h a l f b a k e r yNeural Knotwork
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
This is a call for an international pact, hell maybe even a new Geneva Convention, which draws a clear distinction between territorial disputes that are populated and those, like the Scarborough Shoal, which are clearly not.
China has resorted to blasting Filipino supply ships headed to the disputed
shoal with water cannons, which I personally think is a brilliant way of fighting this particular kind of war. But I say let's go all out, and outfit both sides with Geneva-compliant, non-blinding laser tag weapons. It's an unpopulated bit of territory they're battling over, so winning or losing doesn't threaten a group of people with loss of rights or being forced from their homes, so in a strong sense that makes victory much less urgent to either side. That should be reflected in the manner in which they fight it out. Let's agree that we're gonna have this fight, but that nobody should die over it.
Battles will be overseen and scoring judged by a neutral agency like the IAEA or Doctors Without Borders.
Baudrillard
https://en.wikipedi..._Did_Not_Take_Place
"The Gulf War Did Not Take Place" [pertinax, Nov 19 2023]
These people tried a very small war ...
https://en.wikipedi...f_the_300_Champions
... but they didn't like the outcome, so they fought a real war to contest it. [pertinax, Nov 19 2023, last modified Nov 20 2023]
[link]
|
| |
That episode actually went through my mind when I was thinking of this, that's why I stressed the clear delineation between populated areas and unpopulated areas. Fighting over people is very different than fighting over empty land, and so should the lengths one is willing to go to to fight for it. |
|
| |
There are effects and there are effects, though. There are levels of escalation that are appropriate for different objectives, as evidenced by China's use of giant super soakers instead of lethal ordnance, for instance. |
|
| |
That all or nothing thinking is what got us mired in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Are we "affected" by what happens to the oil fields in Iraq? I mean, sure, we have to pay more at the pump to fuel our cars if control doesn't go our way. But is that worth killing and dying over? Of course not. So we settle THAT kind of dispute with laser tag fighting. |
|
| |
Mote often than not, politicians have sent young recruits to die for reasons that have very little to do with actually defending their country. |
|
| |
It's just meant to be an alternative for when politicians need to save face by "fighting" for something that isn't actually all that important. |
|
| |
It would be something probably proposed BY a third party observer in the first place. They would approach both parties, acknowledge both have a grievance, but ask each of them "is it worth getting your soldiers killed over?" If both sides say no, it's not THAT extreme an issue for them, then ok, let's settle it like gentlemen. Marquis of Queensberry rules. You're both gonna put up a good fight for it, but without killing. |
|
| |
The idea is not to discredit the validity of lethal warfare in all scenarios, but to make a clearer distinction between those issues that are and are not worth dying and killing over. |
|
| |
Pertinax, that doesn't seem to be a fair assessment of that situation. Sparta and Argos had their thing, then later wound up on opposing sides of the Peloponnesian war because Athens forced Argos into it. Argos, during a lull in the war, challenged Sparta to a rematch of the earlier showdown, and Sparta declined. |
|
| |
See the last paragraph of Herodotus' version, as summarized in the wikipedia article. |
|
| |
This is what international Football (Soccer) is. |
|
| |