World Domination

[the0ath]

I personally believe that the battle for the fate of the whole world will come down to Israel and her allies vs the enemies of Israel. I've already chosen my side.

[Finarfin Palantir]

Well, what an interesting topic indeed, I feell the need to start of with another question, is someone not already dominating the world?

In my personal the world is already completely dominated. Just not by military forces. Rather economic ones (Oil comes to mind here)

Besides, the main problem we have is exponential growth, at the current rate, we'll quite literally overpopulate ourselves into a state of complete and utter chaos, the resources we have avaialable simply isn't sufficient to carry on with the current trent and when this happens, third world countries will carry on as they always have, but first world countries will need to adapt. I think we'll see a major change in our everyday lifestyles.

Getting back to the question at hand though, nuclear weapons are a big no. If I had to take over the world, I'd call in one man, probably one nobody has ever heard of either... Daan Goosen as the work he's done on biological weapons are unequalled by anything I've ever heard, the destruction of entire races, with no long term effects on the earth.

I read earlier that Africa won't pose any signicant threat to anyone who attempts world domination, I have to disagree, in a full frontal assualt, fair enough, our military is utterly useless, but there are other channels in Africa which won't be that forgiving. I urge everyone who doubts this to go read up about the Boer War, since England was surely thought a few things, as well as the man I mentioned earlier and the corporation called NECSA

Furthermore with all the classified projects run in Africa, it might be harder than some of the bigger world powers might think, although I still believe the strongest power in the world at this stage at least, is China.

The hardest countriest to invade would be China, Russia, Japan and then America.

In my honest opinion if a country like China declares war on America, they will have a hard time finding allies, while China will pretty much have the backing of the entire Asia and probably most of Africa, I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to predict the outcome of that one. (As I'm sure Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia and India are going to join the Chinese side)

China has set the stage, they are in the economic position to invade the wherever they damn well please, they're military is rated among the best, they're intel is unmatched, this alone makes them, at least in my opinion, the most dangerous country in the world.

[IncandescentLight]

I really must differ, as nuclear-armed countries won't foolishly attack each other, as the United States has tested nuclear bombs over 5000 times. Furthermore, nuclear vs. nuclear will end in a white out, both sides with terrible casualties. Such came the term, "Nuclear deterrent".

[Finarfin Palantir]

Yes I agree, but you have to understand the difference between a nuclear weapon and a biological agent.

Also, how do you propose to launch a nuke in this day and age?
A lot has changed since World War, Nuclear defense systems have come a long long way.

[Charlieace]

I think another way would be bioligical. I very much doubt the world could be conquered by means of nuclear arms, or we'd have an apocalypse on our hands.

What could be done is a virus. Someone makes it, hides in an isolated and air-tight facility, and waits a few years. By this time the world will have perished.

Anybody ever read Stephen King's "The Stand"? Much similar to that except that it would not be an accident.

[zenithSmil3]

I think another way would be biological. I very much doubt the world could be conquered by means of nuclear arms, or we'd have an apocalypse on our hands.

What could be done is a virus. Someone makes it, hides in an isolated and air-tight facility, and waits a few years. By this time the world will have perished.

Anybody ever read Stephen King's "The Stand"? Much similar to that except that it would not be an accident.

I highly doubt the world is going to stand by and be infected. What biological agent are you proposing? And the entire world being perished... does that go under the definition of world domination? It isn't so easy to kill off such a large population of 6 billion. Maybe a large majority will die, but assuming your virus is incurable, a cure will still be developed. There are also early warning signs that a biological agent has been deployed... animals generally fall sick first, and people with compromised immune systems.

You doubt the world could be conquered by means of nuclear arms because you'd have an apocalypse on your hands. However, isn't the world being perished pretty much an apocalypse assuming that the biological agent is successful? A virus is not exactly the most efficient means of cleansing the world.

[aNewHobby4me]

I agree, no nation will idly stand by and do nothing while its people die--not if they can respond. And if you're thinking that would be a 'response in kind' (biological weapons used in response to a biological attack), think again. The US has one big nuclear hammer, and all the world's problems are nails.

The United States maintains nuclear weapons to "deter, dissuade, and defeat" a range of immediate and potential conventional, nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons threats. Still, the United States has pledged not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states that are members of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), except if attacked by such a state associated or allied with a nuclear-armed state. At the same time, successive administrations have maintained a policy of "strategic ambiguity" by refusing to rule out nuclear weapons use in response to biological or chemical weapons attacks.

Source.

"Strategic ambiguity". I don't know, but I do believe this is more frightening than "Mutually Assured Destruction".

[The7thGuest]

I find it quite strange that your seeing "biological weapons" or a "virus" equal to wiping out everyone.

Daan Goosen, as mentioned earlier, developed a virus that would target specific ethnic groups, the weapon was developed during the apartheid regime. And it's purpose was not to kill them, but it renders them unable to produce a next generation.

Perfectly safe for certain ethnic groups and animals, I'm pretty sure this can be tweaked even further. In 10 years technology has come a long way.

Either way, I have to agree, the world will not ever be ruled by means of force again. I do believe that someone might make the world totally dependant on them from a economical perspective and through this power, rule the world.

[daring_du]

Either way, I have to agree, the world will not ever be ruled by means of force again. I do believe that someone might make the world totally dependant on them from a economical perspective and through this power, rule the world.

I don't think nuclear "force" is out of the question; it just seems that way to reasonable people. but then you have to ask yourselves how reasonable were the people who could build a fucking bomb than can kill billions of people? I think people are probably referring to the idea of "Mutually Assured Destruction" (i.e. M.A.D) when they talk about the pointlessness of a nuclear war between several countries who all possess the same kind destructive weapons.

HOWEVER, dare I point out a quote from the Dan Akyroid/ Chevy Chase movie, "Spies like us" where a respected general within the US military quotes, "An unused weapon is a useless weapon", when referring to a nuclear strike against Russia? Can anyone dare refute this! (please feel free to substitute the countries in question as desired).

I'm not sure, 7thguest, how to take your comment that you don't think the world will ever be ruled by means of force, again, yet, you are willing to consider that perhaps the world could be dominated by some kind of economical "power".

Whether it's through brute strength or economical manipulation I don't see much difference between the "forces" being employed, with the exception that in sheer brute force people may not have a choice in being conquered no matter how much they resist , whereas in economical situations people DO have more choice in how much faith they put in money or resources. In the latter example, greed is usually what causes the problem, yet I find it hard to believe that force is still NOT applied in such situations.

"Sweatshops" provide a means of employment to the local people of a particularly poor country, and in many cases the local people appreciate the "opportunity" but it doesn't take much scratching below the surface to find that the cooporations themselves would NEVER accept such little pay themselves. They use the "economic" atmosphere to exploit the desperation of the local people of whatever poor country it is they go to. When asked about the ethics of the whole practice, they slyly claim that without their factories the people wouldn't be making ANYTHING!

However, one wonders that, in a situation where the world's resources are finite to begin with, why is it that some countries are SO much poorer than others, which just happens to conveniently open the door for the "poor atmosphere" that just so happens to conveniently profit the rich countries even further?

Anyway, enough diatribe for now...