What could replace War?
- Thread starter TheLefty
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This fellow has it. Someone mentioned not having an economy, because the native tribes without one were so much better off, but that's a load. Natives still killed each other just as often as people with currency, and in higher proportion. The way to bring about peace is to make it so that the person across from you is valuable. So valuable that killing them, or oppressing them, or otherwise disrupting your ability to trade/communicate/whatever with them would be devastating enough to offset any gains from warfare.Yeq said:
Having no economy whatsoever makes anybody who isn't in your immediate family circle essentially valueless (and thus, gives you no incentive to avoid conflict with them, no matter what nativist worldview you have), and all the economic arrangements up to globalization ultimately leave someone worthless to someone else--meaning there are again no disincentives to military action.
Wrasslin.
Fake as hell wrestling, get Jim Ross as an announcer and it would be awesome:
"Oh my god! the rep from Belgium just hit Swedens rep in the back with a chair!"
OR
"Triple H has won! Triple H is Englands new Prime Minister!"
That sounds stupidly entertaining.
Fake as hell wrestling, get Jim Ross as an announcer and it would be awesome:
"Oh my god! the rep from Belgium just hit Swedens rep in the back with a chair!"
OR
"Triple H has won! Triple H is Englands new Prime Minister!"
That sounds stupidly entertaining.
Thunderdome.
Seriously though, countries set aside neutral battle fields and deploy troops and armor, each with a pt rating based on battlefield effectiveness. Light infantry is less pts then a sniper which is less then a tank etc. These troops will basically have a big ass laser tag fight. Hit enemies by proper weapons will essentially be paralyzed and cannot do anymore in the fight. Last side with people standing, or a particular mutual objective accomplished succeeds (Capture the flag, etc). The outcome determines which side loses the war and must surrender to the winner. This will be a conditional surrender so as a winning side cannot completely strip a country of their wealth and rights or dissolve it completely as some conquerors would do.
as a side note, no soldiers and no weapons is a terrible idea. we shouldn't stop designing technology for warfare. Even if there is world peace, extremeists, psychoes, and would be tyrants can get a surprising amount of support and cause huge problems. There is also the possibility of hostile aliens.
Rather have it and not need it, then need it and not have it.
Seriously though, countries set aside neutral battle fields and deploy troops and armor, each with a pt rating based on battlefield effectiveness. Light infantry is less pts then a sniper which is less then a tank etc. These troops will basically have a big ass laser tag fight. Hit enemies by proper weapons will essentially be paralyzed and cannot do anymore in the fight. Last side with people standing, or a particular mutual objective accomplished succeeds (Capture the flag, etc). The outcome determines which side loses the war and must surrender to the winner. This will be a conditional surrender so as a winning side cannot completely strip a country of their wealth and rights or dissolve it completely as some conquerors would do.
as a side note, no soldiers and no weapons is a terrible idea. we shouldn't stop designing technology for warfare. Even if there is world peace, extremeists, psychoes, and would be tyrants can get a surprising amount of support and cause huge problems. There is also the possibility of hostile aliens.
Rather have it and not need it, then need it and not have it.
Our national differences should be solved by letting the hottest chick from each country wrestle against each other in a kiddy pool filled with silicone lube (mud blocks the view too much). That should be our new way of warfare.
Of course there would also be a male round for the girls and gays amongst us, can't discriminate right? Winner of both rounds wins the war, draw means doing it all over again.
Sure, the whole world would be in a constant state of war, but would anyone be bothered with it? It's a win-win situation for everyone, even the losing party!
Of course there would also be a male round for the girls and gays amongst us, can't discriminate right? Winner of both rounds wins the war, draw means doing it all over again.
Sure, the whole world would be in a constant state of war, but would anyone be bothered with it? It's a win-win situation for everyone, even the losing party!
Yeah but what's the point when we're living in as much paranoia as we would be during a war?Woodsey said:
A bare knuckle fighting tournament between world leaders like in that old Frankie Goes to Hollywood "Two Tribes Go To War" video...or a beauty pageant.
Those aren't great replacements but they would be fun for the commoners to see and they would make a ton of money on ticket sales. Recession abated!
Those aren't great replacements but they would be fun for the commoners to see and they would make a ton of money on ticket sales. Recession abated!
My theory is that we could replace war with drinking contests. Germany and Poland have a land dispute? If Das Fuhrer can down more Old Tom then he could be granted the right to move in. Having a little trouble with terrorist groups in the Middle East? If Osama's able to do more shots of extra strength smirnoff then he can blow up all the shit he wants.
I don't think anything will replace war, and it will never end because they're will always be a reason to fight
