HoloYolo Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 Imagine an Earth without war. Imagine a more peaceful Earth. This is due to one thing, virtual reality. Due to this, wars are never fought in reality. People don't die. Problems can be solved in games. How will wars work in this? Countries who fight in this game will have all their current technology. As the war progresses the tech they invent will be added into the game and supplied to their armies. Every time a soldier "dies", he or her gets pulled out of the game and can not fight again until the next war, so that wars don't last forever. All current cities, countries, and continents exist to have a realistic geography. NPC civilians exist to make it more realistic. Every weapon can be used in the wars. Now the tech they use to fight this war is millions of millions of computers protected by the most secure anti-malware, anti-virus, anti-Trojan, anti anything bad really. The computers each country gets is dependent on their total army soldiers. The internet countries use will be the fastest fiber optic. The game they fight in will be as non buggy and glitchy as possible. All the laws of war are in effect. Do you think this is the solution for wars and peacekeeping? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sal_vager Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 Russia should challenge the US to a game of Quake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vger Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 (edited) If such a thing were practical, long ago we would've had kings deciding the fate of nations over a game of chess. Or victors being decided by "representatives" in a gladiatorial pit (*cough* Hunger Games *cough*). The possibilities for are endless, but such a proxy war has never occurred. However, one could probably make a good argument that we already have a similar system in place. It's called the global economy. Edited August 17, 2015 by vger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majorjim! Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 This would be great except the things that people mostly go to war over are not virtual. It's usually resources or territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 If nations can agree to settle a dispute based on a video game, then it would not have led to an actual war in the first place, it's as simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peadar1987 Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 Way back when, people used to settle battles by single combat. Your champion challenged the enemy champion to a battle. If your champion won, the enemy would go home. In the Táin Bó Cuailnge, Cúchullain holds off an entire army by defeating its champion every time they try to cross a ford into Ulster. Although the story is only semi-historical at best, the culture of the people who wrote it would have respected the result of the single combat (or the story would have been how Cúchullain was overwhelmed when 10,000 men tried to cross the ford at once) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Phil Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 War is so costly that there is no winning. Just varying degrees of losing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Rocket Scientist Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 What would stop people from fighting all the time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanamonde Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 Mad Rocket Scientist beat me to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vger Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 I was going to mention it, but then, death WAS a part of that war. It was just all done through automated executions. So that'd be more like a VR war, where if you get shot, your immersion suit immediately injects you with a deadly neurotoxin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HafCoJoe Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 Russia should challenge the US to a game of Quake.My dad was actually one of the more famous map-makers in Quake II... Ever heard of the account "Hafhead"? We'd have them beat for sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtoro Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 Imagine it? I saw it. It's called "Tron" lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Rocket Scientist Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 Mad Rocket Scientist beat me to it. Sorry.Also, what completely unbiased 3rd part would provide the software? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vger Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 Sorry.Also, what completely unbiased 3rd part would provide the software?Blizzard, of course. But then an IRL war will escalate between the two rival nations as they bicker about which side gets to be the Horde. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Phil Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 Sorry.Also, what completely unbiased 3rd part would provide the software?Switzerland? Idk, an international organization.Money trumps war, since war wastes it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majorjim! Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 There would have to be some kind of global 'virtual network' that the majority of people accessed everyday. It would also require this 'virtual network' to have largely replaced 'real' life for the majority of people on earth. The virtual reality would have to be actual reality for those engaged in the war. What you have proposed actually already happens everyday on millions of PCs and consoles around the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camacha Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 My dad was actually one of the more famous map-makers in Quake II... Ever heard of the account "Hafhead"? We'd have them beat for sure Either you dad was already a bit older when he was making maps, you are very young, or I really need to start ancient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 The virtual reality would have to be actual reality for those engaged in the war. What you have proposed actually already happens everyday on millions of PCs and consoles around the world.Then whatever side takes that out would win pretty much automatically. If the stakes aren't high for that then, again, it wouldn't have been something that would lead to a real war in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HafCoJoe Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 Either you dad was already a bit older when he was making maps, you are very young, or I really need to start ancient.Hahaha I'm only 18 years old! It was a while ago when he was making maps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slam_Jones Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 Yeah, that would never work. The purpose of war is to show your dominance by physically threatening the other guy, whether with bombs or simply displays of force.In a video game, there is nothing at stake. If you lose a unit, you only lose a few pixels and lines of code, rather than a human soul. Without the suffering of war, there would be no war. Yeah, it sucks, but that's the point of war. To make it suck so bad for the other guy that they have to do what you say. If you're a leader, and your people are suffering, wouldn't you want to do whatever is possible to stop it?Is it the "right" way to do things? Of course not. In a perfect world, the cold war would have been settled over a game of Tetris, and WWII by a big Football(soccer) tournament. Instead of invading the Middle East, the US could send over some rally cars and "fight it out" in a friendly off-road race. America could have won it's independence with an exciting game of "rock-paper-scissors."Sadly, that world is not ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Rocket Scientist Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 Yeah, that would never work. The purpose of war is to show your dominance by physically threatening the other guy, whether with bombs or simply displays of force.In a video game, there is nothing at stake. If you lose a unit, you only lose a few pixels and lines of code, rather than a human soul. Without the suffering of war, there would be no war. Yeah, it sucks, but that's the point of war. To make it suck so bad for the other guy that they have to do what you say. If you're a leader, and your people are suffering, wouldn't you want to do whatever is possible to stop it?Is it the "right" way to do things? Of course not. In a perfect world, the cold war would have been settled over a game of Tetris, and WWII by a big Football(soccer) tournament. Instead of invading the Middle East, the US could send over some rally cars and "fight it out" in a friendly off-road race. America could have won it's independence with an exciting game of "rock-paper-scissors."Sadly, that world is not ours.*Country loses fake war* *Starts real war, cuz why not?* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainDreamer Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 As we are increasingly using remote warfare through drones , I think one day it won't be so different from this scenario, except what seemed like virtual will have real impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meecrob Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 *Country loses fake war* *Starts real war, cuz why not?*Along the same lines - what stops one side, or both, from attacking the oppositions powerplants to make it so they cannot participate in the virtual war? Someone is going to say uninterruptable power supplies, but c'mon, I don't see the next generation of military technology be battery farms in nuclear hardened bunkers. Real physical war and destruction is something you can't ignore, whereas losing by a few points in virtual war is untangible to the average person. "We pushed the enemy back 15 virtual kilometers today" is quite frankly not going to cut it. Sounds like a LAN party. Maybe we can get some cosplayers in BDU's to boost public awareness and morale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Phil Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 Hmm...This could be interesting as the subject of a novel, or a story, or whatever. The entire plot would revolve around how the system could be exploited...*gears start turning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nothalogh Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 Imagine an Earth without war. Imagine a more peaceful Earth."War is the continuation of politics, by other means" -VonClauswitzTo which I would add, it is actually a three part loop, as follows:War is a continuation of politics (threat of force->use of force)Politics is a continuation of economics (bargaining->threat of force)Economics is a continuation of war (use of force->bargaining)The moment that all the participants are no longer willing to use force to secure their existence, is the exact moment that one or more of the savviest participants will do exactly that- - - Updated - - -Hmm...This could be interesting as the subject of a novel, or a story, or whatever. The entire plot would revolve around how the system could be exploited...*gears start turningThe exploit is easy, removal of an adversary's ability to participate.Rather than fight your adversary's actions, fight his ability to take action, this is the crux of war.Remember, what would Ender Wiggin do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts