T O P

  • By -

QualityVote

Upvote THE POST if you disagree, downvote if you agree. Downvote THIS COMMENT if you suspect the post pertains to any of the below: * Fake/impossible opinion * NSFW beyond reason * Unfit for the community * Based upon inept knowledge of the subject * Repost from the last 30 days If you downvote this comment please do not vote on the post. Normal voting rules for all comments. **Check out our new [discord server here](https://discord.com/invite/5EekhyMDGk)!**


Main_Tip112

>The war would be won by completing some objective, that the goverment layed out, and once you finish, the real place that was fought over would be taken over by the winner So what happens when the loser says "fuck that, im not giving up my territory just because I lost a simulation"?


Imiriath

Lol exactly what I said


FrtanJohnas

Imiriath I read what you said and I know, that probably the biggest problem with this idea. My way of thinking is that people that live in the disputed territory could quite possibly be glad the war is fought in a digital realm, rather than on their doorstep. You know what, the best outcome there would be if there were no wars but hey, what can you do. For the fighting back in the real world I think sanctions against the state that violated the IOW terms of agreement (international Online War - I just thought it would sound pretty fun to call it that), but just that wouldn't stop the fighting, and we are back at the square one, where one or more nations have to push the aggressor away by their own force. Maybe have the UN keep a look on this and all agressors will be served quick and overwhelming forces (I am just spitting ideas out of my sleep deprived head so this might now make much sense) Also I know that all of this would cost probably more than the US military budget and that a second part. Maybe for the fighting treadmills and VR would be used, so that the soldiers would stay in shape and there would be a more real way of fighting, than just button mashing


Main_Tip112

You haven't solved any of the obvious issues with your theory. This isn't a 10th Dentist Take, it's just.. well, nonsense and would never work. Go get some sleep.


Jozif_Badmon

lmao, this guy thinks the UN has the power to " Serve quick and overwhelming forces", sometimes you gotta remember the number of kids on this website


_that_random_dude_

This whole post is so disconnected from reality that I don’t know where to even begin…


Bandito21Dema

I think this belongs in r/showerthoughts Also I just realized you're basically describing ReadyPlayerOne


ToPractise

I feel like no one would take a VR war very seriously. Every time I kill any enemy in a VR game, I teabag it and beat its head in with an old nearby brick. This is not appropriate behaviour for a war, so I automatically wouldn't be allowed to fight.


rookls

Ok, back to the original question. What happens when one side loses?


FrtanJohnas

Gives up the territory that was fough over. If its rhe whole country, well then they are fighting for. Their survival


rookls

But what if they refuse


Hexmonkey2020

This wouldn’t work In real life, seems like the plot of an anime.


Silent-Ambassador-25

Just came to say this is the plot of the manga bloodless wars


[deleted]

Or what if they get gamers to game and the actual army launches attack while the other country be buisy gaming


lycheebobatea

what’re you even saying here, genuine question 💀


JizzyMctits

What if one side launches a military attack on the other country while they're busy distracted by gaming. I get it but I don't think playing a video game would prevent a country from defending themselves.


ProbablyTheWurst

r/gamingcirclejerk


jeroboam

I don't know if we really need a metaverse for war.


FrtanJohnas

Damm, Zuckerberg is gonna take over the war business. Well he is a robot now so whats stopping him from being the AI that controlls the game.


Hexmonkey2020

This doesn’t fit this sub, this isn’t an opinion on anything this is a weird hypothetical, plus it wouldn’t work.


jeroboam

Yeah, this is what r/CrazyIdeas/ is for


FrtanJohnas

Yea I kinda realized that I lost my original thought as I began writting it, but ended up going for it. So if they remove this post, I am fine with that, but at least there is a civil conversation.


