Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Rabbit

If this was possible

In Favor or against?  

11 members have voted

  1. 1.

    • Against?
      4
    • In Favor?
      3
    • Undecided
      4


Recommended Posts

I would love for this to be possible in so far as it would mean there would not be such a tremendous waste of life like there is in large scale war. It would never happen though. Why? Simple, two of the purposes of war is a show of force and to kill the people who are on the side of your enemy. You can dress it up all you like, but the bottom line is in war the people who decide to go to it do so because they want to kill the enemy.

Share this post


Link to post

I said it before I say it again...

 

This war isn't a war on evil...

no, it is just a war...

 

and all war is evil.

Share this post


Link to post

Well said. Many is the time that war occurs when there is no need. In fact, there is not one religion (Al Qaeda's interpretation of Islam does not count) that promotes war. If people are so religious, if they claim they are fighting for their God, then why are they so warlike?

Share this post


Link to post
Well said. Many is the time that war occurs when there is no need. In fact, there is not one religion (Al Qaeda's interpretation of Islam does not count) that promotes war. If people are so religious, if they claim they are fighting for their God, then why are they so warlike?
Exactly!

Share this post


Link to post

I think over the next century or so people will prefer automated combat over throwing human lives away...although, only time will tell.

 

Perhaps, instead of resorting to fully-automated robotic combat, there would be a combination of human skill and robotic strength.

 

Mech's anyone? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

More like the more powerful and rich countries will.. And poorer 3rd world countries will just go with the good old person to person approach.

Share this post


Link to post

On the topic of being able to afford to go to war, back some six or seven years ago it might have been Tom Clancy who said it or it might have been some other experts. America is the only country in the world that can afford to go to war.

Share this post


Link to post

How do you mean? As in, the USA is really the only country that could successfully go to war, take over a country, and not have a serious depression afterwards (figuratively speaking of course)?

Share this post


Link to post

Back in November 1998 PC Gamer ran a huge article on Rainbow Six and among the things they featured in the twenty page article they had a lot of details on the research that went into the game, the first chapter of the Rainbow Six novel and an interview with Tom Clancy. At the beginning of the feature PC Gamer harked back to a May 1997 interview they had with Clancy and he was talking about how much terrorism will grow. His exact words were "I think that large-scale conventional military operations, on the order of Desert Storm, are largely a thing of the past. The cost of such warfare that none of the Cold War adversaries-with the exception of the United States-can afford to use it as an instrument of policy." Charming, the killing of tens of thousands of people is referred to as policy. He goes on to say "Russia is an economic basket-case and all of it's Third World cliant states are forced to buy yard-sale equipment on the open market, so even those nasty little regional wars, such as the Bosnian conflict, will eventually become too expensive." What Tom Clancy is getting at here is how terrorism will rise in the 21st century and the specture of nuclear, chemical and biological attacks. He even makes a case for a real life multinational special forces team like Rainbow. The article says "At present, a terrorist threat mounted in one country can only be countered by the security forces in that country, which may or may not be able to deal with it. Some will say these threats should be met by rapid, decisive counter-measures from the entire international community, acting in concert against rogue states that sponser the ideological fanantics who cause trouble.

"That kind of action is fraught with problems though. Matters of national pride, diplomatic protocols and international law throw up a host of obstacles that make it very difficult to mount a unified and decisive response. What is needed-in the opinion of many experts-is a multi-national, rapid response force. It's units should be drawn from the elite units of participating nations, free to act without constraint across boarders, independant of any burreaucracy and beholden to no regional agendas. A kind of "Foreign Legion", if you will.

"This is the basic premise underlying "Rainbow Six" The term "rainbow" symbolises the multi-national make-up of the force. Its primary loyalties would be to the overriding values of law and order, it would be free to mount a swift and deadly response, without first having to cut through red tape and without having to waste weeks of precious time cobbling together ad-hoc "coalitions.""

Share this post


Link to post

:shock: Wow...what a mind full...ugh, my head hurts. But that makes alotta sense, so thanks for the information, Leang.

 

Makes you wonder why nothing like that has been thought up in real life yet... :roll:

Share this post


Link to post

Why a team like Rainbow is not in existence? The feature on Rainbow Six that I transcribed a little of for you gives a few reasons, such as the country's pride in not having someone else do the work for them and having to manuever around international law and the UN. It was this last part, you will remember, that was a stumbling block for war in Iraq, and is part of the reason for scorn towards America in how it just went right through it.

Share this post


Link to post

Eh? Oh..yeah...lol.

 

Sorry, I'm not in my right frame of mind for thinking. Kinda happens when you wake up and you're on the computer and trying to get ready for work at the same time...gah...I'll have a more intelligent responce later on. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

4chan? Tell more, before I shoot out the door. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Let me put it this way. If madbadger removed his brain before going to that site, he would consider it too stupid. The song 'Trolling' is like a national anthen there, and, for example, if you use tripcodes (so no one can impersonate you) they just go off the show because they cannot impersonnate you. Do not use tripcodes and a favourite thing for people to do is to post after what you wrote and say 'disregard that, I suck cocks'. That might give you some idea, without even covering the tip of the iceberg.

Share this post


Link to post

:shock:

 

Flamer's heaven, hrm?

 

Bloody hell... :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Rabbit

Haha, wow, I never thought that this would have so many replies and comments!

Share this post


Link to post
Haha, wow, I never thought that this would have so many replies and comments!

 

Well, if you're going to promote intellectual conversation then expect alot of replies! :wink:

 

No, the place those in flamer's heaven dream about. :P

 

So, what does that make it then? Flamer's Hell? :wink: Hehe

 

Charming, the killing of tens of thousands of people is referred to as policy.

 

It's called a "Political Sweetener". :roll: :lol:

 

What Tom Clancy is getting at here is how terrorism will rise in the 21st century and the specture of nuclear, chemical and biological attacks. He even makes a case for a real life multinational special forces team like Rainbow. The article says "At present, a terrorist threat mounted in one country can only be countered by the security forces in that country, which may or may not be able to deal with it. Some will say these threats should be met by rapid, decisive counter-measures from the entire international community, acting in concert against rogue states that sponser the ideological fanantics who cause trouble.

 

I see what you're getting at now. Other problems include trigger-happy policemen/special forces: Take the case in London of a young Brazillian shot dead about a month ago because the police suspected him of being a terrorist, and when the apartment where he was staying at was raided, nothing was found.

 

Paranoia has to be controlled if a group like Rainbow 6 were to emerge.

 

Problem is, it'll have to be America who makes the call and funds a task-force similar to Rainbow 6, as you said, America is the only country that can afford to go to war. Meaning that basically America will probably and eventually want complete control over the group, which would mean it wouldn't be multi-national anymore.

 

:hmm: But yes, this is a good idea...it just needs to be funded equally from the countries that would be willing to participate in forming a group like this.

Share this post


Link to post
I see what you're getting at now. Other problems include trigger-happy policemen/special forces: Take the case in London of a young Brazillian shot dead about a month ago because the police suspected him of being a terrorist, and when the apartment where he was staying at was raided, nothing was found.

 

Yes, I remember that. It was a very regretable incident, one where I do not know what the right solution might have been or if a right solution even exists.

 

Problem is, it'll have to be America who makes the call and funds a task-force similar to Rainbow 6, as you said, America is the only country that can afford to go to war.

 

In the novel it is primarily America and Britain, the games show this in a large number of the roster being either American, British, German or Russian. There are other characters from other countries...France, Italy, South Korea, Israel, South Korea, Egypt, Brazil, Australia, ect.

 

Meaning that basically America will probably and eventually want complete control over the group, which would mean it wouldn't be multi-national anymore.

 

When a Playstation magazine was looking at a pre release copy of Rogue Spear (the direct sequal to the original Rainbow Six game) they talk about the idea of a multinational task force and bring up how it would not be used to lash out American imperialism.

