If Only..

[spathiphyllum]

Could we not send the leaders of two opposing sides for a game of chess, best out of three instead of sending an entire army to potentially die?

[tonyav]

Noooo a bare knuckle boxing match would be better ( Queensbury rules don't ya know ).

[Old_Geezer]

And how would you get the loser's nation to abide by the result ?
And why would the government and military agree on chess anyway ?

[rowanwitch]

Rock paper scissors would be quicker.
I have a better idea a bomb strapped to all of them. If they order an act of aggression it blows them to bits. Evil Rowan is out today.

[murraymints]

bang heids together...and make them watch hours of trench footage !!

[Spicerack]

Young men die fighting old men's war. And all that jazz.

[Ken4155]

"Forward!" he cried, from the rear, and the front men died." Pink Floyd

[spathiphyllum]

How do we get nations to abide by rules currently?

[emmie]

you can't, it would never work, look what is happening in the Middle East, too many factions fighting, too many hard heads not thinking things through.

[Theland]

Not sure if it was Tolstoy or Dostoevsky who advocated mass slaughter of prisoners of war, as opposed to the parole system for officers that was prevalent at the time.
His theory was that war would be then viewed as so horrible that politicians would be reluctant to ever wage war.
Then we had WW1 and sadly did not learn.
Tony Bliar certainly did not heed any message.
Maybe Corbyn leans too far the other way, but there has to be a balance.
How about a referendum before we wage war?