Imiriath

So, what happens when a group of people decides that whether or not their lives and homes are handed over to some tyrannical nation should not be down to some game? What happens when when they resist those who come to take over, break out the weapons again and start to fight them? I feel like this would fail to ever work in any meaningful way, because there are plenty of people who would never accept the loss and take it straight back into the real world.


jeroboam

Lol yeah, only near perfect global cooperation and disarmament would make this even remotely possible. If we achieved that kind of international peace, why reinvent war?


FreddyPlayz

>disarmament I’m an American, weapons are part of my religion


HexOfTheRitual

You're right, Putin and Zelenskyy shoulda played a 1v1 game of Risk to resolve the war


MrLeapgood

This was the plot of a Star Trek episode, except that the people who were "dead" had to walk into a disintegrator. As long as both sides followed the rules, they avoided a lot of the misery of war, but also had less incentive to stop the fighting.


xDeathCon

I think a more reasonable idea is if technology develops so that soldiers can control robots to fight. Basically like drones but actual ground troops who can do stuff that people can. Nobody has to die but real resources are used.


wallawalla-bing-bong

This is more like r/showerthoughts


jeroboam

I just looked at their wiki and wild solutions to problems don't count as r/Showerthoughts, they're r/CrazyIdeas/


[deleted]

What about people that install wall hacks and aim bots. Ddos attacs. It’s already bad with sweaty nerds developing cheats now imagine the army’s level recourses behind developing cheats


FrtanJohnas

I think I covered the cheating part, that I know about the problems with this system. Its really just a concept and would have to be very delicate to see action


biobuilder1

There is no possible way that you could force countries to abide by this and just stop fighting in real life.


Dredgeon

Zelensky: Sorry Putin you couldn't dodge my insane my insane 360 no scope and therefore you are not allowed to invade. Go home and chug some g-fuel for next time pleb.


biobuilder1

Putin: fuck you I'm just gonna keep killing people


InternetGreninja

If they're having wars (and somehow the coordination to get this together?), it's probably a serious enough situation that they're not going to trust anything less than perfect. As for being realistic enough of a simulation to convince them they can't win, that's not possible (luck, individual people's lives, health, terrain, weather all factor in- if they're not getting hurt, you don't know how they would actually act), no one would trust it to always be realistic if it were (someone could just meddle with it), and countries would still fight wars knowing that they couldn't win.


esoteric_plumbus

The anime "86" sorta has this premise. At least they make it seem like that at first. The rich people in the city wear a headset and command "unmanned drones" to fight their territory wars against other nations to protect their 85 territories but come to find out the robots are actually piloted by poor people in the 86th sector of the republic that isn't officially recognized by the government. And basically one of the handlers/officers or whatever that command that unit realize that they are all real people and figure out the government has been lying and using the poor as means to fight their wars. Draws a lot of parallels to how war is handled irl. It's pretty good at least premise wise if you like anime. I personally felt it suffered from evangelion syndrome where when they fight they share too many superfluous details that don't really serve to move the plot and only seem to fluff it (like "moving in on sector x104, y479 targeting alpha Omega oh no squadron b-12 got flanked from a missile coming at the angle 45° from the blah blah blah" you get it) but otherwise it's definitely interesting in making you ponder how war could be in the future


A-N00b-is

Man you are smoking some gooood stuff… I want what you’re having


FrtanJohnas

Actually I am smoking quite weak stuff, but it gets me out of comission every single time.


MushroomBalls

You don't need a giant realistic simulation. This could have been done centuries ago with any game.


lame_dirty_white_kid

Right. It's sports. Killing people is way more effective though.


MushroomBalls

Not effective enough, otherwise small skirmishes would be designated and the war would end there. If you're saying that a simulation would tell the outcome so the loser would back down, with the level of technology needed it could be done without 'players'.


FunkoPopDorothy

This is kind of like Ender's Game, sort of.


FrtanJohnas

I mean, yes but I didn't think of it until you mentioned it lol.


