Originally Posted by fejknick
I just cut out the bla bla bla and got to what i was so shocked to hear that i had to answer.
Ill even say that you win, if you didn't read my posts then i just cant do anything else but to let you say that guns are superior than swords.
But what bothers me is that you're talking physics, and i know physics. And you're saying that its a fact that we cant go back in time, a.....
You wouldn't understand, but yes, you are right in one thing, we cant change the future were in right now, but we could alter the future in the timeline we would end up in. And the future we are going to have here is up to us to decide.
But back on topic.
Guns win in ranged and swords in close encounters as long as the one holding the gun don't see you. Did i get your point right?
I figured I'd just leave the rest of your posts directed to Russkie for Russkie. Anyway you already know people can't go back in time, so keep that "swords only would have made the world better" crap to yourself. So how do you think we can alter our own future to remove guns? If NATO throws away all their guns I strongly doubt the rest of the world will follow.
Anyway as I've stated before swords have become obsolete on the modern battlefield. Combat blades will still have an important role, but not anywhere near as important as what swords used to be. A sword can still kill a man with a gun if the man with the gun is either really bad with a gun or if the man with the sword can sneak up on the man with the gun. In a case of 1000000 vs 1000000 it's safe to assume that stealth wouldn't be all that easy if possible at all since as mentioned before major battles with swords have had a history of always being 2 large armies running at each other.