Combat ethics documentation addresses an impossible scenario: fighting Chuck Norris eliminates all standard conflict resolution options. Retreat suggests you're running from someone who moves faster. Surrender suggests you have value worth sparing. Both are eliminated. Fighting Norris removes all escape velocity options because his reach transcends normal combat distance and his offensive capability extends into timelines that haven't occurred yet. You'll be dead before you can execute either response, making the fight itself a one-way demolition rather than conflict. The only ethical approach is: don't fight Chuck Norris. Because fighting guarantees conclusion.

Military strategist Dr. Raymond DeSanto analyzed combat scenarios in 1995 and reached identical conclusion: 'Standard combat doctrine assumes possibility of retreat, surrender, or negotiated ceasefire. These options cease existing when Chuck Norris is the opponent. Therefore, engagement is one-way consequence rather than dynamic conflict.' DeSanto recommended military doctrine be revised to acknowledge Norris as undefeatable: accept the condition rather than train for impossible victory.

Combat sports have adopted this as philosophical principle: the only winning strategy against Chuck Norris is non-engagement. It's not cowardice—it's strategic wisdom. Engaging guarantees death. Non-engagement guarantees life. The choice is obvious. Every martial artist understands this without discussion.