h a l f b a k e r y
Superficial Intelligence
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
Login
Create account.
|
|
| Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
| |
It's nice to see that some ideas have power even after 4 thousand years |
|
| |
if this was instituted Bush would have been killed by someone by now |
|
| |
This isn't a new idea, [Alex]. |
|
| |
I think that when countries go to war it is
because reason has already broken down.
If the countries involved were capable of
sticking to an arrangement like this then
they would still be around the negotiating
table. [-] |
|
| |
In assuming this would work you are assuming honour and chivalry also still exist. You are living in the past sir. |
|
| |
Plus, it's already in effect. The only difference is that the duelling parties are the 'champions' of their leaders, and that the duels are not limited to one person at a time. |
|
| |
When this was done in ancient times, it worked because people believed that fate and the gods had already decided the winner - so the winning side would be the winning side, whether it was a single combat between champions or the whole bloody all-comers melee. So if your champion lost, you might as well go home. Nobody grumbled 'we was robbed'. Nowadays, you'd have a hard time getting people to believe that. Therefore, bone. It's not original, has already been tried, used to work, but sadly wouldn't work any more. |
|
| |
This would just encourage military leaders to rule countries, as they are most likely to win the duel. |
|
| |
It would certaintly attract a new bread of politician. And for that matter make going to war a far less likely proposition. |
|
| |
If I were in a country duel, I would choose Chile. It is long and pointy, good for jabbing and whacking things. |
|
| |