NationStates Jolt Archive

Who thinks it'd be a good idea to just have all wars happen in a desolate area where no one lives and there are no important landforms/resources? That way no civilians are killed. Expensive, yes. Tedious, yes. But it saves the lives of many many people. It'd be like war games... only live ammunition, and when you lose, you really lose.

But how would troops, say, capture Bagdad when they're off in a random desolate area?

Who thinks it'd be a good idea to just have all wars happen in a desolate area where no one lives and there are no important landforms/resources? That way no civilians are killed. Expensive, yes. Tedious, yes. But it saves the lives of many many people. It'd be like war games... only live ammunition, and when you lose, you really lose.
Interesting idea.. definatley would work in real life but I like it.
It would bring back the olde English spirit of war as sort of a "sporting competition"

We should just have our wars in Africa. That continent has already gone way done the toilet.

How about we trick all the people who want to fight wars into an immersive reality gaming-style system, where they can believe they're fighting a good and noble fight and we can be a) free of them in our day-to-day lives, and b) free from having to subsidize their lifestyle to the point of seriously raising national debt. Catheters don't cost nearly as much as rifles.

Win-win.

We should just have our wars in Africa. That continent has already gone way done the toilet.
I was thinking building arenas to similate different situations on Antarctica. They'd be like giant domes, with different climates and geopgraphy inside, also makeshift cities, etc. This is where it gets expensive.

Who thinks it'd be a good idea to just have all wars happen in a desolate area where no one lives and there are no important landforms/resources? That way no civilians are killed. Expensive, yes. Tedious, yes. But it saves the lives of many many people. It'd be like war games... only live ammunition, and when you lose, you really lose.

How do you stop cheating?

How do you stop cheating?
I don't understand, where's the cheating come from?

Who thinks it'd be a good idea to just have all wars happen in a desolate area where no one lives and there are no important landforms/resources? That way no civilians are killed. Expensive, yes. Tedious, yes. But it saves the lives of many many people. It'd be like war games... only live ammunition, and when you lose, you really lose.
Why don't we just play chess then?

The problem is what if one side doesn't want to fight?
A)Because they know they will lose.
B)Because they have more important matters to attend to
C)Because they are Hippy Scum.

For instance would Poland have accepted Germany's invasion in WWII and then shipped troops to the Congo(Random Place)?No

Beating an enemy on equally foriegn soil would achieve nothing.

What if Army I won the battle but suffered such high loses they couldn't exploit the gains they had made?

It sounds like a dumb idea.
I commend your thought but it isn't practical nor fun.

I was thinking building arenas to similate different situations on Antarctica. They'd be like giant domes, with different climates and geopgraphy inside, also makeshift cities, etc. This is where it gets expensive.
Where will the terriorists be while the civilized armies are off in antartica?

I was thinking building arenas to similate different situations on Antarctica. They'd be like giant domes, with different climates and geopgraphy inside, also makeshift cities, etc. This is where it gets expensive.


Forget building domes for wars. A better idea would be to build domes for prisoners who would be forced to fight to the death, add in cameras and it will be a major event watched by every family that has a tv.

Who thinks it'd be a good idea to just have all wars happen in a desolate area where no one lives and there are no important landforms/resources? That way no civilians are killed. Expensive, yes. Tedious, yes. But it saves the lives of many many people. It'd be like war games... only live ammunition, and when you lose, you really lose.
its a good idea...but wars not nice like that

Forget building domes for wars. A better idea would be to build domes for prisoners who would be forced to fight to the death, add in cameras and it will be a major event watched by every family that has a tv.
WELCOME TO NEXAGON DEATH MATCH!!!!

Actualy I think that was common prisoners ... same idea

Forget building domes for wars. A better idea would be to build domes for prisoners who would be forced to fight to the death, add in cameras and it will be a major event watched by every family that has a tv.

George Carlin. Only he said it much better :p

Why don't we just play chess then?

The problem is what if one side doesn't want to fight?
A)Because they know they will lose.
B)Because they have more important matters to attend to
C)Because they are Hippy Scum.

For instance would Poland have accepted Germany's invasion in WWII and then shipped troops to the Congo(Random Place)?No

Beating an enemy on equally foriegn soil would achieve nothing.

What if Army I won the battle but suffered such high loses they couldn't exploit the gains they had made?

It sounds like a dumb idea.
I commend your thought but it isn't practical nor fun.

If they don't go, then you invade the real thing. It's offering a way out.

Where will the terriorists be while the civilized armies are off in antartica?

No one said you didn't leave men behind. No general with any sense at all would leave his homeland unprotected and defenseless unless they were depserate.

NO ONE WILL BE FIGHTING IN ANTARCTICA NOT NOW NOT EVER!
Unless they want to lose to my Penguin Army.

NO ONE WILL BE FIGHTING IN ANTARCTICA NOT NOW NOT EVER!
Unless they want to lose to my Penguin Army.
I think Antartica may become a viable battleground eventually definatley not for hundreds of years. And the conflicts would be minimized. Transporting and suppling troops there would be hell.

NO ONE WILL BE FIGHTING IN ANTARCTICA NOT NOW NOT EVER!
Unless they want to lose to my Penguin Army.

Fine, then we'll use our polar bears from up north here to eat your penguins. Also, if our bears lose, we'll just nuke the fuck out've ya :D

Fine, then we'll use our polar bears from up north here to eat your penguins. Also, if our bears lose, we'll just nuke the fuck out've ya :D
And all die from teh melting of the ice.:)

And all die from teh melting of the ice.:)
SHHHH! I haven't thought that far yet... Maybe I'll just shoot them all. They can't shoot back at me anyways, they've got no fingers to pull the trigger :P

no, because when you win, your know where near your enemy nor do you have any leverage to acheive your objectives.

we might as well have our leaders play chess.

no, because when you win, your know where near your enemy nor do you have any leverage to acheive your objectives.

we might as well have our leaders play chess.
Actualy for world wars, Risk could serve a purpose, but instead of random places, you have the countries/troops ur alliance controls.

no, because when you win, your know where near your enemy nor do you have any leverage to acheive your objectives.

we might as well have our leaders play chess.

That first sentence makes little sense without a quote to the post you're reffering to.
But on to the point, if you have proper intelligence, you always know where your enemy force is and they always know where you are. Whether you're playing in a dome or not.

I don't understand, where's the cheating come from?

Cheating such as instead of showing up on the game day, you invade said country while the opposing army is elsewhere.

That first sentence makes little sense without a quote to the post you're reffering to.
But on to the point, if you have proper intelligence, you always know where your enemy force is and they always know where you are. Whether you're playing in a dome or not.

yes, but there is no point fighting over strategically useless terrain, because it provides niether side with leverage once victory is acheived. you would just have to go into the country anyways, as no country will give up soveriegnty "on a promise".

I think the idea is thus:

George W Bush wants Saddam Hussein to shut up and prove that he either has or does not have WMD.

George W Bush and Saddam Hussein agree on a venue in which to fight a battle that will decide whether or not Hussein has to do as Bush wants.

Saddam Hussein's generals decide what troops they're going to use and send Bush the list complete with dossiers and operational histories of every individual and unit to be committed.

Bush's generals 'bid' with each other to decide who will take the fight to Saddam's troops. The winner is the person who bids lowest. They then forward dossiers and operational histories of every unit that the US is going to send.

Then, at the agreed upon time, the battlefield lights up with fire as Iraqi and American forces duke it out.

Whoever wins the battle gets their way. Whoever loses has to give the victor what he demanded.

How about if we give rule of the earth for 4 years to whoever wins the Olympic Games?

yes, but there is no point fighting over strategically useless terrain, because it provides niether side with leverage once victory is acheived. you would just have to go into the country anyways, as no country will give up soveriegnty "on a promise".

But the idea isn't to take sovereignty. It's to take a resource.

yes, but there is no point fighting over strategically useless terrain, because it provides niether side with leverage once victory is acheived. you would just have to go into the country anyways, as no country will give up soveriegnty "on a promise".

Cheating such as instead of showing up on the game day, you invade said country while the opposing army is elsewhere.

The answer to both of those is quite simple. If you cheat, or otherwise don't give up what you've lost when you lose, then you invite the wrath of the whole world upon your sorry little ass. Who said there was no fun? ;)

you guys are taking the fun out of war.

How about if we give rule of the earth for 4 years to whoever wins the Olympic Games?

Which Olympics? Winter or Summer?

Which Olympics? Winter or Summer?
A new olypmics: The Uber Olympics, basicaly both would be held in the same year.

