World Domination

[zenithSmil3]

In a modern day realistic situation, is it still possible to take over the world through military force?

Now because of global connections, will that make war harder to wage with all the different alliances going on? (Especially finding a reason on why the war is there in the first place.)

Or, has the time to take over the world with the military long gone and the only way to do it now is just to play in politics. I wait for the day in which all the world conflicts will be resolved on the internet. Apparently Estonia has some kind of cyber military.

[Heath Winchester]

That's an interesting question. I know that Russia and Japan have huge military forces. I remember hearing that Russia can mobilize 90% of all it's Military in 24 hours. Actually I think it might have been 90% of it's population if 24 hours. I heard it from a pretty reliable source as well.

Anyway, with all the Nuclear power around I don't know how one could. If tried the Earth would go up in flames I think. You'd have to have a pretty substantial amount of power to do something like that. Way more than Hitler ever did. In my opinion, WWII ended the chance for anything like that. If America had wanted to they could've possibly taken over the world at the end of it but that's long gone now.

[zenithSmil3]

When taking over the world, don't mess with Russia, learning from what happened to people that did. Russia's military is the big population.

I don't think nuclear warfare will happen should one attempt using brute force. There is the mutually assured destruction and hopefully it is quite obvious that in nuclear warfare, everybody loses and the only way to win is not to play. Sorry, just watched war games ^^

But, because of mutually assured destruction, shouldn't that stop most people from using nukes? Countries now have been looking into cyber warfare... though I feel a lot of it is just espionage... and to spread propaganda. Not too sure how effective that would be.

[IncandescentLight]

However, the world still can be dominated diplomatically and peacefully

[godofcereal]

China has spies EVERYWHERE! You cant take a shit without them knowing. They are even in your computer...
They also make nearly every product in the world. They own the world.

[zenithSmil3]

China has spies EVERYWHERE! You cant take a shit without them knowing. They are even in your computer...
They also make nearly every product in the world. They own the world.

I'm from China XD

Or used to be...

I thought of if China stopped exporting goods, wouldn't that be a pretty good opening to invade the U.S...

However, the world still can be dominated diplomatically and peacefully

Is that possible? =0

[AtlasDark]

One nation may deploy extremely influential diplomacy; for instance, an institution with certain powers may eventually be able to sway the opinions of many political officials. Though it isn't the best analogy, imagine something along the lines of the UN with one man spearheading it, growing more powerful by the second - at the rate of "friendly" diplomatic relations, he may begin to subtly imply certain points to convince others to do his bidding.

[Dan R]

I know that Russia
and Japan have huge military forces.

Japan have a tiny army, its defence is the responsability of the US. them not having an army was part of the surrender terms, Russia doesn't have the technology or the money, the economy collapsed. China has the biggest army but i guess the US has the strongest.
And world domination will never be possible due to democrocy, for example, if the US invaded and occupied China, China would have more votes than the US so they would then elect a Chinese president. then change the US name to China and they would have won.
And i think imediatly after WWII The US would never be able to hold the world under occupation. Russia was still very strong.

[zenithSmil3]

Social Engineering to the extreme XD

Well the UN delegates have no power really. They know their countries stance and stick to it until told to otherwise. That way, one man can't really influence the rest. The UN is pretty inefficient that way that everybody is just looking out for their countries own interests and so no decisions get made unless something coincides with all countries interests... but than again, you mentioned that wasn't the perfect analogy so I won't stick to that so much... sorry

But still, the relationship between nations probably won't work out that way. One nation cannot hope to persuade another diplomatically without some serious compromise because as I mentioned, each nation always looks out for their own self interest. I think that method is more effective in the relationship between a nation and its people than between nations.

[AtlasDark]

It's mostly politics and guns.

Political pressure can work to an extent, and if one nation has enough influence, it may drag many factions around at its whim - once said nation eliminates any competition (or folds them, for that matter), it can then look towards other methods for complete domination; for instance, a large nation could subdue smaller nations and instill pseudo-patriotism to turn the people to loyalists (effectively, creating a puppet gov't). From there, it could branch out to create numerous satellite nations, and when it feels that it has the sufficient strength or fewer foes to contend with, it may launch a military offensive and offer propaganda that the nation under attack is either spying or holds feelings against the dominant nation to attempt to use mass media to convince the people that they are "right" and the nations not in the coalition are "infidels" or what-have-you.

My analogies suck.