I know this is a joke, however various societies at certain points have developed pseudo-war events to settle things.
One could argue that the era of European Warfare where people lined up far away and shot single bullet muskets at each other until one side dispersed was kind of like this.
China and India have mutually agreed to beat each …
I know this is a joke, however various societies at certain points have developed pseudo-war events to settle things.
One could argue that the era of European Warfare where people lined up far away and shot single bullet muskets at each other until one side dispersed was kind of like this.
China and India have mutually agreed to beat each other with sticks instead of shooting each other on the India/China border.
African tribes in Southern Africa in pre-colonial times would line up and throw spears just out of throwing range, the side that clearly had less spears and men would retreat, agreeing to cede territory. That is until the Zulus just decided to take drugs and hack people to bits with close range weapons.
Your idea is not actually half bad if everyone agrees. "War" can be anything, it can be performative. The issue is that when someone gets tired of the status quo they break the established rules and take a no-holds-bar approach. Then you have one side negotiating silly string rules with an international body the aggressor doesn't abide by and eventually both sides have to abandon silly string all together as a weapon of war or face an actual existential threat.
I could see a future where remote control drones fought other remote controlled drones in some sort of futuristic war and the outcome was about separating resources rather than depleting lives. I could see the world settling into that. It's not much different than silly string(if silly string was extremely expensive.) however someone at some point who doesn't have the time or money for a drone army will just break the rules and shock the world with some barbaric alternative combat method that actually involves death.
I know this is a joke, however various societies at certain points have developed pseudo-war events to settle things.
One could argue that the era of European Warfare where people lined up far away and shot single bullet muskets at each other until one side dispersed was kind of like this.
China and India have mutually agreed to beat each other with sticks instead of shooting each other on the India/China border.
African tribes in Southern Africa in pre-colonial times would line up and throw spears just out of throwing range, the side that clearly had less spears and men would retreat, agreeing to cede territory. That is until the Zulus just decided to take drugs and hack people to bits with close range weapons.
Your idea is not actually half bad if everyone agrees. "War" can be anything, it can be performative. The issue is that when someone gets tired of the status quo they break the established rules and take a no-holds-bar approach. Then you have one side negotiating silly string rules with an international body the aggressor doesn't abide by and eventually both sides have to abandon silly string all together as a weapon of war or face an actual existential threat.
I could see a future where remote control drones fought other remote controlled drones in some sort of futuristic war and the outcome was about separating resources rather than depleting lives. I could see the world settling into that. It's not much different than silly string(if silly string was extremely expensive.) however someone at some point who doesn't have the time or money for a drone army will just break the rules and shock the world with some barbaric alternative combat method that actually involves death.