When there is a war between two countries the military of each country fights against each other. But why don't the two leaders of both countries fight against each other and settle the issue. I understand that my suggestion sounds silly in modern day society. But it has several advantages.

  1. Save lives of soldiers of both sides.
  2. There will be no civilian casualties.
  3. Cities and villages will not be destroyed.
  4. Saves money and time.
  • 10
    Originally it was like this, but say you have no chance to win the fight but you still absolutely want to win, what do you do? Pick up other people who fight for your side. Congratulations you just invented the army. Then the other side does this as well, you replicate by increasing your army's size, the other side follows, and your euphoric idea of saving lives collapses.
    – Bregalad
    Feb 6 '18 at 11:12
  • Should people from both coutries encourage their leaders to fight for the country instead of sending an army?
    – chamal
    Feb 6 '18 at 11:19
  • 14
    Why should the losing country obey the rules?
    – Thern
    Feb 6 '18 at 12:15
  • Society has rules. We have Police for when people don't want to follow those rules. Sometimes, people really, really don't want to follow the rules, so the police are given weapons to make sure people follow the rules. And for times when lots of people (like entire nations) don't want to follow the rules, we have the Military. They're like the police, just stronger and not as nice.
    – UIDAlexD
    Feb 13 '18 at 18:29
  • 7
    Of course the down side to this idea is that countries would end up being ruled by professional wrestlers and MMA fighters. While potentially hilarious they may not be particularly competent in other areas.
    – user
    May 27 '19 at 10:13

The reason leaders don't fight is because the first nation to not fight by these rules will win, and whoever doesn't form an army will lose their stuff.

Angela Merkel decides that she's the rightful owner of Tokyo and declares war on Japan. In response, Shinzo Abe decides to step down and let Kisenosato Yutaka take control of Japan during the War of Merkel Aggression. See the problem? Countries would change their laws regarding leadership in order to make a good fighter the leader until the war is over. World 'leaders' would just be figureheads to fight the wars while the actual leaders control the country, much like armies and leaders today. However, a neat side effect of this system would of course be the rise of the Icelandic Empire.

Even if one a leader wins the war, what then? Will everyone in the country say "fair fight, it's your country now, we'll leave"? Of course not, they'll take up arms and fight the leader. And since the leader was just beaten, the people in the other country will take up arms to defend their stuff, and suddenly you're right back to two armies fighting.

  • You mention Mr Abe deciding to step down and let Kisenosato Yutaka take control. I hope you know that in Japan too, leaders are elected by voting. The Prime Minister is not the authority to decide who succeeds him if he steps down. Feb 6 '18 at 12:28
  • 6
    @ShantanuHebbar: Right now that's how it works, but if this is how wars were fought I assume the laws would change pretty quickly.
    – Giter
    Feb 6 '18 at 13:00
  • Okay. That could be a possibility. There are various views to this question. In fact that is the reason the question is very broad and opinion based. Feb 7 '18 at 7:33
  • I think Mrs. Merkel would bring a gun to the fight :-)
    – gnasher729
    Sep 28 '19 at 13:41
  • Because the leaders aren't interested in dying for their goals.

  • No-one would give up their stuff if they did

    • It's not as if the people on the ground would leave their homes, after e.g. Putin punching out Trump, in the way they would if Russian soldiers pointed guns at them

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .