Heath Winchester wrote:If somebody was doing that though, wouldn't America or the U.K. jump in and stop it? You know Americans can't keep themselves out of anything.
In a modern day realistic situation, is it still possible to take over the world through military force?
What are your winning conditions? Total occupation of the planet? Control a majority of the population and/or land? Does a country that willingly submit to a vassal state count as a military victory or a diplomatic one?
As for the opposition--if the coalition keeps the war conventional
I would wargame this one as a coalition of China and India ( populations of (19.87 and 17.16 percent, respectively). The combined forces would engage in a strictly land only war, which would negate the naval advantage of the opposition. I wouldn't look for any serious threats from South America or Africa, so that is about one third of the total landmass that can wait for the a 'mop-up', if it gets that far.
As to Japan--the threat of nuking the whole island if they attack *or* allow opposition forces to use Japan as a staging area might work. Pointing out that you have absolutely no intention of invading Japan, but will not tolerate any interference from them couldn't hurt. China and Japan have a history together.
zenithSmil3 wrote:Ah, nothing like plotting world domination over a cup of coffee.
I'll stick to the "traditional" definition of world domination as total occupation of the planet. I'm sure it is impossible for it to be a complete military victory because as soon as great success in occupying lands is shown, naturally a lot of smaller countries would probably willingly submit... though there will be considerable resentment and so, though actions are 'diplomatic' I doubt the thoughts are...
zenithSmil3 wrote:Being one who still considers herself a Chinese citizen... yes... we do have a history with Japan. However, wouldn't there still be a risk of opposition forces using Japan as a staging area? Would it simply be easier to just take Japan? Non-aggression pacts have been broken before. Furthermore, there will still be the South East Asia islands to worry about. I think those would serve as intermediate zones for opposing armies while preparing for an invasion to China.
As to Japan--the threat of nuking the whole island if they attack *or* allow opposition forces to use Japan as a staging area might work.
zenithSmil3 wrote:Might there be any trouble with Russia? "In 2001, the close relations between the two countries were formalized with the Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation, a twenty-year strategic, economic, and controversially, (arguably) an implicit military treaty." How would Russia side then...
Also, by directly attacking an ally of the US I would be at war with them.
Then there would be the Last European War, where the diplomacy would be quite straightforward--"lead or silver" at a national level (generation three). In the fourth generation--assuming there is one--would see the realization of a united planet.
If you do stick to the traditional definition, don't forget your white cat and evil laughter.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests