Is it possible to have a war in which no living beings are hurt or killed?

[HappyPuppy]

Think about it.

 

[Dragnov]

 

[Scarpozzi]

One, two, three, four, I declare thumb war.

 

[Ronstang]

Only if it is a "war of the minds"..........think about it.

 

[MacBaine]

Chess

 

[pyonir]

war with playing cards.

 

[woodie1]

There are price wars, and war games.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Sure. My best friend and I used to build arm shields and headgear from Construx and throw legos at eachother while running around in the front yard.



<edited for better link>
I even had this guy!

 

[Kadarin]

Hmm. If we're talking about war between nation-states, I suppose you could have a military conflict waged by robotic proxy (unmanned aircraft, tanks, etc..) provided both nations are sufficiently advanced technologically.

 

[HappyPuppy]

OK, so I dildn't make myself clear. Whip me!

What I meant is that throughout history wars have been fought by people. People get hacked up, blown up and die.

If we progress to the point where wars are fought technologically, without the chance that humans could be hurt, what would be the point of war?

 

[pyonir]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
OK, so I dildn't make myself clear. Whip me!

did you expect different from the ATOT crowd?


No. it isn't. that is why people are so against war.

I don't have a problem with it, as long as it is for the right reasons. but some say there are no right reasons. every argument has a contradiction.

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
OK, so I dildn't make myself clear. Whip me!

What I meant is that throughout history wars have been fought by people. People get hacked up, blown up and die.

If we progress to the point where wars are fought technologically, without the chance that humans could be hurt, what would be the point of war?

I knew what you meant...just didn't have anything worthwhile to say.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
OK, so I dildn't make myself clear. Whip me!

What I meant is that throughout history wars have been fought by people. People get hacked up, blown up and die.

If we progress to the point where wars are fought technologically, without the chance that humans could be hurt, what would be the point of war?

i think you are missing the point of technological progress... technological progress is intended to give one side an advantage. an advantage at what? an advantage at killing people. we might lose sight of this as technology progresses, but that is the underlying objective.

even if we get to the points where robots are fighting, what do you think will happen when one side's robots are all defeated? either that side surrenders or the humans on that side fight the winning robots. that might turn ugly.

 

[dafatha00]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
OK, so I dildn't make myself clear. Whip me!

What I meant is that throughout history wars have been fought by people. People get hacked up, blown up and die.

If we progress to the point where wars are fought technologically, without the chance that humans could be hurt, what would be the point of war?

i think you are missing the point of technological progress... technological progress is intended to give one side an advantage. an advantage at what? an advantage at killing people. we might lose sight of this as technology progresses, but that is the underlying objective.

even if we get to the points where robots are fighting, what do you think will happen when one side's robots are all defeated? either that side surrenders or the humans on that side fight the winning robots. that might turn ugly.

Just like in Terminator

 

[CrazyHelloDeli]

One Word:

Nerf

 

[FrustratedUser]

No

 

[MaxDSP]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
OK, so I dildn't make myself clear. Whip me!

What I meant is that throughout history wars have been fought by people. People get hacked up, blown up and die.

If we progress to the point where wars are fought technologically, without the chance that humans could be hurt, what would be the point of war?

To make it clear which nation has the biggest d!ck


listen to george carlin's rant about it

 

[Vic]

No.
Once the losing side ran out of machines to fight with, they'd start throwing in bodies.
Plus, if you've ever studied some of the larger meanings of war and why humans fight them (namely population control and gene re-distribution), you'd see that fighting entirely with machines defeats those main reasons for war.

edit: wow... don't post when you're really sleepy right before bed... typos galore

 

[DaFinn]

Wars could be fought over the Internet...

Personally I think US should challenge Iraq in CS and be done with it. Winner takes it all!

But, if Iraq would cheat... THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE NUKED!!!



-DaFinn

 

[Zim Hosein]

Originally posted by: HelloDeli
One Word:

Nerf

 

[ManSnake]

Have you watched that one episode of the Simpsons?
According to that episode, war of the future will be fought by robots in space or possibly on a very high mountain.

 

[Zim Hosein]

W/o going virtual, I think the answer is no.

 

[Anubis]

no not really. unless we somehow get robots to fight for us

 

[DivideBYZero]

Give both sides a copy of Command & Conquer: Red Alert, under the strict instruction NOT do do the tank-rush thing...

 

[psianime]

We need more Peons!

-psianime