The Nobel War Prize

[Berra]

Somebody made a DBWI about Obama winning the Nobel War Prize. It could happen. Well, maybe not for Obama but had Nobel been so inclined or more realisticly, the Swedish army/king/whatever payed for it, we would have a Nobel war prize. So say the Swedish army establish the prize in 1901, who would have gotten it? And would it change something?

And remember, Nobel prizes are usually given for fundamental research and years after the discovery dispite the will stating that it should be for discoveries this year. It's just not possible to judge discoveries that close to the event.

 

[MRig]

This probably butterflies away BHO entirely.

I'm skeptical of a Nobel War Prize at all, let alone its survival to the present day. Sweden has been without war since 1845. If the world in this 2009 is like our own, which it probably is, the Nobel War Prize may have been discontinued by now, probably in 1918, 1945, or 1989. If Hitler's still Hitler in TTL, he probably got it in 1940, which would go a long way to explaining why we probably wouldn't have it any more.

David Petraeus probably gets it in 2006 or so. Robert Gates might be another for his reforms to the U.S. military. I could also see it going to someone like Thomas Barnett for his advocacy of "war in the context of everything else." People who think the U.S. Armed Forces and its allies should be used for something besides a really awesome European war with Brezhnev.

 

[Mark E.]

And remember, Nobel prizes are usually given for fundamental research and years after the discovery dispite the will stating that it should be for discoveries this year. It's just not possible to judge discoveries that close to the event.

Scientific prizes are often delayed for years to assure the development will have an ongoing impact. The Peace Prize (and allegedly a war prize) relate to more current events and would be applied shorter term.

Given Nobel's convictions, a war prize sounds rather dystopic.

 

[Berra]

I don't think the main problem is the lack of Swedish wars. Sweden has Kungliga Krigsvetenskapsakademin, Royal Academy of War Science, which is sort of like Kungliga Vetenskapsakademin, the Royal Academy of Science. And they take care of the prizes in Physics and Chemistry and the sort of price in Economics.

So the infra structure is there, so to speak. The ideas of Alfred Nobel himself is a bigger problem but I suppose the king could have overcome the problem, at least back when he had power.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

I don't think the main problem is the lack of Swedish wars. Sweden has Kungliga Krigsvetenskapsakademin, Royal Academy of War Science, which is sort of like Kungliga Vetenskapsakademin, the Royal Academy of Science. And they take care of the prizes in Physics and Chemistry and the sort of price in Economics.

So the infra structure is there, so to speak. The ideas of Alfred Nobel himself is a bigger problem but I suppose the king could have overcome the problem, at least back when he had power.

Something on the order of a 'War' prize would likely butterfly the whole Nobel Prize thing completely.

Nobel was so annoyed at the bad press surrounding/guilty about the use of dynamite in war that he donated all that money, largely to rehabilitate his name. So a 'war' prize is right out.

Of course, if a different person donated the money for different reasons, there might be a possibility of such a thing. OT3H, Sweden wouldn't have been handing out the prizes, and if one of the major powers were doing the deciding, the prizes would have been far more political. (It's bad enough now.)

 

[The Kiat]

Wow! I think Hitler would have won that a few years in a row. After all, he threw a war and invited everybody.

 

[altamiro]

What about a prize for the "cleanest" warfare, i.e. a decisive victory with few casualties on both sides and no non-combattants harmed?

Surely it will not be continued onwards, but around the time the Hague rules of land war (preceding Geneva convention) were conceived, an idea of a "prize for clean war" doesn't seem to far off.

 

[The Kiat]

What about a prize for the "cleanest" warfare, i.e. a decisive victory with few casualties on both sides and no non-combattants harmed?

Surely it will not be continued onwards, but around the time the Hague rules of land war (preceding Geneva convention) were conceived, an idea of a "prize for clean war" doesn't seem to far off.

Clean war? What are they going to do, shoot spit wads at each other?

 

[TNF]

Clean war? What are they going to do, shoot spit wads at each other?

Follow the rules of warfare, minimize casualties where possible, try and avoid excessive civilian casualties, etc.

 

[The Kiat]

Follow the rules of warfare, minimize casualties where possible, try and avoid excessive civilian casualties, etc.

America tries not to kill civilians, but in urban combat it's kind of unavoidable

 

[altamiro]

Clean war? What are they going to do, shoot spit wads at each other?

Ideally, place the opponent into a situation where he cannot do anything but admit defeat BEFORE the battle starts.

Failing that, minimal overall casualties, no/few civilian casualties etc.

Urban combat was not thought of as a rule around 1900. This was supposed to be something from the uncivilized past. Sadly, the reality proved this conception wrong.

 

[KingByng]

Doesn't a Nobel War Prize go against what the Nobel Prizes were originally set up for? It's kinda like having an Academy Award for the shittiest movie.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Doesn't a Nobel War Prize go against what the Nobel Prizes were originally set up for? It's kinda like having an Academy Award for the shittiest movie.

Hear, hear!