 

:novel spoilers: We see a clear demonstration of that in the novel, where the incidents occur at a bank in Bern; Switzerland, a mansion in Vienna; I think that is either Germany or Italy, an amusement park in France and a hospital just near Hereforeshire, England. After some investigations in America the final battle is in the rainforest of Brazil. :end novel spoiler:

Share this post


Link to post
France, Italy, South Korea, Israel, South Korea, Egypt, Brazil, Australia, ect.

 

There are two South Korea's? :lol:

 

:novel spoilers: We see a clear demonstration of that in the novel, where the incidents occur at a bank in Bern; Switzerland, a mansion in Vienna; I think that is either Germany or Italy, an amusement park in France and a hospital just near Hereforeshire, England. After some investigations in America the final battle is in the rainforest of Brazil. :end novel spoiler:

 

Sounds like a good book...hmm...I wonder how much it'd be. Time to go shopping, I think.

 

Don't worry about spoiling it for me. I like being spoilt because I know it'll be a very long time before I actually go read something/see a decent movie.

 

I see what you're getting at now. Other problems include trigger-happy policemen/special forces: Take the case in London of a young Brazillian shot dead about a month ago because the police suspected him of being a terrorist, and when the apartment where he was staying at was raided, nothing was found.

 

Yes, I remember that. It was a very regretable incident, one where I do not know what the right solution might have been or if a right solution even exists.

 

The right solution was to calmly ask the man to put his hands in the air and have him searched. And if he ran? Then only shoot him to stop him from running. Or even not at all! Not shoot him in the head once and the chest twice! The way I understand it is that you can only shoot someone if they present a clear and present danger to the general public. He was just an innocent bystander minding his own business. He didn't deserve that at all..

Share this post


Link to post
There are two South Korea's? :lol:

 

Whoops. :oops:

 

Sounds like a good book...hmm...I wonder how much it'd be. Time to go shopping, I think.

 

Don't worry about spoiling it for me. I like being spoilt because I know it'll be a very long time before I actually go read something/see a decent movie.

 

The basic premise is how the main bad guys are enviromental nutters who believe that in order to save the enviroment they get rid of all the people. I might leave spoilers at that, but I will tell you to keep an eye out for Homer Johnson. Near the middle of the book the taking of hostages, children, at the amusement park takes place, and one of the terrorists kills a sick girl in cold blood. Later Homer sees the terrorist who did it, communicates with his sniper teammate to take out his weapon, then shoots the terrorist in the stomache (as opposed to the head which is quick and painless). That is how it should be done.

 

The right solution was to calmly ask the man to put his hands in the air and have him searched. And if he ran? Then only shoot him to stop him from running. Or even not at all! Not shoot him in the head once and the chest twice! The way I understand it is that you can only shoot someone if they present a clear and present danger to the general public. He was just an innocent bystander minding his own business. He didn't deserve that at all..

 

No, he didn't. The problem lies in how London had just come off what was the worst terrorist attack in their history, they were understandably on edge. I think this was just after the copycat attacks. And as for trying to shoot someone running it is very difficult to be able to hit a moving target at range with a pistol with the intent to try and disable them. However like you said it seemed akin to an execution killing. I am not sure how exactly the shooting took place. It was something that never should have happened, the officer is completely at fault regardless of the metigating circumstances, if a diffirent outcome was possible then anyone, anyone would have preferred it to what actually happened.

Share this post


Link to post

Hrm....tell me more! Though you might wanna PM me about it...I don't think anyone else likes being spoit like I do. :P

 

No, he didn't. The problem lies in how London had just come off what was the worst terrorist attack in their history, they were understandably on edge. I think this was just after the copycat attacks. And as for trying to shoot someone running it is very difficult to be able to hit a moving target at range with a pistol with the intent to try and disable them. However like you said it seemed akin to an execution killing. I am not sure how exactly the shooting took place. It was something that never should have happened, the officer is completely at fault regardless of the metigating circumstances, if a diffirent outcome was possible then anyone, anyone would have preferred it to what actually happened.

 

:nod: Exactly. Well said! The country being on edge dosen't give anyone the excuse to take an innocent life.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×