World Domination

Current events and political views (It's not liberal vs conservative , it's better versus worse!)

Re: World Domination

Post by Heath Winchester on Sun May 17, 2009 6:56 pm
([msg=23862]see Re: World Domination[/msg])

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. ;)
I don't need my parents anymore. Google answers all my questions now.

"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong."-Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Heath Winchester
Experienced User
Experienced User
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:41 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: World Domination

Post by AtlasDark on Mon May 18, 2009 5:30 am
([msg=23866]see Re: World Domination[/msg])

Likely.

Probably would cause quite a ruckus, depending on how far the nation has progressed. Though I'm speculating, so my thoughts on it could be completely off. :P
User avatar
AtlasDark
Poster
Poster
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: World Domination

Post by aNewHobby4me on Mon May 18, 2009 9:19 am
([msg=23870]see Re: World Domination[/msg])

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. ;)


They didn't the last time. They just called it a "cold war".

@AtlasDark: Nice summing up of 20th century Soviet Union.

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


A very interesting question. 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?

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 for the opposition--if the coalition keeps the war conventional, with the very real threat of going nuclear would keep the opposition at a disadvantage. I would also keep their forces divided on several fronts, if possible. Maybe it is time for North Korea to finally invade the South. Of course I'd be careful to be completely 'neutral' (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). Pick any opponent of Israel and encourage invasion---support them with enough equipment to give a good start, then see how it goes from there. Torn between the current situation in Iraq, and supporting their attacked allies in two distant parts of the world the US wouldn't be able to concentrate their forces effectively.

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.

The goals? Global domination is the ultimate goal, but as the intermediate goals--I am sure India could do something with Pakistan, and China's goals should be food and fuel. Cities and civilian populations are unimportant, feeding and moving your army is. This means Russia and Middle Eastern oil fields. It wouldn't hurt to 'give' Afghanistan to the Indians to get bogged down in, while China moves into Iran. Encouraging refugees to flee ahead of your armies to put additional strain on the opposition economies and hinder their troop movements would help, so try to empty out all the cities as you sweep across the land.

If the coalition makes it this far it would have a good handle on world domination by possession of land, population, force of arms and economic leverage. Time to consolidate the holdings and start printing applications for admission into the New World Order. And in a Europe overrun with refugees and short on food and energy, peace and prosperity might begin to look good, no?

That's the story as I would spin it, over a nice cup of coffee. Hope you enjoyed it.
"To understand recursion you must first understand recursion."
aNewHobby4me
Poster
Poster
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: World Domination

Post by zenithSmil3 on Tue May 19, 2009 3:48 am
([msg=23911]see Re: World Domination[/msg])

Ah, nothing like plotting world domination over a cup of coffee. :D

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?


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...

As for the opposition--if the coalition keeps the war conventional


Wars never really do keep 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.


Nice... 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...

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.


Japan has not been exactly 'military active' in the past decade or so. Their military is "restricted by the Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, which renounces Japan's right to declare war or use military force as a means of settling international disputes." While your perhaps unreasoned (aside from the peace... prosperity reasons that virtually every soon to be dictator has...) military take over does not coincide with Japan's reasonings on when to not use the army, they certainly couldn't do much as their military is still quite limited. I think it'll be pretty easy to just occupy Japan from China easily.

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.

Weaving out a scenario, who will be part of the pro-takeovertheworld coalition (I have no better name for it...)and who will be the adversaries? As you said, China and India...

It's kind a of a tender balance between China and America... 5 trillion dollars China has invested in their national debt, making it a rather fiscally unwise decision. Not that that matters too much?
Meh.
User avatar
zenithSmil3
Poster
Poster
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 8:58 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: World Domination

Post by aNewHobby4me on Wed May 20, 2009 10:17 am
([msg=24007]see Re: World Domination[/msg])

zenithSmil3 wrote:Ah, nothing like plotting world domination over a cup of coffee. :D


Another day, another cuppa...

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...


The traditional definition fits nicely with my plans for global domination. It means that, regardless of any alliance or treaty, eventually *every nation on earth* will become an enemy to be conquered. All that is needed is the wisdom to when use diplomacy (delaying tactic) and when to use military force.

My method of a 'diplomatic victory' over smaller nations might satisfy your requirement of a military victory. The first step would be that all military bases and hardware would be turned over to my forces. Secondly, their military personnel would be required to serve in my armies for a period of five years. They would be dispersed as thinly as possible throughout the units, and none would be stationed in their home nation. Once these two conditions have been met, the nation ceases to be a nation and becomes a province of the Terran Empire. Federal laws would apply, but they would still be able to run their local politics as they see fit--as long as they pay their taxes and don't start any insurrections.

