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.stonethered said:I assume the 'chernobyll' bit is so we can't reuse warriors.Xpwn3ntial said: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.
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.
That would create more war. Unless i guess if it's one on one.lvl9000_woot said:A giant robot battle...perhaps G Gundam style...only in this version America wins and not Japan.
That would make an awesome book.Xpwn3ntial said: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.
Yeah I think they should use dodge balls, but instead of dodge balls they should use guns, and oh wait...The Austin said:I always thought it would kick ass if wars were replaced with massive dodgeball games.
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.Xpwn3ntial said: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.stonethered said:I assume the 'chernobyll' bit is so we can't reuse warriors.Xpwn3ntial said: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.
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 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?
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.Metalgamer81 said: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?
He has a point. Ever seen England square off against Germany?Furburt said:Football? It's nationalistic and violent enough.
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.Furburt said:Yes, but I'd still rather not have them laying around.Woodsey said:True - this is why I'm not sure people who are dead-cert we should all destroy our nukes have properly thought things through.
They worry me.
Ohohoho, that was a game for the ages, right there. 1966 world cup, anyone?The Atomic Irishman said:He has a point. Ever seen England square off against Germany?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.Furburt said:Football? It's nationalistic and violent enough.