The ‘Weaponisation of Fireworks’ and ‘Hollowed-Out Command’: A Systematic Risk Analysis of Non-Combatant Military Forces—A Comparative Institutional Study Centred on Authentic Battlefield Pressure Screening and ‘Rank Credibility Capital’

Non-combat environments do not inherently diminish military capabilities, but they systematically alter an organisation's feedback structures and promotion signals, thereby inducing two highly correlated risk states: Firstly, the ‘weaponry becoming mere pyrotechnics’ phenomenon, wherein equipment development and training outputs progressively shift from adversarial validation towards demonstrative proof, with organisations substituting invisible yet critical battlefield effectiveness with visible, reportable metrics; Secondly, ‘command hollowing’, wherein commanders' capabilities for judgement, coordination, and error correction deteriorate under conditions of high friction, deception, losses, and uncertainty, manifesting as increased reliance on scripted procedures and diminished systemic adaptability. This paper proposes a falsifiable, quantifiable, and reproducible institutional-behaviour-effectiveness framework: with non-combat endurance periods and promotion system performance weights as exogenous conditions, display orientation and script dependency as mediating mechanisms, and command adaptability and combat readiness performance under stress as outcome variables. It introduces the concept of ‘rank credibility capital,’ translating the notion that ‘rank is earned through blood’ into a rigorous institutional proposition: For senior ranks to constitute credible signals of command competence, they must correspond to verifiable performance and accountability loops under genuinely high-stakes pressure. When organisations chronically lack such pressure-based selection, rank may undergo symbolic inflation, distorting promotion signals and accelerating hollowing-out. Methodologically, this study explicitly rejects simulation or modelling as substitutes for genuine cost structures. Instead, it employs historical warfare samples, natural experiments, and observational data for comparative identification, ensuring conclusions rest upon the irreplaceable foundation of authentic combat experience. This paper further declares its ethical boundaries: it neither debates the legitimacy of waging war nor advocates any bellicose actions. Its sole purpose is to elucidate capability generation mechanisms and institutional risks within military organisations under varying pressure structures.