4 ms·

Why would anyone honor the results of a war in a controlled setting? The whole point of war is to compel a result the other country doesn’t want to honor.

ggm 3y ago
Its a bit of a reductive ad absurdiam. No, obviously not unless the mediator (referee) had some overarching control to make it forceful. And, you clearly need the organ and scoreboard and hotdogs too. Ben Bova wrote a juvenalia SF about it in 1969 called "the Duelling Machine" -its classic coming-of-age stuff. In times past, in history, yes you could settle things like kingly succession by a single pair of champions, but I find it passing strange. Its like the armies basically say: "stuff this, if you want this outcome so badly, you duke it out guys" -but this comes from a time when wars were won or lost by who could pay off the mercenaries the best. "Lets take this to the international court of arbitration" only works so far. China (spratleys) and Australia and East Timor (oil wells) can tell tales about how much people behave nicely in international arbitration. They behave about as well as a robot trained to fake out ankle kicks HE HIT ME REF REF ITS A FOUL ITS A FOUL I WANT A FREE KICK
- sbierwagen 3y ago
  Robot Jox (1989) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102800/?ref_=nm_knf_t_1 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102800/?ref_=nm_knf_t_1 >In the distant future, mankind has forsaken global wars for battles of single combat. The world has been divided into two opposing super powers, with each side represented by trained champions. Mechwarrior boxing, more or less. The 5/10 imdb rating is well deserved. Mostly notable for a writing credit by Joe Haldeman, who managed to get an accurate depiction of a megawatt-class laser weapon on screen.
krisoft 3y ago
> Why would anyone honor the results of a war in a controlled setting? Obviously it won't work every time. But we do have controlled settings to settle disputes. Previously if two different persons thought they ought to control a country they gathered troops and fought it out. Nowadays in many modern countries we try to channel these disputes into "voting" and "democracy". Similarly in days of yore if your boy disrespected mine we got a good blood feud on our hand. Nowadays we try to channel similar disputes into lawsuits. The range of conflicts and disputes we settle with force vs the ones we settle with simulated violence is not fixed. Why do people, very powerful ones tend to agree to use democracy or lawsuit instead of unrestrained violence? Because we arranged the circumstances such that to do otherwise would impart a greater risk and cost on them. And that is the same how we can make anyone honour the result of a "war in controlled setting".

ggm 3y ago

Its a bit of a reductive ad absurdiam. No, obviously not unless the mediator (referee) had some overarching control to make it forceful. And, you clearly need the organ and scoreboard and hotdogs too. Ben Bova wrote a juvenalia SF about it in 1969 called "the Duelling Machine" -its classic coming-of-age stuff. In times past, in history, yes you could settle things like kingly succession by a single pair of champions, but I find it passing strange. Its like the armies basically say: "stuff this, if you want this outcome so badly, you duke it out guys" -but this comes from a time when wars were won or lost by who could pay off the mercenaries the best. "Lets take this to the international court of arbitration" only works so far. China (spratleys) and Australia and East Timor (oil wells) can tell tales about how much people behave nicely in international arbitration. They behave about as well as a robot trained to fake out ankle kicks HE HIT ME REF REF ITS A FOUL ITS A FOUL I WANT A FREE KICK

sbierwagen 3y ago
Robot Jox (1989) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102800/?ref_=nm_knf_t_1 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102800/?ref_=nm_knf_t_1 >In the distant future, mankind has forsaken global wars for battles of single combat. The world has been divided into two opposing super powers, with each side represented by trained champions. Mechwarrior boxing, more or less. The 5/10 imdb rating is well deserved. Mostly notable for a writing credit by Joe Haldeman, who managed to get an accurate depiction of a megawatt-class laser weapon on screen.

krisoft 3y ago

> Why would anyone honor the results of a war in a controlled setting? Obviously it won't work every time. But we do have controlled settings to settle disputes. Previously if two different persons thought they ought to control a country they gathered troops and fought it out. Nowadays in many modern countries we try to channel these disputes into "voting" and "democracy". Similarly in days of yore if your boy disrespected mine we got a good blood feud on our hand. Nowadays we try to channel similar disputes into lawsuits. The range of conflicts and disputes we settle with force vs the ones we settle with simulated violence is not fixed. Why do people, very powerful ones tend to agree to use democracy or lawsuit instead of unrestrained violence? Because we arranged the circumstances such that to do otherwise would impart a greater risk and cost on them. And that is the same how we can make anyone honour the result of a "war in controlled setting".