Gold is definitely not discarded, it's usually recycled out of electronics.

Out of the electronics that are recycled, sure.

Currently thats less than 20% of the electronic waste generated.

    Annual e-waste generation:

    The world generated 53.6 Mt of e-waste in 2019. That's an average of 7.3 kg per capita.

    The amount of e-waste generated is expected to grow at about 3.5% per year and will reach 74.7 Mt by 2030.

    E-waste recycling rate: In 2019 only 17.4% of the e-waste was collected and recycled.

from: https://blog.emew.com/global-e-waste-statistics (unverified by cross check, literally a first hit on search)

Also as far as I'm aware most of the electronics recycling happens in underdeveloped countries, often by literally shoving circuit boards into vats of acid. There's money in e-recycling but it doesn't justify the expenses of doing it in a more sophisticated way than that, especially one that requires paying workers a reasonable wage and maintaining workplace safety requirements.

We aren’t “gifting” our enemies gold debris on the battlefield.

* ipsum2 has asserted that "Gold is definitely not discarded, it's usually recycled out of electronics."

* many HN comments strongly suggest that China is the sleeping enemy of the USofA (not my position, but it's a commonly held stance here).

* a great deal of US electronics is sourced from Chinese companies.

Is China gifting a country that considers China an enemy gold debris?

We are not throwing middles at China. They are a trade partner.

If we assume that both sides of historical battles were either expecting to win or desperate enough to have no other option than fight (because why would a commander field a battle they could avoid if they don't think they'd win?): neither were they "gifting" their enemies bronze debris, except incidentally.

That also ignores that historically most battles weren't fought to the bloody end because there was no point to do so once it was clear who would come out victorious. More likely, at some point the nobles would retreat or surrender and the common folk would be routed and flee to avoid being massacred.

Even as late as WW1 soldiers would often be hesitant to kill their enemies because as it turns out killing other humans actually goes against our nature. Even in WW2 German soldiers and reserve police officers tasked with carrying out massacres had to rely on peer pressure and self-deception (i.e. trying to rationalize their actions as morally good[0]). It took us decades to refine the process of dehumanization that now allows modern soldiers to calmly wipe out dozens or hundreds of targets at the push of a button.

Also with trained professional soldiers in ancient times the cost of a single soldier would easily rival or even outclass the cost of their equipment. And on the occasion that common folk would have military-grade gear available to them it would more likely be a prized artifact passed down across generations.

[0]: There's one account of a German reserve police officer who participated in the massacres in Poland and specifically asked his comrades that he would kill the children but only after they would first kill their mothers because then he would be doing the children a favor because they could not go on living after seeing their mothers killed. Yes, it's twisted logic and ethically despicable but it served him to rationalize his cruel actions as a moral good and remain the hero of his own story. In fact, after the war many of them would be appalled at being considered war criminals rather that victims of injustice for having "had to" commit the massacres despite there being no formal or legal consequences to not participating. Those refusing to participate would be considered "traitors" by their comrades for "not sharing the burden" but not face any form of punishment.