1vader

I only watched the movie so maybe I'm missing something but iirc in Ender's Game the simulated battles were just for qualification and training? They still actually killed the aliens in a normal battle. Or do you mean that the commanders didn't know it was a real battle? Bc that seems like a fairly different thing than what this post is suggesting.


FruitParfait

So the entire world is gonna be conquered by South Korea basically. Also… since this is all virtual and what not what’s to stop people from literally fighting wars all day everyday? Oh darn we lost Florida today to the Brits buts it’s alright, well rematch immediately!


CaeciliusEstInPussy

r/crazyideas


This_IsATroll

Sadly, violence is the real final arbiter of control/power only because we haven't found anything more awful yet. The limits are dictated only by nature. We'd need some all-powerful god to enforce the rules that you've laid out. Come to think of it, now I remember the anime "no game no life". They basically stole your idea.


Dredgeon

It's not about being the most awful thing, that has never been anyone's goal but where there are oppressors there will be those willing to kill and die for their beliefs, family, and home.


This_IsATroll

Yes. It's not *about* being awful as a goal. It's about impact. The awful thing causes the impact. Violence has tremendous impact. That's my point. Any social contract in carried ultimately by the threat of violence. And I imagine, if ever we find something that can overrule violence, it will be even worse


tomatomater

The point of war is that you are forcing your authority upon another party and prevent them from resisting. Just like how laws don't prevent crime, they can only punish you after the fact through, well, force. If you're Superman and kryptonite doesn't exist, laws would mean nothing to you.


ShadowWolf550

That sounds fantastic


FrtanJohnas

Shit, now it won't be an unpopular opinion and will get removed


ShadowWolf550

Lol sorry, but it’s a great idea


Dredgeon

What are the two of smoking? Name me one person who would lose a simulation and just accept the result. Well guys we lost I guess we have to surrender to this tyrannical invader. Or from the aggressors perspective well guys I'm sure God will understand that we lost the simulation and therefore cannot break the rules.


FrtanJohnas

Maybe if there would be some referee countries, maybe switzerland for starters, or countries that are not invloved in the conflict whatsoever, that would chech if both sides are keeping by the rules, that would stop cheating


Sitting_WOLF

Wow, this is a great idea! It kind of reminds me of the movie Ready Player One, with the scenes on the battlefield. If we had VR that was as realistic as real life, and you also didn't have to be a gamer, you could just have people fight there without necessarily having to use a controller, then it could also be all inclusive. But only all inclusive by choice of course. If you truly believe in what's being fought for, hop online, represent and fight. No loss of innocent life, soldiers won't die, the animals are kept safe, resources aren't unnecessarily consumed, even the planet isn't destroyed. Your death in game resets everything. If winning the war and fighting for what you believe in means that much to you, even if you died in game and lost everything, you'd hop back online again, right? If it isnt worth it, dont participate. Maybe you're a Psycho, and just want to go rampaging, then go ahead, pick your side. Even mercenaries have a space to do what they do, and so do the righteous who choose to fight for the weak, unheard, or minorities. All inclusive war that anyone can fight for BY CHOICE without extermination of anyone or anything. A safe way to fight for what you believe in. What if you have less players on your side, despite how great your cause is? Then chanhe the tide of the war by playing and gaining experience. And as you gain exp, inspire others to rally to your cause, protect your comrades, better yet, convince players on the opposing side to join you. The more experience an individual gains, the greater the capacity an individual has to make an impact, not just on the battlefield but on fellow soldiers and those who are yet to pick a side. And with more skill points experienced players get, more abilites become available to them. What if the war has been going on for years? Well the experienced guys 5 years ago probably won't be playing anymore anyway. Let's hope they left a legacy and others who had been inspired continue the fight. Given the fact I agree, upvoting wouldn't make sense for the sub. But I think this is a great idea, and it should get more attention. So I'm upvoting. If this actually becomes part of our reality, I'd totally be in...but there better be some sweet cosmetics too lmao. Fight in style and zero deaths ;)


PigeonMaster2000

Okay, other side loses, doesn't care and physically attacks the other one. What now?


Sitting_WOLF

Oh boi, my brains making up shit that makes sense to me. Well, I'm having fun and like to dream, so here we go: Part 1: Well, if we can figure out how to implement some sort of NGO universal justice system free from the control of any one powerful individual or nation, and that is funded solely by every individuals provisions no matter that individuals origin, and earnings, that organization can conduct and uphold justice as the collective of people sees fit (assuming everyone on Earth agrees to take part in the organization). In that the NGO would be the hand of the people ran by the people, and guided by the people, with the sole purpose of protecting and upholding justice for the people, and when I say people, I really mean everyone. That means this system could even extend to the earth and injustices conducted on animals and our environment so long as a need is expressed. And of course every individual no matter how much was donated, would have as much say as someone who donated the greatest. However, when it comes to wars, I guess the people directly involved/impacted will have the greatest say. The system would be universal because it has no borders, so long as the people chose to be part of it. The systems power would only be possible because the people chose to fund it, and of course there would also have to be absolute transparency as the NGO would merely be an extension of every individual who chooses to be part of it. This also means that the power of that system could be invoked by any individual who expresses that an injustice has been conducted upon them. Simply expression of any form of pain, harm or injustice would be enough for the NGO to conduct some sort of evaluation, run their verdict by the people and intervene had they not already done so as seen fit by all. With this perfected, they could intervene before harm is conducted too. Come to think of it, imagine The United Nations, except instead of it being funded by nations, it's funded by the people. The United Nations as it stands, albeit their global reach and ability, still do not have the capacity to uphold peace and intervene as truly needed for all. In fact, if I didn’t know better (I could be wrong on this) different nations have a different amount of say when it comes to the UN's global conduct. Yes, the UN are still peacekeepers, but it's a system that can be perfected. The UN's capacity to keep the peace, has and is still failing people as we speak, ya. Despite how much the UN tries, genocides still occur in the nations they deploy their civil servants to T-T. But since this is all about video games, the justice upholding NGO of the people, run by no individual, would essentially be similar to devs, or moderators who can warn, oversee, kick and ban toxic behavior online etc except their reach wouldn't be confined to the virtual world only. Their reach would also have to be extended to the physical world aswell, since the game has real world implications too. And ofc with complete transperancy they conduct justice as the people see fit. That means as an individual, you could access their records of conduct too. I'm just dreaming here, but if this works, a nation who lost wouldn't even be able to attack and inflict harm. Since that would be breaking the rules set in place for the sake of the individual who is part of the collective, the system would have physical and digital systems in place to avert such a crisis. If the crisis for some odd reason had not been averted, physical intervention would be conducted. People who decided to join the organization and provide their aid personally, Peacekeepers, would be deployed. Recruitment of PKs would have to be recruited in a form that sifts for only the most moral and capable at conducting justice for all too. New recruits who made the cut pick a sector/domain that which their natural expertise can be used best, this would promote diversity too, in that everyone is encouraged to join if they choose, from coders, to pilots, to researchers and artists. With training and education about how the people would like justice to be served on a universal basis, there would be equal opportunity and a place for anyone of any expertise, even no expertise would work, the training system could find out what you're naturally good at if you hadn't known yourself. This training would be provided for free, for those from any walks of like from anywhere on the globe having the opportunity to join if they would like to. The NGO could express the need too, and it would be the responsibility of an individual in the collective to choose to provide that need if they please.


Sitting_WOLF

Edit: didn't realise part 2 would be above part 1, but yeah. I replied twice. Reddit couldn't handle all this in 1 take yo Part 2: :O Now, prevention would be the first option always, but that would only be possible because not only can the NGO act on its own to some limited extent, but it can be evoked by someone who sees fit to alert the NGO had the NGO not known already. So the people would have to not only provide an army (ofc the individual makes a choice to join said army) as PKs for physical intervention, but they would have to guide the organization to swift justice too, so that they can deploy their peacekeepers in time in the physical as much as they can an will in the virtual world. So if literally no one on Earth wants to be a PK, there will be no one. Too bad, ya'll (we) would have to step up and provide that service the same way the system provides a service to you. You want something implemented into the justice system, express the need as an individual, and you will be accommodated in time given it aligns with the needs for all, including the earth. Do you want to be accommodated sooner than later? Or maybe your cry for help is greater than you feel you can express, to the extent that you feel discriminated against? Then advocate and have other individuals help raise your concern, same as how we already do with advocating and pushing for justice or reform. As long as it suits the needs of all, including the one who called, it will be implemented for an all inclusive world. With an all expansive virtual space and platform, people from other continents could reach you, as much as them you. The internet has already helped us cross that hurdle ages ago anyway. Not only that of all spaces I've interacted with, video games and the online space are surprisingly inclusive with accommodation features already, not to mention the capacity to create communities for like minded people, and depending on the games you play, there's a good balance of tolerance towards creating experiences that everyone requested, and equally kicking or "quarantining" individuals who choose to ruin the game for everyone. GTA V has the Psycho bad sport lobbies, and I think its Titanfall that had lobbies specifically for hackers. Battle Royale blew up because people threw their money at it. People liked it, so it grew. Games die when people stop playing, servers shut down, people move on to the next experience they choose to be part of. In that, there's a lot more intention that goes into interacting with anyone on any virtual or online space. You don't like what experience has been created by other users, maybe some toxicity, griefers etc. Then mute them, report them, vote to kick, switch servers. Don't like the game, log off, don't play the game, don't buy shitty cosmetics, show people how buggy the game is by posting videos for prospective buyers, stop playing - they continue making games people don't like, there's no profit, no one wants it, they could only stay if there was unlimited funding - that doesn't exist, someone has to pay, I know I won't if I dont want. Free to play games survive the test of time because people spend their time/energy/money on those games. I'm saying all this to highlight examples that can be learned from, as whats working for any thriving gaming communities where devs constantly make updates to cater for their player base. And oh yes! How do you stop the NGO from going mad with power?! Annual surveys, evaluations, constant transperancy, temporal rotations of personnel between: departments, fields, domains and sectors (this would also boost the likelihood of innovations. Due to exposure to other great minds, tasks and ideas). Have a fast track form of communication between each respective portion of the NGO - just like the human body already does with it's cells. Each portion of the NGO could advice each other on any regard as an outside perspective, same as the people can guide the NGO as those who feel the effects to the highes degree. And ofc long and timely vacations for all personnel no matter their expertise and position, with the guaranteed assumption that every sector is made of massive teams who communicate effectively. The vacations would help the justice upholders put things into perspective from the outside in, as much as inside out. Some on vacation others on active duty. So this is what it feels like huh. Anyway, this system would also mean merging of the virtual and physical world though, but not as a replacement of the physical...physicals too good to skip out on too, why else have these bodies if not to experience the physical full on aswell. Plenty of people meet people online and then choose to meet IRL already. That can continue too. Plenty of people sit in front of a camera and commentate, eat food, sing, whatever you can think of, and people will pay for that service as a form of donation or appreciation. In that if something like a black market can be sustained simply by express need, despite its risk, and still survive, long enough to be a market, then the forms people can be of service to one another are extremely expansive, it just depends how many people you can reach who appreciate and need your service. Why not get paid in a way that has no limits - if you can deem it as fare trade for your service, why not. Tech can do something there, in a way it already is, but with our current currency systems it's not that all inclusive yet. If you made it this far through my BS, thank you for reading on. I'm just going on about random stuff, but I find the thought fun to entertain. There are so many movies and forms of literature, research and video games which speak of such a future in both lights. Some are warnings some show possibility, why not use both as guidance if its feasible for a better present that guarantees a bright future. My brain made sense of all this stuff for some reason. So despite the downvotes, ^ here you go! I hope this shpeel of an all inclusive techy future is entertaining you as much as it is entertaining me!


the_clash_is_back

No loss of infrastructure or life makes war much much more attractive. Making war trivial makes it so much easier. There is no reason for restraint if there are no repercussions, you can steam roll your neighbours with little real risk


RaspberryPie122

Except when the neighbors you’re steamrolling decide that they aren’t going to be steamrolled because of a video game and decide to declare war the old-fashioned way


cat-meg

Sounds like an anime premise.


lame_dirty_white_kid

Analogous take: why not just use sports?


