Éwoyn was a woman... Éomer was the man.

Edit: Deleted mutilated Ramman Kenoun quote.

Haha, I suggest you re-read your Tolkien. Éowyn is the niece of King Théoden. One of the remarkable things about Tolkien's work is that he was quite opposed to war, especially as he had fought in World War I. However, he saw the necessity of fighting a war if one is waged on you, if you care at all about your cause. Hence the Éowyn quote. It is directly applicable to modern times, Mutually Assured Destruction or not (I don't think MAD is the reality, anyway).

Prof. Chaos, at a hefty price. I think that is what the quote is about. But it is in its essence silly, so I removed it >_>

Okay, imagine this scenario; there is a vehicle that is as widely distributed as the car, with fuel as available as salt water. Then a war breaks out. What are ways to end that war?

Gaah edit: Wups, I meant as widely distributed as a car that can travel the world.

Yes. A smaller price than the world would have paid had the Axis Powers won. Not quite a pyrrhic victory, but a victory none the less.

Mynt: You end that war by killing the enemy before they kill you. That's what they're trying to do.

How can you catch such an enemy?

Edit: This is a profound problem that's been plaguing EVE recently, called the Golden Nano Age.

Edit 2: ^ Just a joke. =) ^

Technology will progress whether you want it to or not. People will use this technology for good and for evil, and we must be prepared to stop the evil use. That is more important than trying to stop progress, because that simply won't happen.

Presumably, if our enemy has this miracle fuel, we do, too. If not, we have to make do with what we have, and hope it is enough. If they have super cheap fuel, well, we have to destroy the vehicles, then. Those will not be as cheap as the fuel. Beyond that, you kill the people who operate the vehicles. A Jeep with a machine gun mounted on it is no good without a driver and a gunner, a plane is as useless without a pilot as it is without fuel.

Please, do not use computer games, no matter how complex, to model real world conflicts. Even when real people are involved, computer game conflicts employ *very* rigid rules when compared to real-world ones (not to mention, arbiters, which you do not have in real-world conflicts. Not even the US as the then and still now strongest military force in the world (although the margins have shrunk, I'd say) were an arbiter who could 'ban' the Japanese, e.g. from the conflict. All they could do was defeat Japan to dissuade them from fighting)).

Yay nested brackets. Too much coding lately.

Agreed.

Now check it out; the only way to end this war is to remove that technology, or remove the ones using it. However, as we've both agreed upon, even if you remove that technology, it will spring up again. So, we're left with the final solution; removing the pilots.

They have to make berth somewhere, so we just need to destroy the crops there. However, they can make berth anywhere. So we just need to destroy everything. Problem solved.

Or we don't do anything at all... but as we've both agreed upon, we must be prepared to fight this evil. That is more important than trying to stop progress, because that simply won't happen.

Suicide of humanity.

Your arguments are very interesting, even though I disagree with most of what you say and don't quite understand how you arrive at the conclusions you do. Meanwhile, it's almost 2am here, and I'm going to bed.

Neither do I.

So when we're saying 'electric', we're not meaning the exchanging of electrons, if I get your meaning right. What then, like specifically batteries?

SMM is either an excellent troll, or the densest human being ever to walk the Earth.

The jury's still out on that, but I think everyone is expecting the verdict to be the latter.

Haha. This is great. I can argue issues with substantive arguments (whether anyone else agrees with me or not), and I can always rely on you guys to make my ad hominem attacks for me. Haha.

Mynt, I think you're a good guy, and I have some good advice for you. I actually think you're very smart. However, I think you need to stay away from Eve for awhile, if that's where you've gotten your bizarre ideas. You've become so wrapped up in your ideas of vehicles as weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems being worse than the weapons they deliver, that your reasoning has been clouded. You need some fresh air and a fresh perspective. You aren't necessarily dense as Lecter says, but I do believe you are off track.

However, that was a fun, spectacular debate we had last night. I had a good time, anyway.

Okay mom.

I just laughed so hard milk came out of my nose, and I'm not drinking milk.

I just don't know what else to conclude. Nearly everything SMM has written is a non sequitur of the most puzzling kind. It's not that I disagree with him or that I don't understand what he's saying, it's just that I usually understand him to in essence say something as sensible as:

Well, the sky is undeniably blue today and this proves that human beings are all driven to acquire as many canteloupes as possible before Xenu arrives to deliver us all from capitalism . . . and can you tell me if there was a massive self-aware canteloupe out there in the world, how would you maintain the ozone layer then?

This time the Pepsi I wasn't drinking shot out my nose. Ouch!

This post is win.