Would you allow it? The country was occupied by military forces, the opposing force has been rendered unable to put up any resistance (both by not being in the country and having the individual soldiers outnumbered and under constant surveillance by my military) , and only then allowed to become a province.

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.


Good points, all. I gave more thought to Japan than the rest of the world combined. Oh, I wanted to take Japan first--and badly. But I finally decided against it for reasons both tactical and strategic.
Tactically, I would have to get there by either sea or air--and keep resupplied the same way. It would take a very large military presence, and those troops could be used more effectively elsewhere.
Strategically, I would rather have Japan in one piece. Island nations survive by trade, and as the Empire expands it would control more and more of the commodities that Japan needs to survive and prosper.
Also, by directly attacking an ally of the US I would be at war with them. What I want is a US distracted on several fronts, supporting her allies in smaller conflicts in widely scattered parts of the globe. I want UN sanctions and trade embargoes. I want global condemnation. In other words, I want lots of talk and no action--which gives me a free hand to do what is needed :)

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...


You are right. When I spoke of Russia earlier, I actually meant Kazahstan and Mongolia first. Then it would be up to Russia. If Russia tolerates sharing such a long border with China, then I could turn south and mop up those smaller nations in Southeast Asia before turning westward. If Russia forces the conflict, then at least my armies will be in the right place and ready to go.

If, on the other hand, Russia wanted to join the China-India Alliance--that might be a problem, actually. Sandwiched between two allies who will eventually become enemies, China would have to be *very* careful. Still, I had rather attack the Russian Federation than the Soviet Union.

Overall, I would say there would be massive expansion followed by a period of consolidation (generation one). Then a period of 'diplomatic conquests' and consolidation in Africa and Indonesia (generation two). 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.

Well, I am out of coffee. Hope you enjoyed the sequel.
"To understand recursion you must first understand recursion."
aNewHobby4me
Poster
Poster
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: World Domination

Post by zenithSmil3 on Fri May 22, 2009 10:52 am
([msg=24188]see Re: World Domination[/msg])

For Great Justice.
You know what you doing.

If you do stick to the traditional definition, don't forget your white cat and evil laughter.

Also, by directly attacking an ally of the US I would be at war with them.


Something inevitable. China has considerable trade with the US. They say if one goes down, so does the other. When the war begins, I suggest to cut off all exports to the US. That would totally destroy the economy first and you can't really supply the US while attacking other countries can you? The US involvement at the beginning of the war is unavoidable unless they decide to stay out of it though it is kinda aggressive if all trade was cut off. (Made in China)

Don't attack Russia on its own land. At least not at the beginning of the war. The US would be hard to get to though I suppose you could set up your troops on the South American continent and move North from there. First seize the Southeast Asian islands first though. How would you start moving in onto Europe?

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.


Not that that'd last very long. "A War to End all Wars" XD
Meh.
User avatar
zenithSmil3
Poster
Poster
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 8:58 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: World Domination

Post by bearhunta on Sun May 24, 2009 8:10 pm
([msg=24318]see Re: World Domination[/msg])

World domination wouldn't be possible using military force without a huge bloody war. Governments nowadays conduct pysop wars and disinformation campaigns more often. The war is for your mind.
bearhunta
New User
New User
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:02 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: World Domination

Post by aNewHobby4me on Mon May 25, 2009 8:27 am
([msg=24360]see Re: World Domination[/msg])

zenithSmil3 wrote:
If you do stick to the traditional definition, don't forget your white cat and evil laughter.




Is that a SPECTRE I see looking over your shoulder? :)

As I was reading your post, in my mind I was responding, "World domination isn't the goal. The purpose is not to conquer or punish, but a war of Unification, to ....", and then there was no use denying it--I was building backstory for Joss Whedon's Firefly universe. It wasn't intentional.
"To understand recursion you must first understand recursion."
aNewHobby4me
Poster
Poster
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: World Domination

Post by zenithSmil3 on Mon May 25, 2009 8:32 am
([msg=24361]see Re: World Domination[/msg])

That would be quite problematic ;)
Meh.
User avatar
zenithSmil3
Poster
Poster
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 8:58 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: World Domination

Post by Warweredeclared on Wed May 27, 2009 4:48 pm
([msg=24514]see Re: World Domination[/msg])

I really doubt that one could conquer the world openly. Occupying a country is very expensive, as is a war, which means at some point in the conquest it would be imposable to keep control of what you had already conquered and keep expanding at the same time. Add to this that, once it became clear that you were aiming for complete domination, you would very quickly find yourself in a multiple front war. I'm pretty sure there is no single entity that could fund that. Not even Walmart.
All things that are, are ours. But we must care. For if we do not care, we do not exist. If we do not exist, than there is nothing but blind oblivion...
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man? -Terry Pratchett's Reaper Man
Warweredeclared
New User
New User
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:10 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


PreviousNext

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests