We know that the way our world works does not provide us with the most conventional method of war.

So great is the need to remain in power, to preserve all that has been achieved, that our traditional approach is to absolutely annihilate everyone that could pose a threat in one fell swoop. Or 'wave' as we have come to know it. For the sake of the experience, I remain hopeful that one day that changes.

I'd like to see us act on the respect and integrity needed to organize chaos. To roll the dice, to take the gamble and feel the rush that so many feel can only peak with a Tops bet. Most of all, feel the swell of pride and sense of achievement when it pays off. Examples? Sure.

The Skirmish

Picture the scene. A dispute breaks out between a pair of sub crews from separate cities. A minor event, a mugging, a misfire of weapon. As both sides look to protect their members interests, an arrangement is made. 

5 representatives from each crew are sent to a neutral location to settle their differences on behalf of the crew. They agree on a start time and fight until either everyone from the opposing side lay dead, or a retreat is forced. Either way, the winning side settle the dispute on their own terms. A cash reward, notoriety or just the pride of being the ones to come out on top?

The War

After months of peace and building of resources and skills, a conflict arises. A new opportunity is made available, a new city or money making feature. Or perhaps unsettling rumours are circulating that you want to address, to be the bigger mafioso and discuss 1 to 1 with your counterpart in another city. Maybe though, you just need to clear out bad blood?

A pair of city heads meet, decide on a neutral location and send their people to the mattresses. They fight alongside them on the front lines? They observe from a distance? What is at stake here? Do they step down? Pay out? 

War ensures between the gathered masses, it is over within the day, or maybe an agreement is made that only five bodies hit the ground a day? Maybe it is over after so many have died? A retreat is called?

How we live this life is up to us, what we make of it is our own choice. Just because there is an efficient way of keeping yourself alive for a few more days, does not mean it is the most fulfilling. To one day twist what we know is normal, reach out to a competitor and say "Look, we gotta talk." would be an inspirational event I would certainly want to witness. Going to war would mean something. Laying down your life would be voluntary, not by chance. 

Following the recent Valentines day massacre, wouldn't you want to experience that sense of achievement on the larger stage?

Rathbone listens quietly from the shadows to Connie and contemplates the words coming from her mouth. He nods to himself, then waits for Connie to finish speaking and steps forward.

I enjoyed the sentiments you spoke of, but I pose this question to you, in return: Wouldn't it just be better if we didn't have war at all?

Rathbone grinned, knowing the words he spoke were only meant half-heartedly.

Of course a Utopia isn't possible in this world we live in. We aren't good people. We do bad things.

And it isn't just our leaders that need fear swimming with the fishes. We have, on many occasions, witnessed the disenfranchised person stray from their family and take as many of our lives as possible, on their way out of this life..."innocent lives", so to speak...those that never offended said parties.

And so, for our leaders to simply resolve their differences mano y mano; it simply couldn't assure us, or them, that the family would remain unscathed, after a winner has been decided. What is to stop the member of the losing leaders family from simply "going rogue" and taking as many of the winning leaders family members out as possible? The risk certainly isn't worth it.

A good leader knows this. A good leader knows that we aren't good people. A good leader will do whatever it takes to ensure the safety of their family moving forward.

After his long-winded speech, Rathbone tips his deerstalker hat and begins to shuffle off, down the street. Turning back, he smiles and addresses Connie once more...

But just imagine if we lived in such a world...just imagine.

Cecelia had listened to the words of the young woman, nodding along as she spoke eloquently from her soap box. Then, she listened to the words of the man who replied. At present, it seemed there was a long lull in the conversation. Cecelia finally felt her thoughts should turn to spoken phrase. 

"Your suggested style of conflict resolution certainly appears to be a pleasant alternative to the current state of warfare. As the speaker before me has implied, however, there seems to be an underlying naivety, or in better terms, hope, for a drastic reduction of casualties. We have seen, in the past, duels to resolve issues between two sides, somewhat as you have suggested. On a larger scale, I couldn't see it work without any additional problems resulting from the situation. War is messy. Removals are surgical. There are bad losers on any team you will ever play for. In war, those bad losers that do not die will up end shooting someone or planning to shoot someone. With a removal, their next of kin may try the same. It certainly helps that their next of kin takes a while to find a large enough gun to do any damage, though."

Cecelia sighed. "What I mean to say here is that any sort of action calling for the death of someone or some people is done for one reason. Change. The status quo has deteriorated such that the deaths are deemed necessary for the 'greater good' and for the protection of the group doing the shooting, or for other reasons based on prior actions or words. Either way, the party marked for death must be destroyed."

