the next batch of teenagers dismiss, unless they break the cycle's start by empathizing with the adults first. Personally, I'm of the opinion that if RWBY wanted the kind of anti-adult message that pervades much of the material post-Volume 3, it needed a cast that's a lot younger and who, crucially, will remain young for the majority of the story's run. A 10-15yo sneering at the adults who failed them hits a lot harder than the group of mostly 17yos who go through a two-ish year time skip halfway through the series, so it's only when they're 18+ that they start getting truly mad about the state of things. Having a 19 or 20yo Yang furious when she's holding a license and deferring to her younger sister's authority doesn't have quite the same impact.

But all that aside—because let's be real, I think the writers and fandom both forget how old and politically powerful the group is—the far more significant problem is that RWBY simply doesn't have a coherent message about that generational divide, let alone how to ethically fight an endless war. Fans think it does because most are reading their preferred moral between the lines, but the reality is that RWBY's only proper stance has been, "Every option is horrible, but we don't want to acknowledge that. Instead, we'll just play a version of musical chairs to pick which option is deemed The Most Morally Corrupt each volume."

If you start pooling all the arguments I've seen together, you often end up with something like this:

"Kids shouldn't be fighting a war."

Agreed. I guess Remnant needs an army of adults then.

"No, armies are horrible. Volumes 7-8 showed us that. Anti-military massaging is a core part of RWBY."

Okay, then we need to go back to adult huntsmen. "Exactly."

And when should they start training for this incredibly difficult, dangerous position?

"I mean... young I guess, but don't let them do anything too dangerous."

Just miraculously ensure the bad guys never attack their school? And, you know, hope that they don't get slaughtered the moment they turn 18 and enter real battle because they've been bubble-wrapped during training...

"Quit with the sarcasm. The point is that only the individuals who have committed themselves to protecting the people are responsible enough to hold that kind of power."

Cool... except for the fact that Rhodes' flashback showed how badly things can go when individuals are calling the shots according to their own morals, preferences, and needs, rather than having a system to fall back on.

"Rhodes was an exception. Most huntsmen are Good and Noble and Trustworthy."

Ah, so like Ironwood?

"No, not him. He's military."

Qrow then?

"Absolutely not, he's a drunk."

Glynda? Oobleck? Port?

"They abandoned them!"

What about all the background huntsmen?

"You know the show has gone out of its way to display them as inept, corrupt, or dead."

Hmm. It almost sounds like they're all humans who are inevitably going to make mistakes. What are we supposed to do about that?

"Well, clearly the answer is to have someone with experience in charge. Someone who has learned from their mistakes."

Like... Ozpin?

"You can't be serious. He's a manipulative bastard! A leader also has to be pure and innocent and loving."

Ah. Like a child who hasn't yet grown jaded by an endless war, or had the time to accumulate numerous mistakes in the first place?

"Yes!"

So we want someone like Ruby leading this war? The person who Ozpin was before, you know, thousands of years of traumatic life happened to him.

"Yes! She's the simple soul!"

Awesome. So we acknowledge that in this fantasy world having children fight is not only necessary, but potentially morally correct, especially when doing so is their passionate, lifelong dream?

"No way. Children fighting a war is so bad :("

And round and round we go. RWBY doesn't have anything to say about this, at least nothing that doesn't contradict or undermine what's been said before. Whether Remnant needs a child, an immortal, an army, or huntsmen varies from volume to volume—sometimes even episode to episode—and though the show has gotten this close to a solution in the form of, "We need everyone, actually. We need to unite!" it stumbled in the final hour by pulling back to go, "No wait, never-mind. We don't need them" and also "We introduced HUGE consequences to uniting and then decided to just ignore that, don't worry about it."