I need an excuse for this battle royale to work. Here's some background-- I need a reason that will fit into constraints of a world like this: World War III ensues, and nuclear bombings rock the world. It’s a battle on the home front, and citizens are dying by the masses while the leaders call the shots, waiting for the losses on other sides to rack up until they surrender in a grueling battle of attrition. Angered at the disregard for their lives the people rise up, capturing their leaders to make them fight in an arena upon the ruins of Britain, a war on a small scale. It would later become known as Arena 1, the first arena. Around the arena, a new ideology and civilization spring up, holding the belief that leaders should be those who protect their countries in exchange for their administrative power. Those affected by the destruction of WWIII jump aboard, realizing that this “organized war” would prevent the mass deaths of grand armies and helpless citizens. This is the establishment of the World Capital, the administrative power of the new age. Organizations of citizens agree to appoint leaders on the condition that they will fight should a war arise. Dangerous goods, such as nukes, are removed from countries and delivered to the World Capital as a means to enforce the rules of the game. Over time, it becomes common for leaders to send their children, as they are younger and stand a better chance in the arena while still preserving the sacrifice of those on top. The event becomes widely televised. I need a reason for several countries to "declare war" on eachother. Ideas?
Resources- food or water shortages would lead to potential conflict over water sources of fertile land. Energy resources like oil and gas.
Another good reason to have a bunch of countries fighting each other, is maybe that they all want some sort of artifact, something that will gie them tons of power, or something that will prevent the countries leaders from being overthrown, or something that will give them tons of riches.
Depending on how much the WW devastated things, it could be prewar technology. If they found an old military hospital with state of the art surgical tools and a bunker with an operating refrigerator full of various vaccines and medications, that would definitely get them fighting.
Second this, this is exactly what was coming in to say as well. The main reason countries go to war, resources. And even after a nuclear war, those resources can be very scarce
Treaties and alliances are usually what draws in countries not active in a dispute into it. Both WWI and WWI started as a cascade from a single event. WWI started like the collapse of a house of cards, tipped over by a single man. A lone terrorist killed the archduke, which caused Austria declares war on Serbia. Russia mobilizes to be ready to fight, so Germany attacks them. This causes France and the low countries to mobilize just in case. Germany sees this as a threat and invades Belgium. This causes England to declare war on Germany. France and England then extend their war declarations to Austria. The same thing happened in WWII. Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland, causing England and France to declare war on Germany. Italy then declares war on France. Japan declares war on the USA, which causes Germany to do the same... History is full of countries declaring war for reasons that have little to do with their actual country and more out of loyalty or rivalry with others. France had little to gain from helping the USA declare independence other than to give a middle finger to England. The system you describe is similar to feudal warfare where champions would fight to settle disputes between lords. I'm curious how such a system could be enforced, if everyone has agreed to settle their disputes this way, what's preventing one country from simply developing their own nuclear weapons and bypassing this court duel? Hitler agreed to settle disputes diplomatically too and did until his army was powerful enough to say "stop me if you can."
This sounds like it could be very interesting. It does however sound vaguely like the hunger games to me. I think if the leaders did not send their kids your story would stand out as unique to me.
Nuclear war is so horrible I honestly think it would be difficult for leaders to embark on a war that would ultimately be mutual suicide. However, I can see a small nuclear power country, or terror group, precipitating a nuclear war among the superpowers by detonating covert ship or truck bombs near simultaneously in strategic areas of each superpower, i.e., LA harbor, Shanghai and St Petersburg, during a time of extreme crisis between the superpowers. If a country believes it has been attacked by another nuclear superpower, then it will almost certainly react with nuclear retaliation, and once the other superpower sees missiles in flight, if they were hesitant to retaliate themselves, they almost certainly would. In the meanwhile, the agent that precipitated the slaughter will see their giant enemies destroying each other, with most of the devastation bypassing them, sitting as safe as is possible on the sidelines. Another scenario that has potential for going nuclear is a conventional conflict between superpowers in which one side sees a catastrophic loss of its naval or military forces in a major battle, and seeks to head that off with a tactical nuclear strike against the other's military units, i.e., a carrier battle group inside China's Nine-Dash Line that threatens to destroy a Chinese amphibious assault on Taiwan, attacked by Chinese DF-21 anti-ship ballistic missiles. Once the nuclear genie is out of the bottle, it can only grow. See Onslaught by David Poyer for that scenario, very plausibly written.
I agreed, no country will ever embark on a nuclear war. They will start a conventional war and one side will be backed into a corner and have no choice other than to use their nuclear weapons. I'd likely come from some headstrong country betting that the other side is bluffing. The US president has made it clear to Russia that we have little intention of defending our NATO allies and might feel like they can invade the Balkans with only minor resistance from the NATO allies. In such a case, congress would likely go around the president and declare war itself. A traditional war of NATO vs Russia would go very poorly for Russia and the US air force would quickly establish air dominance. With the NATO front pushing swiftly back into Russia, they know the only way to pause stop them would be with tactical nuclear weapons, and they know they'd have to hit hard. Like Lew said, once the genie is out, it's not going back, we'll likely respond with our own, maybe not against Moscow, but we'll likely need to take out their submarines and ICBM facilities by any means necessary.
Simple: they fight over the very premise of your establishment. Some countries are anti-world Capital and push for the reestablishment of the old order. Grudges are already boiling under the surface, because some countries feel like they should have become world Capital. Some countries feel like they sacrificed more than others to the World Capitol.
One thing I've seen a lot of ancient countries fight over is simply land, and attempting to gain that land by taking over other countries. Perhaps a war could have started by an isolated population of one country trying to take over an area of a different country, without said group being involved with the rest of their home country. I.e., the war started over something that could have easily been addressed by the first country. Often wars also start by two or more sides simply not agreeing with one another, like political practices, or intolerance of another religion or culture.
What if country A mistreats immigrants from countries B, C, D, etc and countries B, C, and D make a promise they will protect their former citizens from mistreatment? If the mistreatment continues, then the offended countries declare war on the offending country, and the offending country has allies that also engage in that treatment of their immigrants, maybe not as publicized as country A but country A knows and can blackmail its allies to help? Or the idea that country X is engaging in war crimes such as Nazi Germany vs the Jews and other countries step in to stop it? Not sure that would work because the theory did not work in practice with regards to Rwanda. And, people KNEW what was happening in Rwanda. United Nations peacekeepers were on the ground but were under orders not to interfere. It could start from an innocent mistake that has devasting encomic consequences. Let's say that Country V ships a good that is desired by Country Z and a invasive species of beetle hitches a ride into Country Z and starts to destroy their lumber industry. Country Z traces the origin of the invasive beetle back to Country V and demands compensation. Country V says it's an "act of god", not our fault, etc and then Country Z discovers that it was done intentionally....
Well, it's not really Nation B C and D's problem what Nation A is doing to former citizens. If they feel that strong about it, they can always invite them back with incentives If Nations b c and d where to invade Nation a, it can make things worse for the former citizens who will be seen as spies and Invaders. Leading to some horrible atrocities Also on the National level, mistreatment doesn't justify War. They would have to be doing some sort of atrocity, which begs the question, why are these former citizens even in nation A if they are so unwelcome Edit: and I think it's fair to assume Nation a has allies, who would jump into The Fray to defend their Ally. So basically World War 3
I'm thinking of an incoming natural disaster such as rising water levels at a quick pace that will cover large masses of land in a period of days or months. Usually this process takes many years to happen but maybe something occurs that makes the process go much faster. This leads to a problem where entire countries need to relocate. However, certain other countries that are capable of providing shelter refuse to do provide it and basically choose to let the people from affected countries to die. This leads to some of the affected countries threatening to use their weapons to force other countries to comply or both sides die.
I feel like I need to butt in here to whip away these misconceptions. The Archduke's death was largely irrelevant, and so was Poland's invasion. Both of these were "minute moments" from a much grander picture: a long, winding build-up to contest & wrestle hegemony. World wars (and under world war I also mean the 7 years war, the 30 years war, the 2nd Punic war and the Napoleonic wars) develop after a period of decline in a hegemony power, at the point where a rising power feels like they can contest the hegemony. Secondary powers either support the old hegemony or the usurper; there is no "sitting it out" because all will be subjugated by the new power (or called to war by the old). Therefore you can see these ripples in human history; with the decline of a global or local power the new power starts building up alliances and resources then unleashes it in a war of hegemony. Any other wars (for example, those fought over resources) are less relevant and thus seldom become world-encompassing. Isolating WW2 as a "result of the invasion of Poland" is a folly because beforehands, the Soviet Union and the 3rd Reich clashee in the Spanish Civil War already; they had already imposed territorial changes in Europe, have annexed territories and by the time German forces crossed into Poland WW2 was already underway in China. It is better to understand both world wars as part of a greater conflict; which in itself is the decline of European imperial hegemony, its implosion on itself (British vs German Empires) and the rise of American dominance. Now for the main question... I don't see how in this system there'd be a "battle royale" ensuing. More I see that wars would be precisely isolated, as they are forced onto a small scale (of resource wars). The one way I see a war of hegemony arising is through the attempt of one participant to topple and wreck the whole system, to which those who still wish to maintain it react with a coalition. The issue with that is how you would confine this mega-war into the arena? Perhaps an interesting idea; what if the "coalition" trying to maintain the arena-style war fighting has no armies or manpower to field other than their leaders, whereas the one country/force seeking to topple this has secretly developed & re-established proper military?
To be honest there was quite a few ways this could go in terms of reasons. Resource wars are also a very common reason for real world conflicts. Now then, as to actual reasons. 1. A small country develops nuclear capabilities and the powers that be don't trust them to maintain the weapons as a defensive deterrent (Kim Jong un anyone?). This leads to an escalation between major powers that both support and condemn the country and sh*t gets out of control. 2. A mega-blight wipes out huge amounts of crops across the globe making food hard to come by. "Every society is three meals away from chaos" ~ Vladimir Lenin 3. If you look up real world history you'll find that counties like China and Japan in the East have repeatedly fought with one another in the past. Perhaps a diplomatic fallout causes one country to attack the other. Can you imagine the political cluster f*ck it would cause if China were involved in or defending itself from an invasion? It doesn't have to be those two nations specifically, but if you do research history prior to nuclear weapons and the modern age, you'll find that a lot of neighboring countries didn't get along and there is usually a fair amount of fighting. This can cause lingering distrust between nations. 4. Religious wars. These have caused more violence and bloodshed throughout history than most people care to think about. 5. Ideology. Different beliefs can also cause tension, again history is choked full of examples where tensions have risen and the situation deteriorated into war. 6. Manifest Destiny. One crazy dictator thinks its his manifest destiny to conquer the world and invades a neighboring country causing an international crisis. *cough*Hitler*cough* In short if you research history you'll find an abundant amount of reasons for wars to break out between countries. Also you don't need to limit yourself strictly to the world as it exists today. A lot of authors create Earths with divergent histories that result in a world very much like ours, but also different in key ways. One example would be the Fallout game series. Their history was practically identical to ours until the mid-20th century, however they didn't develop transistors which allowed technology to be miniaturized. As a result fossil fuel consumption didn't decrease and as the world continued to grow, they eventually had gas wars over dwindling resources that lead to a nuclear exchange. Perhaps World War II ended in a stalemate instead of the Nazis being defeated. Hitler forced the allies to sign a treaty and maintained several nations under the Nazi banner. As a result their ideology still remains very strong into the 21th century and Germany in this fictional world is much larger and more influential.
Well, honestly, religious war is right out. It isn't nearly as common as people seem to think, and in these modern days people aren't willing to fight for it, and not to mention many religions are specifically peaceful or prefer to avoid it. According to Clausewitz, war is a natural consequence of political policy. So, in other words, what policy of your society would make a government think that fighting a war is genuinely worthwhile? As someone who has read a ton of Cold War literature, people nowadays really hate large scale war. Terrified of it because nukes have completely changed the game. If someone from far away can blow your major cities out of existence, you're gonna think twice about fighting somebody else. As a result, conflict tends to be smaller scale or fought by proxy. Like say, the Korean and Vietnam Wars were really about the US and Russia (and China) and less about the nations where they were fought. Terrorism also falls into this category, because a terrorist group is not a nation, and therefore has the flexibility to do what it wants, while those who fear war cannot fight terrorism effectively because they'd end up punishing a nation that isn't necessarily at fault for the terrorist group's actions. Particularly in a political climate where people hate war so much that they demonize anyone who want to take effective steps against aggressive actions. A good example of this is the Faulklands War, where Argentina decided that they wanted to take the Faulkland Islands, a British colony, away from the Brits and claim it for themselves. While the Brits' colonial history is....questionable, shall we say...the fact of the matter was that the people of the islands were not interested in joining Argentina, but Argentina occupied them by force. People at this point were so anti-war and anti-aggressive that they were angry at the thought of Britain actually fighting to take their colony back (this despite Argentina's aggression -- don't ask me on that one). That, however, is exactly what Britain did. Margaret Thatcher, the then prime minister, was from then on portrayed as bloodthirsty by the anti-war crowd, despite the fact that only 255 British citizens died in the conflict, and that Thatcher was heartbroken about them. This conflict, however, did increase Britain's standing in the Cold War, a the Russians were forced to take them more seriously. However, Argentina to this day still claims the Faulklands as their own, for historical reasons. The lesson from this is various. 1. Lands being occupied by people who are not the original inhabitants are a source of conflict. 2. International pressure does not necessarily match what is real or right (please, play around with this, it's a fun idea!). 3. Nothing happens in a void, and all other countries are watching when one particular country does something aggressive. I recommend actually reading about the causes of the first world war. I'm no expert, but the general idea of where WWI came from is that everyone was so afraid of war that they would make quietly aggressive moves (increasing the military, building submarines, moving troops closer to borders) that all the other countries were freaked out about everyone else being aggressive. That, and the somewhat weaker nations didn't want to be pushed around by those with larger military numbers (even if that military had no interest in actually fighting a war). So pretty much people were so scared of war that they had a war. Which sounds like what would happen in the scenario you describe.
History is pretty useful for this one. If you take an already tense situation between rival nations engaged in an arms race and a network of alliance, you just add a combination of accidents, stupidity, panic and confusion and you can get yourself a world war. In 1983, the Soviets detected a series of missile launches coming from the United States on their early warning system. The Soviet officer in duty that day, a man by the name of Stanislav Petrov, thankfully realised these were false positives. Had he followed protocol, he would have passed on the warning to Soviet leadership who would have then launched a nuclear attack on the United States believing it to be in retaliation. A similar thing happened during the Cuban Missile crisis in 1962, in which the Soviets gave four submarines heading for the Caribbean nuclear torpedoes. The submarine commanders were deputised to use the nuclear torpedoes at their own discretion. One submarine was cornered by the U.S. navy and three officers needed to agree to launch the missile. Whilst two were ready to use the torpedo, the other one refused and vetoed their decision. His name was Vasili Arkhipov. If they had launched the torpedo, in the confusion, the Americans may well have believed it was a Soviet attack and sent bombers to attack the Soviet Union. We are all very lucky to be here really.
