OT: Neutralization of Firearms and Technological Weapons Discussion

[Undecisive]

Ok so I was sitting here bullshitting with some coworkers and we got on to the subject of wars and such. The first thought that popped into my head was

"What if there were no guns, or missles or aircraft. Just basic hand to hand combat weapons and boats and such (no cannons yet)."

Basically what if wars were fought today, like they were back in the dark ages. Hand to Hand, in your face combat. Who do you think would persevere in a global conflict fighting this way.

With this type of fighting, numbers are a big thing. I think the Chinese would be one of the most powerful nations in the world and would be very hard to beat. I mean they are asian so they know kung fu already, have experience with melee weapons (from their martial arts training) and they have a ton of numbers.

I think America would no longer be a world power and turn into a 3rd world country since we have no experience with melee weapons except for a minor few. But those few would not outweigh the lack of experience the rest of the country has.

Now do you think this would bring back armor into the mix?



Let me know what you guys think about this etc etc. :tup:

 

[Vermont]

Ok so I was sitting here bullshitting with some coworkers and we got on to the subject of wars and such. The first thought that popped into my head was

"What if there were no guns, or missles or aircraft. Just basic hand to hand combat weapons and boats and such (no cannons yet)."

Basically what if wars were fought today, like they were back in the dark ages. Hand to Hand, in your face combat. Who do you think would persevere in a global conflict fighting this way.

With this type of fighting, numbers are a big thing. I think the Chinese would be one of the most powerful nations in the world and would be very hard to beat. I mean they are asian so they know kung fu already, have experience with melee weapons (from their martial arts training) and they have a ton of numbers.

I think America would no longer be a world power and turn into a 3rd world country since we have no experience with melee weapons except for a minor few. But those few would not outweigh the lack of experience the rest of the country has.

Now do you think this would bring back armor into the mix?



Let me know what you guys think about this etc etc. :tup:

Consider the 10th century Norse raiders. They were numerically inferior to just about every one they faced. Because of their Superior strength of force they dominated all before them.

They were a classic example of how a well trained and high moral army will defeat numerically superior foes. This is one of the reasons that american troops fare so well in direct combat operations all over the world and all through out history. Our armies tend to have very high moral. There are very few instances of American armies routing in the face of the enemy.

 

[Undecisive]

But that has always been with firearms. It's a different kind of war when you are up close and personal like that. And norse raiders weren't winning ebcause of their strength alone. They were aided with the effects of Fly Agragric Mushrooms (the red and white ones from mario). They would take those right as they landed on the shores and then would rush into battle. They wouldn't feel pain and that is why they were called "berserkers". But eventually they all fell just like the spartans. 300 v 1 million. Perfect strategy with the choke point they used, but they eventually got outnumbered. So I agree with your statement to a certain extent. Yes they can hold off a good amount but they will eventually be overrun due to exhaustion. If you have no time to eat or sleep for 2 days, and you just have a constant swarm of enemies... You will die. It's simple mathematics.

 

[bugeye_fever]

So your asking how wars will be fought after WWIII?

 

[DKDunn04]

Canada, they have been lurking for far too long...

 

[Z1107]

the chinese have always had large numbers and never expanded past their current borders. In ancient times the largest battles in history occurred in china, 100,000,000 men in one battle. China had the superior numbers then and ended up being dominated by a group of small nations in the 19th century.

 

[Undecisive]

So your asking how wars will be fought after WWIII?

Yes! correct!

Now About china, they only lost because they didn't have too many firearms at the time. This was when firearms were becoming the main tool for combat. They were still in the melee aspect of war.

But wouldn't it be badass to fight like that? I would stay in the army for that.

 

[Vermont]

But that has always been with firearms. It's a different kind of war when you are up close and personal like that. And norse raiders weren't winning ebcause of their strength alone. They were aided with the effects of Fly Agragric Mushrooms (the red and white ones from mario). They would take those right as they landed on the shores and then would rush into battle. They wouldn't feel pain and that is why they were called "berserkers". But eventually they all fell just like the spartans. 300 v 1 million. Perfect strategy with the choke point they used, but they eventually got outnumbered. So I agree with your statement to a certain extent. Yes they can hold off a good amount but they will eventually be overrun due to exhaustion. If you have no time to eat or sleep for 2 days, and you just have a constant swarm of enemies... You will die. It's simple mathematics.

No it is not. A great example would be the Battle of Agincourt in 1415. The English numbered no more than 9,000 men. While the french numbered over 30,000 men. Of which 1,200 were mounted men at arms with closer to 10,000 dismounted. The English only numbered 1,500 dismounted men at arms. Due too superior planning of where to fight the battle, the English were able to stand and let the french come to them while being hammered by the English longbow men....

This is just one of many examples that I can bring up man. Superior numbers means nothing in war. Read Sun Tzu man, he talks all about it. I would say stay away from the five rings. That book is crap. Miyamoto Musashi was a blow hard about how awesome he was.

