8 v 8 death matches instead of war

This would let countries have war, without all the death and destruction.

Did I just solve world peace?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/KLbcXEPHExA
youtube.com/watch?v=WzFIBD0Fhy0
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I always thought that wars should be fought via Quake or something.

Is nuke allowed? Kek.

That's not plausible

8 georgians go up against 8 russians for control of russia
the 8 Georgians win
georgia becomes 1000x more powerful

so you wold just submit to something without fighting for what you belive .. ou dont understand how life works do you . get sometimes out of your room

just make the politicians fight to the death

that id tho

so what the losing side just walks away? how would this be implemented?

>Team Australia beats team USA in 8v8 death match
>c-c-come on USA, you lost fair and square, give us your territory
>no
>OK

Congrats. You just wrote a Judge Dredd Comic from 30 years ago.

Another child who doesn't understand that war is not a competition to resolve differences.

War is a tool, not a negotiation.

>designated tournaments instead of full fledged wars
You may be on to something

this is actually what ANCAP's believe

>some faggot genuinely suggesting we play cawadoody to solve geopolitical problems

I'm done I'm never coming back here that did it for me

No, this is what NEETs living in their moms basement believe after years of playing/watching CS:GO, and then applying it to real life.

>country loses
>instantly launches strikes against winner
How the fuck would you enforce this?

I remember telling my dad they should just evacuate Australia, since it's already mostly an empty desert and already full of things trying to kill you like a deathmatch arena, so all the world can have their wars there and even drop nukes if they want and no civilians will get hurt. He asked "what about the aboriginals" and I said "they're already almost extinct anyway".

Nah mate you guys have badass spec ops don't kick yourselves around

Besides the shitposting when we team up to destroy china will be sexually stimulating

what if they made a war video game and u get more people on your team based on your land/resources/population and allies

so russia v georgia would be like 128 players vs 4 or something and they would get fucked up easily like in a war but it would be in a video game and no one dies

this. so much.

literally everyone had OP's idea at some point, but that goes away once you stop being a fucking child (some never do)

Who the fuck would enforce this?

Our soldiers would be chucked to eternity

The coliseum only works if the gladiators are convicted criminals of the worst kind.

Just saying...

No, this is what statist Star Trek fans believe

If they do that then VAC bans their accounts.

that defeats the purpose of war. population control

only fools think its ever about fighting the "bad" guys

Sweden would just bash everyone, it wouldn't even be a fair fight.

Your sound waves are violating the NAP

all the countries would have to agree to accept the results and if someone doesnt and attacks all the other countries will fuck them up

>war is to control the population
Yes nations want to kill off the bravest and strongest, nowadays also the brightest

kek

You'd be a cheerleader for Norway faggot

youtu.be/KLbcXEPHExA

War isn't about who can win a fight, it's about taking something by force and slaughtering the enemy.

Russia or China would just make super roid mutants and take over the world.

They would be banned from the 'games' and all other countries would block trade/travel with them... lose there rights... etc...
capitalistic punishments.

>team Russia wins again
>this time taking the entire country of Peru

Can't wait

I highly recommend you watch the whole show.
youtube.com/watch?v=WzFIBD0Fhy0

how about the leaders fight to the death 1v1 fists only

but the usa cant even take afghanistan or iraq by force.

what if we just killed everyone who wasnt white and then lived in a utopia without all the war, death, and destruction?

What stops the losing team from just doing the act of war anyways after the lose the face off?

we could but our cucked politicians refuse to slaughter the enemy

Give this guy a Nobel Peace Prize. He earned it more than anyone who got one probably.

USA would win regardless, far more advanced tech, our military is at least 40 years ahead in tech. exo skeleton suits, 1337 hackers with aimbot, wall hacks, teleport hacks, all ur bases belong to USA bitch niggers, you'll always be slaves and second best if you're not part of the greatest country ever invented.

Niggers of all shades dont fight fair. Neither can we.

a union of states/nations to cock slap the loser.

countries would just hack the game and put autoaim in and shit

Nice ID

As someone born in a city that's now about 50% migrant and about 20% Muslim, let me tell you how negative interactions with Muslims go.

- If you outnumber them, they're polite and submissive.
- If it's 1 v 1, they're polite and submissive, but once they're out of your sight they'll try to rally other Muslim guys to get back at you.
- If they outnumber you enough (3 v 1 or more), they fuck you up without a second thought.

So the problem with your proposal is, only white people would stick to the rules. Muslims would turn it into an 'audience participation sport'.

Becuse deciding war with an 8v8 like Greeks did every so often doesn't solve shit, when it's over there are 8 dead guys and the offending country remains unchanged . Do you expect both participating countries to honor the bout?
Entertaining as it would be
Real world =/=mortal kombat

So basically the premise of G Gundam, minus the gundams?

>TFW no shining finger

How the hell would you make this binding? US beats Russia, and Russia is just like, "Oh well, we'll pull out of Syria now"???

Also, bloodsports are a sign of a decaying society. Bread and circuses, etc.

A new soviet Union?
No

why should it be fair if the countries aren't equal? maybe if say america had 30 men and north korea had 10 men in terms of population majority.

>fight wars as normal
>but elected leaders need to be on the frontlines until we get a leader willing to end it

you are 100% correct burger. And place all the cunts who call for conflicts in them, have as many matches to meet their barking and let them off each other.

Fuckers send people to die while they sit behind and eat and drink.

and how would you enforce the results of these matches?

Probably the stupidest thing I've ever seen on Sup Forums not even exaggerating. You're completely retarded and ignorant of what war is.

It should be 1v1. Problem is even if they lost they wouldn't accept the results and people would keep fighting.

This

>All nations agree to this
>All nations demilitarize as they now only have to train a few select teams of 8 men
>Country A defeats country B in a match
>Country B: "lol jk we were arming up in secret"
>Country B proceeds to dominate the entire world as they are the only one with a functioning military with more than 8 soldiers

>Implying war isn't just about selling arms and/or controlling energy markets

They sound very mean.

>All the other countries would agree

Even if the rest of this retarded idea was plausible, stop and think about how impossible the above idea is.

war is the most extreme form of force used to attain a political goal

since there is no level of force/violence greater than total war, a suitable replacement is impossible

in a way, war is the ability to say "fuck that" to rules of any form that create arbitrary systems like you just mentioned

ok lets solve this on de_dust. winner gets bragging rights in this thread.

This is the gayest picture I've seen today, and I've been on Sup Forums.

r-rare?

Rare proxy

How do you enforce winners conditions again?

Another 8 on 8 battle.

Continues until one country no longer has 8 fighting condition men.

>countries have wars usually because one country breaches contract/treaty with another country.
>solution: countries sign a treaty to have gun duels decide the winner.
>loser of duel who breached initial treaty will totally honor this new treaty...


Was contradicting yourself part of your plan??

So basically you're saying sovereign nations should be overthrown due to a war simulation?

-1 fag. Today OP was alright.

why not

>okay we won the battle now stop
>make us

You people are fucking retarded. Do you honestly think people would agree to this when they could just steam roll your country even if they lost the tournament? Life isn't a fucking anime, kids.

So infinite war?

Robot Jox

Send our prisoners there and leave rusting scraps of technology, allow them to make a mad max sort of existance. Only problem is we wouldn't be properly represented, all of the americans sent there would be niggers, all of the brits would be pakis, all of the germans, turks and so on.

>Death matches
>Without all the death
burger logic, hmmm

Id pay to see angela merkel a man in the ring

implying that war is 1 on 1, NATO had 19 countries vs Serbia in 1999.

how do you classify that? 19 x 8 vs 8 or 8 vs 8?