Who thinks it'd be a good idea to just have all wars happen in a desolate area where no one lives and there are no important landforms/resources? That way no civilians are killed. Expensive, yes. Tedious, yes. But it saves the lives of many many people. It'd be like war games... only live ammunition, and when you lose, you really lose.

But political terrorism doesn't work unless one can kill, maim, and destroy the target's landforms, resources, and citizens. That's the whole point.

Naw, what we do is make the leaders of the respective warning countries have a steel cage, anything goes, match. Now, as most of the world leaders are old men and women, it might not be nearly as exciting, but if we put them in actual harms way, bet it would cut down on a lot of wars.

But political terrorism doesn't work unless one can kill, maim and destroy the target's landforms, resources, and citizens. That's the whole point.

I never said it would get rid of terrorism. Only that wars would be fought on a neutral battlefield.

There is now a proposal for this! Check it out and any Delegates please endorse it!

I never said it would get rid of terrorism. Only that wars would be fought on a neutral battlefield.

There is now a proposal for this! Check it out and any Delegates please endorse it!

"War" and "Political Terrorism" mean essentially the same thing. The only real difference is that when the state does it, it's legal and patriotic.

Naw, what we do is make the leaders of the respective warning countries have a steel cage, anything goes, match. Now, as most of the world leaders are old men and women, it might not be nearly as exciting, but if we put them in actual harms way, bet it would cut down on a lot of wars.

Do it medieval style. Every country has a champion, give em swords, spears, shields and four hundred men to command. Shield walls, tactics/alliances, and ancient style fortresses would rule the day.

"War" and "Political Terrorism" mean essentially the same thing. The only real difference is that when the state does it, it's legal and patriotic.
:rolleyes: it is legal, if not patroitic. There are rules of war for a reason, and war has been around way longer than the US

Fine, then we'll use our polar bears from up north here to eat your penguins. Also, if our bears lose, we'll just nuke the fuck out've ya :D
You just try it Bucko!
The Penguin Flotila shall prevail!

I always thought the best idea would be for each country to choose one champion, who then has to fight the other country's champion to the death with bare hands.

Winner takes all.

I always thought the best idea would be for each country to choose one champion, who then has to fight the other country's champion to the death with bare hands.

Winner takes all.

Nah, there has to be some mass death in it.

I always thought the best idea would be for each country to choose one champion, who then has to fight the other country's champion to the death with bare hands.

Winner takes all.this has been tried before, a greek author called homer describes in his piece "ilias" the duell between two champions to decide a war between trojans and greeks. too bad, that the losing party did not adhere to the deal.

Do it medieval style. Every country has a champion, give em swords, spears, shields and four hundred men to command. Shield walls, tactics/alliances, and ancient style fortresses would rule the day.
Only if the countries leaders, like the kings of old, actually had to be on the battlefield and lead from the front, with all dangers that represents.

Only if the countries leaders, like the kings of old, actually had to be on the battlefield and lead from the front, with all dangers that represents.

Funny how the national leaders who led their armies from the front were well-loved (by their own nation, sometimes by their foe, but just as likely to be hated by them!) and have gone down in history as being great leaders.

Examples:

President George Washington
Emperor Napoleon
Sultan Saladin
King Richard the Lion-Hearted
Genghis Khan
Dictator Iulius Caesar
Alexander the Great
Toyotomi Hideyoshi
&c.

this has been tried before, a greek author called homer describes in his piece "ilias" the duell between two champions to decide a war between trojans and greeks. too bad, that the losing party did not adhere to the deal.
Yeah...silly Trojans. I guess they got what they deserved, and Achilles got to look like a good guy too when he gave back the body to Priamos.

Funny how the national leaders who led their armies from the front were well-loved (by their own nation, sometimes by their foe, but just as likely to be hated by them!) and have gone down in history as being great leaders.

Examples:

President George Washington
Emperor Napoleon
Sultan Saladin
King Richard the Lion-Hearted
Genghis Khan
Dictator Iulius Caesar
Alexander the Great
Toyotomi Hideyoshi
&c.
forgot one

forgot one

No I didn't.

"&c."

:p

Curses! defoiled again:(

Curses! defoiled again:(

Better than being defenestrated.

Or castrated.

Yeah...silly Trojans. I guess they got what they deserved, and Achilles got to look like a good guy too when he gave back the body to Priamos.
No way Helen was a gift from the gods.

Or castrated.

Er... I don't see what the prefix "de-" has to do with that. But yes, it's definately better.

