What could replace War?

[TheLefty]

A giant robot battle...perhaps G Gundam style...only in this version America wins and not Japan.

That would create more war. Unless i guess if it's one on one.

I invoke the idea that each nation picks one warrior to fight to the death in Chernobyll and the winner's nation makes the rules. The nations that are prohibited from entry are the ones without nuclear weaponry. Yes, that narrows it down quite a bit.

EDIT: This is done every 20 years.

That would make an awesome book.

 

[Metalgamer81]

This thread has many replies and I'm not certain if this has been brought up, but from a sociological point of view hasn't competitive sports all but replaced war?
The idea is the same. Two competing sides use their physical prowess to systematically defeat one another by taking enemy ground and breaking through their defenses.

It has been argued that the entire reason for competitive sports is to give civilized societies an outlet for their natural aggression. War hasn't always been a conflict between nations; looking back at World history, warfare was the chief way in which societies interacted with one another and could occur inside or outside of any imagined community.

Now, with that in mind, what has replaced war as the most prolific way that societies interact with one another?

 

[Evil-Mustache]

Go fish or who could stay up the longest while watching/playing the most boring movie/video game ever!!

 

[RealLifev2.0.09]

I always thought it would kick ass if wars were replaced with massive dodgeball games.

Yeah I think they should use dodge balls, but instead of dodge balls they should use guns, and oh wait...

 

[McBurks]

Jello wrestling.

 

[stonethered]

I invoke the idea that each nation picks one warrior to fight to the death in Chernobyll and the winner's nation makes the rules. The nations that are prohibited from entry are the ones without nuclear weaponry. Yes, that narrows it down quite a bit.

EDIT: This is done every 20 years.

I assume the 'chernobyll' bit is so we can't reuse warriors.


Sadly, this would mean the russians and their steroids and meticulous athletics programs would smash the media-governed antics of the western world. Well, it would for about the first three or four times before the Americans gave in and pulled out the stops.

It bothers me that I would support this plan anyways.

I anticipated that, and ruled that the winner would be immediately picked up in a helicopter and drug tested immediately. The rest of the warriors would be picked up over the next few hours by a U.N. investigative force. Should any nation cheat in that way, the highest ranked (longest lived) runner up's nation would win. Should all of them cheat, they have to start all over.

I picked Chernobyll because it's pretty there, in a horrible way.
P.S.: You shouldn't be bothered by this, it's better than war, isn't it?

Actualy the part that bothered me was the Russia winning part; They have a record of misgovernment slightly longer than they do of having a government.

I have heard Chernobyll is a nice area, and in all honesty the radiation is clearing up well.

 

[RealLifev2.0.09]

This thread has many replies and I'm not certain if this has been brought up, but from a sociological point of view hasn't competitive sports all but replaced war?
The idea is the same. Two competing sides use their physical prowess to systematically defeat one another by taking enemy ground and breaking through their defenses.

It has been argued that the entire reason for competitive sports is to give civilized societies an outlet for their natural aggression. War hasn't always been a conflict between nations; looking back at World history, warfare was the chief way in which societies interacted with one another and could occur inside or outside of any imagined community.

Now, with that in mind, what has replaced war as the most prolific way that societies interact with one another?

For me I do not think sports will ultimately replace war, because in war you eventually surrender and give up your sovereignty, resources, land etc.

Now not having the ability to stop this from occurring like having your forces decimated and feel that with so much dead its just not worth fighting for yeah I can see a side giving up.

Losing 2 out of 3 football games no I cannot see a country surrendering and giving up sovereignty, resources, or land all because they played a bad game.

OT: I think nothing will really stop war as long as sentient life exists. Nuclear bombs are certainly a deterrent but eventually people will forget why we do not want to use them anymore (this could be in 20 years this could be in 500).

 

[Danpascooch]

Peaceful Mediation.

Just kidding, that would never happen.

Maybe when Aperture Science invents "War in a Tube" we can stop actually having the wars.

till then, TO ARMS!

 

[The Atomic Irishman]

Football? It's nationalistic and violent enough.

He has a point. Ever seen England square off against Germany?

 

[Danpascooch]

True - this is why I'm not sure people who are dead-cert we should all destroy our nukes have properly thought things through.

Yes, but I'd still rather not have them laying around.

They worry me.

Haven't you seen the Nuke safety videos? Don't be ignorant, just don't leave them in direct sunlight, and never look down the barrel while cleaning them.

They are perfectly safe. Look, I can juggle th-

 

[niglett]

Gunadam fighting competitions between national champions!

 

[Xpwn3ntial]

Football? It's nationalistic and violent enough.

He has a point. Ever seen England square off against Germany?

Ohohoho, that was a game for the ages, right there. 1966 world cup, anyone?

 

[TheScarecrow]

Supreme Commander LAN.

Edit: Any strategy game LAN, or online.

Connect 4? Warhammer?

Or lock them in a room with a bong and some good weed and they'll sort it out.

 

[ThePirateMan]

To me, the answer is quite obvious..

MORE WAR!

I'm not sure if I'm serious or not..

 

[TheLefty]

It just occurred to me. They keep score in the Olympics right? Have the winner become the world super power until the next Game.

 

[Uber Evil]

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.

 

[Brad Shepard]

Gundam fights (thank you to whoever gets this)

 

[Wicky_42]

Government leaders having duels with flintlock pistols

Or maybe Rock Paper Scissors, two out of three

A duel can't solve national disputes - would you rest everything on the performance of a single man? Would you give up your liberty, your home, your wealth just because one man lost a duel? It would be a case of "Fuck that, I could do better!", and cue warfare, lol.

Solving war would require a completely different culture, one that didn't seek profit and personal gain, perhaps one that saw the dissolution of boundaries between one culture/region/belief system and others, for if all are equal and everything shared there is far less impetus for conflict. Plus, with less power in single individuals, personal motivations (greed, revenge, whatever) loose sway to mass opinion, doing things that are in the interest of many rather than the few.

Huh... I wonder if that's what they were talking about... *goes off to find a copy of Communist manifesto*

 

[LockeDown]

I'm in agreement with others in this thread. The world needs more giant Gundam fights anyway.

Gundam fights (thank you to whoever gets this)

Spoiler

 

[Zildjin81]

The BIGGEST MW2 match ever made.

That or the invent like a really really complex game...kinda like Risk...but more complex.

Like you know, life?