What could replace War?

Recommended Videos

w1n5t0n

New member
Jul 29, 2009
48
0
0
I dont think any alternatives would work. Whether you have a race, a game, whatever, if a country that loses thinks their army could beat the country who won, they'll just go to war over it. If there was an alternative then it would have to be something where less people die, but the losers can't do anything about it. So far giant robot battles sound the most logical(that sentence sounds wierd) Since the winners would have giant robots to keep the other countries in line and the losers' giant robots would be destroyed.
 

Life_Is_A_Mess

New member
Sep 10, 2009
536
0
0
The nature of any kind of animal you can think of is survival.

Why do we want money? To survive.
Why do we need territories? To survive.
Why do we need to reproduce? To survive.
Why do we eat? To survive.
How do we survive? We wage war.
For this, we need to be greedy. And greed fuels war.

So my answer to this problem is simple: Unless we destroy all of our human essence, we will still be greedy *goes on forever*.

As you can see, I'm not very concise, so I'll answer the thread now:

Total unification of the world,(?)
Even wealth for everyone in the world,
Enviroment Laws respected,
Unified goverments,
Respect for all cultures,
Curruption elimination,
many, many others
 

DSEZ

New member
Aug 8, 2009
863
0
0
coxafloppin said:
NO matter what we pick China is gonna win.

I like the idea of a champion from one country fighting a champion from another country.

Knights or something equaly medievil.
its a even contest between china or brazil

OT:i like the idea of a fighting tournament but i say we have videogame tournaments
 

GrinningManiac

New member
Jun 11, 2009
4,090
0
0
There was a bit in All Quiet on the Western Front where one of the soldiers thought that war was stupid, as it got the people who didn't care fighting to the death over something they didn't start and dosen't affect them

Instead, this chap suggested that the ambassadors and leaders of the opposing country have a bare-knuckles fight, and all the little people could come and watch and enjoy themselves

I'd love to see that, but Putin would have won everything, and Brown's an ex-rugby player, so I don't know what Obama could do
 

AkJay

New member
Feb 22, 2009
3,555
0
0
Lemon Of Life said:
AkJay said:
Technically, the Nuclear Bomb ended war. with it's creation and first time use, people were scared shitless. Sure, we've had conflicts in the past (Vietnam, Korea) but nothing that would classify as a full-scale war. So now instead of fighting, we created the UN to talk things out.
Over 2 million men died in Vietnam. Show some respect, and get a dictionary. If that isn't a 'full scale war' then you're an idiot.
I've been on this website for almost a year now, and you are the first person to call me an idiot. why has it taken this long!?!?
 

SonicKoala

The Night Zombie
Sep 8, 2009
2,266
0
0
AkJay said:
Lemon Of Life said:
Technically, the Nuclear Bomb ended war. with it's creation and first time use, people were scared shitless. Sure, we've had conflicts in the past (Vietnam, Korea) but nothing that would classify as a full-scale war. So now instead of fighting, we created the UN to talk things out.
Over 2 million men died in Vietnam. Show some respect, and get a dictionary. If that isn't a 'full scale war' then you're an idiot.
To be fair, over 60 million died in World War 2. We will never have a conflict of that nature ever again, which is what I think he was trying to say. Because of that precedent, using the term "full-scale war" to refer to something like Vietnam just doesn't seem appropriate. Perhaps the term "world war" would be a better term - we'll never have a world war ever again (lest we get completely destroyed by nuclear weapons).
 

RanD00M

New member
Oct 26, 2008
6,947
0
0
A epic game of human chess.1 chess piece is one platoon.And there no no kings.The man with the last piece or pieces wins.
 

dietpeachsnapple

New member
May 27, 2009
1,273
0
0
Fetzenfisch said:
dietpeachsnapple said:
A constitutional requirement that anyone who votes for a country to GO to war, has to fight on the front lines.
thats actually it yes. Now i just have to rule the world to get this thing through

a bonus is, the idiots who actually do sign can kill each other and we get rid of them.
Please do. I have been looking forward to this for some time.

I would also accept, if they felt that they were not physically fit to fight, that they could send their children in their place.

If they are ready to send sons and daughters to die, they should be ready to send their own.
 

mrbones228

New member
Dec 13, 2009
166
0
0
There will always be war.

war is always won by the guy with the bigest stick and if you have a nuke you have a tree.
 

EMFCRACKSHOT

Not quite Cthulhu
May 25, 2009
2,973
0
0
I have 2 different ways, both stolen from different comic books.
The first (and my favourite) is taken from Commando and involves high tech vertual reality rooms where two teams from the opposing countries fight against each other in historical recreations of famous battles alongside a number of ai npcs'. The winner gets to make terratorial claims from the loser.
Nobody dies, the dispute is settled and everybody had a good time

The other way, as seen in Judge Dredd, involves two teams of four each with one reserve from the opposing countries fighting in specially designed combat arenas (they fight to the death with whatever weapons their country gives them). The winner again gets to make terratorial claims from the loser.

A great thing with both of these is that they can be televised for your viewing pleasure and people can gamble on the outcome
 

Triple G

New member
Sep 12, 2008
484
0
0
As said in "Lord of War", war is an essential human need like eating or recreation. There will always be war, and even if the big countries can scare each other with nukes, there will still be war. I mean, if the NATO and the SCO(i.e. Russia & China to show the biggest 2 countries in this organization) get fed up at each other and start a war they won't nuke each other because that would be the end of the world. They are already making plans to minimize the influence of nukes, and and nukes will never be used, because if you nuke your enemy, you can't take their land and their stuff.
 

breadlord

New member
Apr 21, 2009
326
0
0
Uber Evil said:
Furburt said:
Football? It's nationalistic and violent enough.
Then you would have a lot of confused people. Americans would think this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_football] football, while the rest of the world would be thinking soccer.
American football is the ***** of rugby, that doesn't want his nails to get hurt, and has to wear full tanks of armor to feel a slight bit safe.