My vote goes to Tristan da Cunha. It's the world's most remote inhabited island. While the rest of the world is killing each other, these people would be able to continue with their everyday lives. Seriously, who would go 1750 miles out of their way by boat just to reach this place and start a fight with the natives?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tristan_da_Cunha
Here it is on a map...
http://thepenguinlady.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/tristan-map.jpg
What's considered a weapon? Is it allowed to pollute the drinking water for example?
On the other hand, if you defeat the Tristanians, you get all the lobster tails you can eat. Motivation.Wasn't this general topic explored on several Star Trek episodes?
Remote island is the way to go wrote:
My vote goes to Tristan da Cunha. It's the world's most remote inhabited island. While the rest of the world is killing each other, these people would be able to continue with their everyday lives. Seriously, who would go 1750 miles out of their way by boat just to reach this place and start a fight with the natives?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tristan_da_CunhaHere it is on a map...
http://thepenguinlady.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/tristan-map.jpg
America would win because we have CHUCK NORRIS!!!
Probably the Croatians. Those dudes are scrappy
Afghanistan. They've already beat both the Russians and the yanks.
MEL GIBSON wins. The man is a LETHAL WEAPON
Yemen would win. They wouldn't care about the stupid no weapon rule.
China. Numbers are often underestimated for their advantages. I've a college friend from Nepal, a buffer country between China and India. Nepalese are sardonically fatalistic about the overwhelming advantages of the huge populations of their neighbors. He said a favorite "joke" was that if China wanted to take over Nepal, all they had to do was line up along the border (the top of the watershed), drop their pants, and piss the Nepalese into the sea. Being science-types, and EtOH fueled, we debated whether the volume/depth of urine resulting from 1 billion should be calculated over the surface area of Nepal, or how high the rivers would rise (as if this scenario was significantly more realistic). Regardless, the flood is biblical. India wasn't nearly as feared. Not because India wouldn't piss up-hill. Nepal had long experience that China was more competent. China and India would often compete in Nepal, for example building roads parallel to each other. Always, the Chinese results were head and shoulders better. So, in a pissing match, the Chinese would win.
why the hate for india?
if i recall right there was some dude called gandhi who beat n kicked out the british empire. WITHOUT weapons whatsoever. just pure brains and will power.
"That power that can make a way out of now no way"
"Stand up for righteousness!
What?
Stand up for justice!
What?
Stand up for truth!"
Free at last! Free at last! Thank God almighty!! WE ARE FREE AT LAST!!
In the words of another great man M L King!
Peace. I love you all. Bless you.
Think of how overweight the average American is and then tell me how many U.S. citizens you think would honestly be able to kill someone in hand-to-hand combat, let alone defend themselves. Most wouldn't be able to even run from a stronger foe for any significant amount of time to, say, find a hiding place. I don't know who would win, but I'm sure the U.S. isn't at the top of that list.
Eric Mellow wrote:
Think of how overweight the average American is and then tell me how many U.S. citizens you think would honestly be able to kill someone in hand-to-hand combat, let alone defend themselves. Most wouldn't be able to even run from a stronger foe for any significant amount of time to, say, find a hiding place. I don't know who would win, but I'm sure the U.S. isn't at the top of that list.
That's why they get so scared when the gvt threatens their gun rights. Their fat azzes wouldn't be able to defend themselves otherwise.
You need to first define weapon.
Just because of their severe numbers advantages, it would have to be either India or China. However, I'd say India without a doubt.
Here's why. Suppose you're from some tiny country that has no chance to win any of this. You'd want to at least have some impact on the final winner, so you'd probably attack countries that you don't like rather than random ones, just so that at least if you die, you'll have taken out some of those evil guys from Hated Country X. This means that North Korea would probably be the first country to fall (they probably would've been anyway), and Israel and the Balkans would probably go pretty early as well.
So, it basically all would come down to which one of the juggernaut countries is the most globally liked. Lots of people hate China for reasons better not discussed here. Thus, India wins.
If you're looking for a sleeper, try Indonesia. They've got a ton of people, and nobody really hates them (at least not as far as I know).
China.
/thread
Russia could be formidable if they retreat to central Siberia. Napoleon and the Nazis had trouble with Russian winters.
The people of Isla Nublar would be pretty scrappy by now and it'd be pretty tricky getting to them with all the dangerous wildlife.
99.99 percent of the world's population would win.
Does a trained bear count as a weapon? I think it's an ally, not a weapon.
I will raise brown bears and train them to attack and kill my enemies. Bears are hard to kill even with weapons. Without weapons, they're invincible.
I lived in China.Teenagers practice their nuck-chucks nightly, and they train in tai-chai and gong fu (kung fu) en masse.When it comes to hand to hand, they will kick the ever living shi* out of us.
BIGNOOB wrote:
The average Chinese dude is small and weak! They stand no chance in 1 on 1 combat. Maybe if they swarmed the opponent they would have a shot.
Also the country that camps the hardest would win. Everyone would duke it out and then the team who chilled would sweep the competition. Geographical location means a lot too.