Yeah...silly Trojans. I guess they got what they deserved, and Achilles got to look like a good guy too when he gave back the body to Priamos.no, it was between paris and menelaos (3rd book) the achilleus-hector thing was purely personal.

Er... I don't see what the prefix "de-" has to do with that. But yes, it's definately better.
I didnt know what the word you posted ment so in my infinte laziness I didnt open up dictionary.com and instead I just posted a random bad thing.

no, it was between paris and menelaos (3rd book) the achilleus-hector thing was purely personal.
Okay...well, they didn't choose their champion very wisely, let's just agree to that.

I didnt know what the word you posted ment so in my infinte laziness I didnt open up dictionary.com and instead I just posted a random bad thing.

To be defenestrated means that one is being thrown from the top of a tall building.

This is an absurd thread. It doesn't take into account guerrilla warfare, urban strategy, and dehumanizes the lives of the participants. War cannot take place in a sterile environment according to strict rules. That is unless you count when Rocky beatIvan Drago and we all learnt a valuable lesson.

This is an absurd thread. It doesn't take into account guerrilla warfare, urban strategy, and dehumanizes the lives of the participants. War cannot take place in a sterile environment according to strict rules. That is unless you count when Rocky beatIvan Drago and we all learnt a valuable lesson.

Man that was a horrible movie.

Though the thought of well non-combatants not in the line of danger is thoughtful.

War itself is not kind. Not kind at all.

It is for a nation to flex it's "muscles" and take ground. And to do that they take cities.

For to have our fighting menand women die on desolated plain, is a waste of life at no meaning what so ever.

In might slike these, there is always going to be 'good" and evil. I do not accept this rule.

For to do so, would be to cast aside people's lives, in vain. Which is pretty damn selfish if I do say so.

Man that was a horrible movie.
I know but I thought my respnse was a bit too serious so I decided to add the obsurd.

Though the thought of well non-combatants not in the line of danger is thoughtful.

War itself is not kind. Not kind at all.

Which is why it would make sense to enforce rules that garauntee that wars only occur in unpopulated regions. Wars will happen one way or the other.

It is for a nation to flex it's "muscles" and take ground. And to do that they take cities.

Taking cities is a relatively new thing. Granted you have to do it eventually, but what you usually do is bypass the city entirely. City fighting is costly to both sides and creates high civilian casualties and destroys local infrastructure. Something both sides would, in a fair fight, ignore. It's only when one side holds a definate advantage over the other in all other arenas that one side or the other will choose to fight in a city (ergo, usually the defender). And even then, there cannot be any fighting in the city with out the consent of the stronger of the two (usually the attacker).

For to have our fighting menand women die on desolated plain, is a waste of life at no meaning what so ever.

More meaningful than making them die to take a city they don't even know why they're fighting for.

To die on a desolate plain, knowing what you're fighting for and knowing the exact consequences of failure is much better than having to play craps to guess at the results.

In might slike these, there is always going to be 'good" and evil. I do not accept this rule.

For to do so, would be to cast aside people's lives, in vain. Which is pretty damn selfish if I do say so.

It's always selfish for a non-combatant to want to live, I know.

This is sort of unrelated to the thread, but so is the discussion of Homer's poems, so what the hey. And I dont know if someone has already suggested this somewhere on some thread. But honestly, its an original idea to me.
(Dont take this seriously and get all up in arms)
We should solve all our problems and send the retiring baby boomers to Iraq. Not the ones still in the workforce, we need them to keep the economy going. But we are about to face a serious crisis with Social Security. Lets just send the old farts to war. They are gonna die anyway, lets make it a productive process! And sure, we'll have to pay for any of the wounded. But we would have to pay for the old getting sick anyway.

This is sort of unrelated to the thread, but so is the discussion of Homer's poems, so what the hey. And I dont know if someone has already suggested this somewhere on some thread. But honestly, its an original idea to me.
(Dont take this seriously and get all up in arms)
We should solve all our problems and send the retiring baby boomers to Iraq. Not the ones still in the workforce, we need them to keep the economy going. But we are about to face a serious crisis with Social Security. Lets just send the old farts to war. They are gonna die anyway, lets make it a productive process! And sure, we'll have to pay for any of the wounded. But we would have to pay for the old getting sick anyway.
I dont think people would look upon us to fondly for doing that.
Not that they do now , but that would make them look less fondly?