"To return to your suggestion, I believe there is not a situation, calling for somebody's death, in which the leader should not participate in your proposed battle. But, I feel like this is much more of an unneeded complication in the way conflict is waged, for rules are rarely followed when life and death are on the line and therefore adding more rules would just mean more rules getting broken. At the very least for this to be implemented, by the nature of change, the current leadership as a whole would likely have to be turned over, or enough such that the norm is adopted. I doubt very many would like that to happen."

"Rather, I believe your suggestion underlines one significant aspect of current- at least visible- diplomacy. The lack of communication. Nobody likes to die. People generally don't like to die *even more* when they don't know why they are being killed, and furthermore if they haven't done something they are being accused of. Now I don't have a perfect remedy for this problem, but it certainly helps to acknowledge the issue of communication. To quote Albert Einstein: 'Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.' It would be wrong to think that peace is easy and eternal, but any situation can be better addressed on all sides by openly communicating. Since we've all grown up in the criminal underworld, we certainly aren't accustomed to this style of diplomacy. Things can always change..."

Cecelia quieted and cautiously waited for a reply or continuance of the discussion. 

Spiels sat and listened for awhile.  A lot of the talk was over his head, but he has had thoughts before about how he would like to conduct a war at times......He took his hat off and stepped to the front.

War and death is something we all know is a part of our world.  It's going to happen to all of us.  But I've often times considered some of the other people in this thing of ours that have other talents......other than the ability to shoot thru dozens and dozens of Bodyguards.  I've often thought about how intriguing it would be to be able to kidnap certain people when war breaks out.  There are always those sneaky bastards, those ones that know the streets, can blend in without being seen.  What if there was a way to capture them.  Render them useless because they are in an enemy's HQ getting the shit kicked out of them.  A note could be sent....

"Dear opposing CL-

    We have little Johnny 2 Fingers.  He's losing his ability to (insert skill here) by the minute.  Send $2 million over in small bills or he will soon be Johnny no Fingers.  

Sincerely,

Your enemy"

Spiels pauses and thinks for a moment.  

I'm not sure how we would implement this into this thing of ours, but it sure would make it interesting.  And cut down on the deaths.

Spiels steps down and hopes someone else likes his idea.

I agree with the others who have spoken in saying that while this method of settling disputes would definitely be preferable in some cases, it would be almost impossible to put in to practice between two major cities. Communication is definitely an issue, simply airing a grievance with another city can be risky enough, trying to plan something like this carries such a high risk of provoking an attack that it would be almost irresponsible to the members of your city.

There is also the problem concerning the balance of power. Whichever city believes themselves to have more shooters and bodyguards will surely feel that fighting on a completely even playing field is just handicapping them with nothing in return. 

However despite all this, and what others have contributed before me, there is one case I can see where these ideas could be implemented in an interesting and effective way. Specifically in an open city, such as Seattle at the moment. If the power which oversees an open city states in the rules for the open city that any grievance or war has to be settled following the conditions Connie suggests, or similar ones, then it could be properly enforced by the outside power. Depending on your perspective it could also help to ensure that the strongest candidate for Godfather - Chairman emerges from the open city, rather than the most cunning or prone to violence. 

Just a thought given the current existence of an open city where it seems like these ideas, or something similar, could be put in place without too much trouble. 

Rathbone, CeceliaBriggs, Spiels and Moyan.

Thank you all for your comments. I see the trend in your responses leans towards the element of controlling and enforcing such an approach to conflict resolution. Unfortunately it would not be controlled, however the beauty of it is, it wouldn't need to be. The people who hold a firm belief in honour, integrity and respect would observe the rules without physical restraints in place, just like the gangs of old. Pride is what held them to it, pride in their decisions and standing in the world. The fact that they lived by that code was recognised, and so reciprocated.

Knowing that a person of this kind of stature could be trusted allowed for approaches to be made, arrangements to be put in place. "Pistols at dawn" as they used to say. Not creeping into a sleeping persons room and shooting them in the back of the head. There will always be rogue elements which do not care for our rules, but do they anyway? And given the opportunity to fight another day, wouldn't they take it if their leader was slain in battle?

MoYan, you present possibly the best opportunity we will get to witness this kind of approach, which is within a city that is governed by another. 

What we should remember is, there are many rules we put in place ourselves, and adhere to, without any obligation to do so by the big man in the sky. Pick pocketing and mugging, shooting targets of a particular age. It's all in the way of thinking that we bring to the table.