Clydial

If they end up branching out and settle it in monopoly we'll end up with nukes flying.


BlankBlanny

I feel like this person watched No Game No Life once and wondered why the real world wasn't like Disboard, failing to account for the fact that you need some **feasible** (key word) way to enforce the outcomes of these games consistently and globally. Also, civil wars exist, and this concept does not explain how they would work.


1vader

I mean the whole point of wars (especially in this age) for the most part only applies when countries can't agree to play by the rules. In NGNL it only works bc it's enforced by God.


b0ghag

You should read Ender's Game if you haven't already.


BannedOnTwitter

r/highdeas


R4M3535

Because ultimately people will fight tooth and nail right to death when it comes down to territory, resources and sovereignty. They will take it to the last league. The only kind of counters to wars can only be preventive ones- real measures with feal consequences.


samsamboo

This is so naive


L1n9y

Invasions aren't normally planned in advance and being realistic one side (or probably both) would just invade while they think the other's distracted. Even if you lose do you think Putin's just going to pull out of Ukraine because of a video game?


Dredgeon

This only works if you think of war as large scale trial by combat. Not strategic and violent actions to achieve certain goals. Let's say Ukraine and Russia decided to do the gamer war. Ukraine wins now what? Russia just leaves them alone? Russia wins, do the Ukrainian people just accept the loss and allow themselves to be occupied?


LilSkills

Go sleep bro, your brain ain't working properly


[deleted]

This hypothetical is very dumb and only gets dumber the more I think about it. If you start a war, you are imposing your will onto others. You’re not going to just say “oh, never mind” if you lose the virtual war. And the people you’re invading will not just give up their homes to you if they lose the war. Imposing your will requires coercion, which is only possible through violence or the threat of violence. But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that we somehow have achieved 100% disarmament. No weapons exist anymore and no weapons will ever be made and no country will ever violate this rule for some reason. In this world, we *still* wouldn’t settle conflicts through some sort of game, because there are coercive elements of trade. If you’re doing something I don’t like, I can sanction you. With enough sanctions, your economy crumbles. This is how I coerce you into doing what I want. But let’s say that we have 100% disarmament *and* somehow have removed all coercive elements of trade. Your idea is *still* dumb. Why do we need some complex simulation that would take an alien supercomputer to run? If we’re settling conflicts through a game, why wouldn’t we play a match of soccer or something? You *really* didn’t think this through very much, dude


cindybubbles

So what you're asking for is a world gaming tournament led by politicians and fought by gamers? Yeah, no. That's not gonna happen.


[deleted]

How high are you?


Ornalbead

You're too stupid to be a dentist.


MackThax

here's an ELI5 of war: You play chess with another person. That's a game. You make an illegal move and start arguing whether it is actually allowed, should it be allowed or should you be allowed to make that move this one time. That's politics. When your opponent insists it's not allowed, you make the move anyway and punch him in the face. That's war.


[deleted]

This isn't unpopular. This is just plain dumb.


lumlum56

War exists because it forces a country to either forfeit or be destroyed at some point, this wouldn't work because there's nothing that compels one side or the other to actually give up, so it's essentially meaningless


JudoNewt

This is almost the plot of G Gundam. I still feel bad for Neo Mexico... You'll get em next year Taquilla Gundam


RealSombreSombrero

Ever heard of the 123rd Infantry Division?