|
Post by buttonpresser4815 on Dec 26, 2006 16:31:09 GMT -5
I predict that the time in which fighting stops is the time in which nuclear wars eliminate most life on Earth and then a government rises to take complete control of the reamaining citizens.
|
|
|
Post by The Rogue on Dec 26, 2006 16:37:02 GMT -5
Either that, or a government takes over the Earth, and people rebel with a nuclear war.
|
|
|
Post by Raistlin Majere on Dec 26, 2006 20:18:25 GMT -5
It is difficult to imagine that any one government could become so powerful as to take control of the entire planet in the near future without being quickly ousted from their throne. Even if such a circumstance did come about, there would be masses of people who would stand behind that government for protection and the promise of "power", who would eventually become something of a private army of slave drivers for said government. Following this, or as a seperate outcome within itself, the people have no nuclear devices to attack their governments with, the devices are, without exception controlled by the government. The people could rebel, yes, but they would not be capable of starting, nor finishing a nuclear war against a worldwide government who was bent on keeping them in submission.
|
|
|
Post by The Rogue on Dec 26, 2006 20:32:40 GMT -5
But several people would die. The attacks would definitely be something like Kamikaze attacks or suicide bombings by Jihads. The war would be so massive, that it might be possible that people never resort to war again. Probably not, but it's possible.
|
|
|
Post by buttonpresser4815 on Dec 26, 2006 20:55:18 GMT -5
I think eventually, wars will be fought largely away from the battle. How? WHat little troops remain on the battle will be directed from long away, and they will lead robots against their foes. No loss of life, easy to mass produce. Just like Star Wars.....
|
|
|
Post by Raistlin Majere on Dec 26, 2006 21:02:23 GMT -5
I find that at least possible. I seriously doubt that humans will be deterred from war by a particularily disastrous war. Perhaps for a few decades or perhaps a century, people will remember the effects of war and make an effort to prevent it, but after enough time, someone WILL return to their old instincts, who will influence others, until war once again hangs over the head of the world. How those wars are eventually fought will likely change, though, towards more "humane" types of warfare that do not end so many lives, such as machines. Every country would then struggle to construct the most powerful machines, and great risks will be taken by the builders to that end, until, perhaps too large a risk is taken, and perhaps people will lose control of those machines.
|
|
|
Post by buttonpresser4815 on Dec 26, 2006 21:10:27 GMT -5
I see what you mean. THat is the most likely way that machines will be able to take control of the world. Humans will struggle to create the best and then will create the worst. That makes a lot of since Ras.
By the way, I am going to use that idea, and most of the others that appear in all of these threads for short stories. Dont worry, I will give credit where credit is due.
|
|
|
Post by The Rogue on Dec 26, 2006 21:42:13 GMT -5
I find that at least possible. I seriously doubt that humans will be deterred from war by a particularily disastrous war. Perhaps for a few decades or perhaps a century, people will remember the effects of war and make an effort to prevent it, but after enough time, someone WILL return to their old instincts, who will influence others, until war once again hangs over the head of the world. How those wars are eventually fought will likely change, though, towards more "humane" types of warfare that do not end so many lives, such as machines. Every country would then struggle to construct the most powerful machines, and great risks will be taken by the builders to that end, until, perhaps too large a risk is taken, and perhaps people will lose control of those machines. Well that has happened before in the past, and it is likely to happen again in the near future. Look at WW1. It was said to be the War to end all wars. It was so horrible that people never again wanted something like that to happen. Then, enter the rise of Adolf Hitler. He influenced all of Germany to join him in his quest to restore greatness to Germany. Hence, WW2.
|
|
|
Post by Raistlin Majere on Dec 26, 2006 22:38:11 GMT -5
Yes. That brings to the table the element of deception and coersion. Some time after the war, someone (The person I referred to in my previous post) will return to their old warlike instinct, most often driven by the idea of authority over people or the extermination of something, such as a race. The way in which he coerces others to this cause after a terrible war is usually the promise for absolute peace, or convincing skeptics that their course is "right". I suppose they could call it "purification". Whatever they call it, someone will eventually take advantage of the world's weakened state, and we return to the cycle. Maybe the cycle has a slightly different arc, but in the end, the same cycle in general it remains.
|
|
|
Post by The Rogue on Dec 27, 2006 17:11:30 GMT -5
Agreed. Maybe the different arc would be more advanced weapons (ie Atomic Bomb in WW2), but yes, the same destruction and the same cycle would remain.
|
|
|
Post by Raistlin Majere on Dec 27, 2006 22:54:12 GMT -5
I am going to use that idea, and most of the others that appear in all of these threads for short stories. Dont worry, I will give credit where credit is due. That would be most appreciated. It is good that I have provoked some thought, at least. It is interesting to see how people hate war as they do. Granted, the most likely reasoning would be the great loss of human life is unpleasant to bear, but in the end I think nearly everyone knows, at least subconciously that a period of peace only lasts so long, and that another war will probably come. It is generally accepted as fact that world peace has not, does not, and most likely will not be achieved and sustained for any million-year length of time. I suppose you could say that violence is an instinct, and that we must inevitably fight one another, and perhaps people try to justify this, but which is really their most important influence--their reason for violence or their instinct towards it? Are the means to violence justified by the ends, or vice-versa? War, despite the loss of life and the destruction wrought by it encourages advancement at a vastly superior rate than that of a sluggish, conflict-less world. I wonder if even the most peace-loving person could stand a world without conflict or competition, for how many precious conveniences might be lost? Perhaps this is merely babble, but there is always the possibility that it is decipherable.
|
|
|
Post by buttonpresser4815 on Dec 28, 2006 15:17:43 GMT -5
I know what you mean, I think. It is an inevitable factor of human anture to have conflicting ideas, and this is what leads to violence.
|
|
|
Post by The Rogue on Dec 28, 2006 20:16:53 GMT -5
To the fact that war usually brings about great technological advances, I would agree. WW2 and the Atomic Bomb and the Cold War and the Space Race are perfect examples of this. I said sometime before, maybe not on here, that if the world wants a great period of advancement in technology, then the US should have a Cold War with Japan.
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Dec 29, 2006 3:28:24 GMT -5
The US would be hard pressed to keep up with Japan if that happened. They are just as or possibly more capable then they are.
I agree with your assessment Raistlin. There is almost no way humans can live without violence, in fact, humans need it. Think of it from an animals perspective; an animal will kill and allow other creatures to die to ensure its survival. If say wolves were peaceful and non violent, then they would be prey and like some animals, the entire species could be wiped out. In the case of humans, if one nation became peaceful and completely non violent, then others would exploit that weakness. To declare total peace with no weapons or anything, would be foolish. Some who signed that agreement could easily betray the others and destroy them with their guard down. No one can be trusted in such an agreement. An animal will hunt to sharpen its skills and to survive. Humans are no different. We set up these wars to improve our skills and to ensure our survival, initially and in the future. Its because of our violent instincts that we survive today. In a sense, violence is a good thing and a bad thing. Nature was designed to be rough, and only those strong enough can survive. All living things do what they must to continue living within nature.
Forgive me if this is nothing but babble, but hopefully I've made a point somewhere in this post.
|
|
|
Post by buttonpresser4815 on Dec 29, 2006 10:54:33 GMT -5
I see what you are saying. We as humans have not changed from the behaviors of our animal counterparts of this world, we have simply complicated and advanced the practice accordingly with our technology and weaponry and interactions. Maybe if we study more how animals work and react to things, give them weapons and see what they do, we can discover our cuase for war.
|
|