To my idealistic brain, war seems like a waste of time. Why can't we just send the best chess player from each of the two countries and have them play a game? Whoever wins the chess match wins the "war" and the territory claims or the international demands are met, no problems. That way, war is a game of actual intelligence and strategy instead of who has the greatest amount of expendable manpower. The greatest generals lead with strategy and intelligence. If we just eliminate the men behind the general, it becomes a battle of wits. This method would make everything surrounding "war" safer and based in what it should be based in: who's the smartest?
But of course, this couldn't happen logistically. Why? Well I'm not sure everyone even knows how to play chess. I sure don't. Also, odds are, the country that loses will resort to means of violence to attain whatever it is they were after in the first place.
Maybe in Utopia my chess idea could be plausible, but for right now, I have absolutely no idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.