 

[Undecisive]

I've red sun tzu several times and own the book in NY, I still think in THIS day and time numbers make the outcome. Especially since we lack experience as well versus a good amount of other countries. It would be a toss up but my money is on China.

 

[Vermont]

Im terriable hand to hand, thats why I choose guns.

-_-


I do seem to remember some one with a broken hand......

Less fighting with brick walls for jumping out in front of you and more hooking me up with free shit :tard:

 

[Undecisive]

HAHAHAHAHA awesome! Fuji could beat Reks (if there were no guns)since he has a sword and has been practicing.

You're a liberal Reks!

 

[BAD STI]

You military meat heads are forgetting an important factor. There are several things far more important than weapons, army size, and brute force.

Wealth, intellectuality, and diplomacy are key to a country's success. We have more highly educated and wealthy people then any other country. We also have an army of highly skilled business men who are experts in negotiation and persuasion.

We don't have any enemies that could invade us by land. Mexico and South America would keep each other occupied. Those that do get across the border would get hunted by sword wielding Texas cowboys.

Our inteclectuals, diplomats, and wealth elite would fund and create a war between India and China eliminating them as a threat.

Europe, with its 50 countries, would have wars popping up all over the place and be of no threat. Canada will sit on its ass as usual. America will prosper with only having the occasional naval battle to fight.

 

[HolyCrapItsFast]

You military meat heads are forgetting an important factor. There are several things far more important than weapons, army size, and brute force.

Wealth, intellectuality, and diplomacy are key to a country's success. We have more highly educated and wealthy people then any other country. We also have an army of highly skilled business men who are experts in negotiation and persuasion.

We don't have any enemies that could invade us by land. Mexico and South America would keep each other occupied. Those that do get across the border would get hunted by sword wielding Texas cowboys.

Our inteclectuals, diplomats, and wealth elite would fund and create a war between India and China eliminating them as a threat.

Europe, with its 50 countries, would have wars popping up all over the place and be of no threat. Canada will sit on its ass as usual. America will prosper with only having the occasional naval battle to fight.

Yes... and would you like fries with that hamberger? Let me get you some change... Oh wait... I don't know how!

 

[BAD STI]

Being intellegent isnt the end all be all cure. The dumbest man ever said one of the smartest things.

"Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face". -Mike Tyson-


Violence solves everything!!!!

I never said violence wasnt the answer. Power over the violence/war is the answer and this is achieved through intellect.

Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Hadrian, Hernan Cortes, Francisco Pizarro, Napoleon Bonaparte, etc were ALL from countries that were much less populated than those they concurred.

 

[Vermont]

I never said violence wasnt the answer. Power over the violence/war is the answer and this is achieved through intellect.

Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Hadrian, Hernan Cortes, Francisco Pizarro, Napoleon Bonaparte, etc were ALL from countries that were much less populated than those they concurred.

It's Conquered...... Just saying....

 

[Undecisive]

It's Conquered...... Just saying....

LOL! Do I detect a spelling nazi here?

As for all those people listed, which ones were not murdered, or made a terrible military decision (like invading russia in the winter with no supply routes...)

 

[Z1107]

Alexander the Great=murdered after overextending himself
Julius Ceasar= did not create large empire, just conquered part of Gaul, not all, murdered by "friends"
Hadrian= built a wall
Cortes= allied himself with 20,000 local natives, so pretty much equal terms, oh and had gunpowder weapons
Pizarro= see above
Bonaparte=too much to type.

 

[BAD STI]

It's Conquered...... Just saying....

I wrote all of that on my iPhone give me a break.

Alexander the Great=murdered after overextending himself
Julius Ceasar= did not create large empire, just conquered part of Gaul, not all, murdered by "friends"
Hadrian= built a wall
Cortes= allied himself with 20,000 local natives, so pretty much equal terms, oh and had gunpowder weapons
Pizarro= see above
Bonaparte=too much to type.

I'm still waiting on an example of someone who took power and built a great nation because he was good with hand to hand combat and lived in a country with a massive population.....

 

[BAD STI]

It's Conquered...... Just saying....

Alexander the Great=murdered after overextending himself
Julius Ceasar= did not create large empire, just conquered part of Gaul, not all, murdered by "friends"
Hadrian= built a wall
Cortes= allied himself with 20,000 local natives, so pretty much equal terms, oh and had gunpowder weapons
Pizarro= see above
Bonaparte=too much to type.

LOL! Do I detect a spelling nazi here?

As for all those people listed, which ones were not murdered, or made a terrible military decision (like invading russia in the winter with no supply routes...)

Oh all of them failed eventually. As do all nations. Most of them left reign of power that is several times the length the US has existed.

 

[Z1107]

I wrote all of that on my iPhone give me a break.

dont you just hate autocorrect