Could Smash Brothers Stop Nuclear Warfare?

[pants the terrible]

I submit to you, the humble reader, that humanity can survive, thrive and live in harmony without nuclear weaponry. shocking, right? we could dismantle and constructively use the nuclear bombs/missiles that we have stuffed away in hangers as a power source or even defense against meteorites. its not such a bad idea, huh?

i honestly think that we can use the magic that is super smash brothers to duke out our human conflicts. we don't need to have genocide with millions of soldiers marching to their inevitable deaths with high powered cruel weaponry. we could assign the best and most adept of us to have a match in super smash brothers. it would be exciting to watch, harmless, and it would result in a victor. why not?

the Romans created the Colosseum for just such a dilemma. their idea of "virtual" was slavery, and the gladiators are no different from our mains. it solved several arguments and conflicts in a small and civilized way that wasn't costly to human life. why cant we do that today?

drop your guns, and pick up a 3ds.

i have an egg to throw at you people who think i'm a moron.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Do I really want to entertain the idea of this topic being worthy of a debate? I'll humor you...

On paper, Super Smash Bros. could be a great way to get people together and "live harmoniously" as you so put it. But then you fail to realize quite a few variables.

A: There are very few of those who actually play the game for enjoyment, whether competitively or casually compared to the rest of the 7 billion people on the planet, so trying to get the whole of mankind on the Smash Bros. hype train is in and of itself an impossibly lofty goal.

B: The Smash community, while chill overall (for lack of a better term), does have its fair share of trolls, salty Johners, and overall mean-spirited people who could and would cause inner turmoil from within the community. There have been people permabanned from the forums alone for trolling reasons.

C: To expand upon points A and B, let us assume we can convert all of mankind to become Smashers, this will also encompass world leaders as well, and if I know one thing, it's that there are politicians who become more salty than a bag of bacalao over even the pettiest of things, and one can imagine, especially with the power these higher ups have, what these individuals will do if their sodium levels got to pretty bad numbers. We could witness conspiracies, including murders and other forms of foul play, or - at worst - even wars over something as trivial as one's ability to tech, and yes, if society has taught us with groups, such as religious and political groups, etc., it's that there will always be extremists, including those willing to launch a missile, or strap bombs onto oneself and blow up an embassy in the name of Master Hand and Sakurai.

The point is, nothing will ever be perfect. If it were up to someone, like me, I could just as easily say "get rid of religion altogether", but that wouldn't do anything as there exist non-religious people who are just as much a******s as even the most conservative, bigoted, religious extremist.

So no, Smash Bros. will not bring about a world of zen and peace in a "Garden of Eden"-like setting. It would only bring about its own set of problems involving power struggles over trivial matters all the same.

 

[pants the terrible]

dang, that was quite the counterpoint. i really enjoyed thinking on that concept. i do think it would be neat to see world leaders play a simple game of smash brothers and it would determine the fate of a political debate.

one can dream =)

 

[SuperNova!]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnET-bUHqI8

 

[Mechageo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnET-bUHqI8

It seems like Nintendo's marketing campaign is suggesting that humanity can settle anything through a game of Smash Bros. I doubt we'd actually do this in real life, though.

 

[Praxis]

Wasn't there an original series Star Trek episode about this? People started simulating warfare, but after several hundred years they just got used to constant virtual "warfare" and not having to deal with physical consequences to it, so there was constant conflict.

 

[pants the terrible]

i never watched star shrek so i don't know about that.

i do think it could get out of hand just like anything, but it would be an incredible experiment.

 

[TeamEvil]

Barack Obama Vs Kim Jong-UN Final destination Fox only. Loser leaves earth.

 

[Sucumbio]

Wasn't there an original series Star Trek episode about this? People started simulating warfare, but after several hundred years they just got used to constant virtual "warfare" and not having to deal with physical consequences to it, so there was constant conflict.

It's a concept spanning several media outlets actually. ROBOSport by Maxis god rest their souls was about world powers getting robots to fight in an arena to settle human conflicts. I still think to this day that it was one of the best early mac games ever made. 16 colors ftw.

Argument by proxy, that's really what this is about. Thing is war is about forcing a population to do your bidding. So unless smash were to adopt some hunger games type thing there's nothing to say that the winner's will must be followed. And if you're gonna do all that may as well just skip the video game part.

007 had to play Domination against his nemesis but he was hooked to it and got electrocuted whenever he lost a stock.

 

[pants the terrible]

i think we could try and implement it into political debates. it would solve things more skillfully than a coin flip and allow the people with strategy, poise, precision, and skill to be the leaders instead of the losers.

 

[Acryte]

No. But rumor has it that it has occurred in a game known as "Go". Also known as the oldest board game. It used to be a favorite of Japanese Generals and nobility in feudal Japan (and for being somewhere between 2000-4000 years old it's still alive and well). It's said that there was a dispute between 2 generals that was decided on the Go board instead of having their men fight and die.

 

[pants the terrible]

that is what i'm trying to say. human lives don't have to be lost over dumb things! why are they constantly being lost over dumb things!?

 

[Claire Diviner]

that is what i'm trying to say. human lives don't have to be lost over dumb things! why are they constantly being lost over dumb things!?

Because the majority of world leaders, especially of superpowers, are also dumb.

 

[MechWarriorNY]

What nuclear warfare?

 

[pants the terrible]

the nuclear warfare that could occur because of the existence of nuclear weapons.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Nuclear war stops nuclear war.

It's no longer a harmless game of chess for the ruling class, they're putting themselves at risk by initiating nuclear war. Also, the fallout completely devastates any land you're bombing so what the hell is the point if there's nothing productive to take over at the end of the day? Rulers are parasitical, they're incapable of generating wealth for themselves.

 

[Mic_128]

the Romans created the Colosseum for just such a dilemma. their idea of "virtual" was slavery, and the gladiators are no different from our mains. it solved several arguments and conflicts in a small and civilized way that wasn't costly to human life. why cant we do that today?

Wow. There's so much here that's just wrong.

1) That was not why the Colosseum was created, it was done for purely entertainment purposes: They needed to have somewhere where they held executions, places for people to be thrown to wild animals, and for people to fight to the death.

2) It was never used to solve arguments. It was purely for entertainment and to flaunt ones wealth and status.

3) It was not small, and very arguably civilised.

One day when there was a shortage of condemned criminals, the Emperor Caligula commanded that a whole section of the crowd be seized and thrown to the wild beasts instead.

4) It's also arguable about the cost of human lives. There were hundreds of thousands of people who were slaughtered at the games, from crimes ranging from murder to simple light theft. There were also slaves, prisoners of war and as mentioned above, whoever else the emperor wanted thrown in from the audience.

5) There was a element of politics involved. Some of the nobles entered some of the gladiator fights, since a large number gained nobility from their efforts in the army, but taht was simply for their own ego. Other nobles had the games used as a test of public favour, such as wether they were applauded when they came out, hissed at, or simply received silence.

Give this a read.

http://www.historytoday.com/keith-hopkins/murderous-games-gladiatorial-contests-ancient-rome

 

[Maven89]

Is this a joke forum or something

 

[ELRACj]

lose war due to smash and begin production of more nuclear arms.

 

[pants the terrible]

Wow. There's so much here that's just wrong.

1) That was not why the Colosseum was created, it was done for purely entertainment purposes: They needed to have somewhere where they held executions, places for people to be thrown to wild animals, and for people to fight to the death.

yes, and they OBVIOUSLY had bets on those people. bets that sometimes involved fairly large amounts of wealth or actions. sometimes political.

granted you are correct its not why it was created.

2) It was never used to solve arguments. It was purely for entertainment and to flaunt ones wealth and status.

again, it was. it was used in decisions between noblemen and owners of gladiators as well as political powers at the time. it wasn't specifically used for the flaunting or destruction of slaves who were fairly valuable themselves.

3) It was not small, and very arguably civilised.

it was arguably civilized. that was why i said "slavery was their idea of virtual". it was the rich abusing their ownership of human lives as an extension of their worth in both the monetary and decision making.

4) It's also arguable about the cost of human lives. There were hundreds of thousands of people who were slaughtered at the games, from crimes ranging from murder to simple light theft. There were also slaves, prisoners of war and as mentioned above, whoever else the emperor wanted thrown in from the audience.

yes, this is true, but more people have been slaughtered in wars and generally uncivil human behavior. i never said it would stop ALL conflict. just possibly help settle disputes that could cause seriously large human-feuled loss of life.

5) There was a element of politics involved. Some of the nobles entered some of the gladiator fights, since a large number gained nobility from their efforts in the army, but taht was simply for their own ego. Other nobles had the games used as a test of public favour, such as wether they were applauded when they came out, hissed at, or simply received silence.

the elements of the noblemen and higher ups defending their title and ability is the point here. its more worthwhile to me to have leaders prove their worth in some way and settle their disputes in a non-destructive, skill-determining way that shows that the most strategic, apt, and determined will get to have more of a say than the lesser. they could just as well abuse the power they receive as anyone, but i'd like to limit the power we give our leaders if you would understand the core point of this.

people disagree and murder each-other over things all the time. smash won't stop that. the point, again, was that it may involve less genocide than relying on scared stupid leaders having access to nuclear weaponry or any kind of large army to send into another dumb leader's country and start murdering countless people because of their inability to agree on a subject of interest. this is all a hypothetical thought-experiment, and it definitely is not a "petition" of any sort.

Give this a read.

http://www.historytoday.com/keith-hopkins/murderous-games-gladiatorial-contests-ancient-rome

i will later, and i'll get back to you

 

[Mic_128]

yes, and they OBVIOUSLY had bets on those people. bets that sometimes involved fairly large amounts of wealth or actions. sometimes political.

If it's so obvious, you should be able to provide some evidence to back that up.

destruction of slaves who were fairly valuable themselves.

For the rich nobles who hosted their own games, no, they weren't expensive at all. That's why they'd kill thousands of slaves a game, not to mention the wealth of exotic animals such as lions, elephants, bears, ostriches, girraffes, ect that were all brought in to either kill slaves or be killed.

it was arguably civilized. that was why i said "slavery was their idea of virtual". it was the rich abusing their ownership of human lives as an extension of their worth in both the monetary and decision making.

Again, wasn't used for decision making.

yes, this is true, but more people have been slaughtered in wars

All this was occurring during wars. A lot of the slaves used in the games were prisoners of war.

i'd like to limit the power we give our leaders

Good luck with that.

people disagree and murder each-other over things all the time. smash won't stop that. the point, again, was that it may involve less genocide than relying on scared stupid leaders having access to nuclear weaponry or any kind of large army to send into another dumb leader's country and start murdering countless people because of their inability to agree on a subject of interest.

And what, you think that a country that loses to a game of skill would just willingly hand over power to a simple game, whether it be smash, boxing, running, ect? While I do enjoy the idea of having a title fight between leaders instead of a war, it's not going to work. There will be cheating, there will be escalation, there will be leaders getting proxy's to fight for them. Then the number of proxies to fight will increase and we're back at armies.

 

[FirestormNeos]

I know you meant "ssb stopping nuclear warfare" in the diplomatic sense, but now I'm imagining an incident where a terrorist armed a nuke to go off unless the protagonist completed brawl's boss battles mode on intense in under 5 minutes with no continues.

 

[ScarletDragon]

#settleitinsmash

 

[pants the terrible]

you guys gotta believe in the power of skill and KNOWLEDGE! talentless skill-stricken people shouldn't be in positions of power.

 

[Sehnsucht]

Who'd have thought that the secret to averting nuclear catastrophe was as easy as ?

 

[Pippin (Peregrin Took)]

I have a feeling children's trading cards would be used before Smash Bros.

But if you wanna get into it more, one of the reasons traditional warfare "works" is that there is a cost. Human life is sacred. Idk how seriously people would take demands settled with there being no significant cost since the only thing really getting hurt might be reputation.

 

[pants the terrible]

tactical decision-making and skill at accomplishing those decisions are things smash can show actively move by move.

yes trading card games are very respectable in this form of 1 on 1 confrontation, but it allows more of a visual representation of the mental abilities of the players if we use smash.

who wants to be ruled by someone who is inferior to you in a directly specific way?

 

[pokemario]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnET-bUHqI8

All of my yes.

 

[Izanagi97]

SETTLE EVERYTHING IN SMASH!!

 

[Effay]

This is entirely wishful thinking, but I'd love a world like that, lol.

 

[pants the terrible]

obviously, but i like being faithful and believing in something =)

 

[PKMudkip]

All presidentak election shall hence forth be settled in Smash

 

[toadster101]

 

[pants the terrible]

well arent you a mister party poop

 

[Mintcario]

If you can settle multi-thousand dollar bets in Smash, then I'm pretty sure you can solve nuclear war with it as well I mean it's just a hop, skip and a jump LOL.

 

[Braydon]

So basically you think the world would be better if power were arbitrarily handed out, and anyone could simply stifle a perfectly reasonable argument by winning a game of smash bros?

Yes this is great, death to reason, it would only take 3 days for the world to descend into chaos, so awesome.

 

[ansossy]

Definitely not going to stop Nuclear Warfare. I think this whole Melee Smash 4 civil war brings us closer to Nuclear War than it does to stopping Nuclear Warfare.

 

[Twewy]

Definitely not going to stop Nuclear Warfare. I think this whole Melee Smash 4 civil war brings us closer to Nuclear War than it does to stopping Nuclear Warfare.

You had me until you said Smash 4/Melee "civil war" is bringing us closer to nuclear war.

I'm sorry, what?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

You had me until you said Smash 4/Melee "civil war" is bringing us closer to nuclear war.

I'm sorry, what?

Someone gave Leffen and Zer0 nuclear weapons and now they're at a standstill.

 

[Twewy]

Someone gave Leffen and Zer0 nuclear weapons and now they're at a standstill.

Zer0 running away from conflict? I thought it was Smash 4 v. Melee, not Brawl.