World Domination

[zenithSmil3]

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.

Yes, openly conquering the world would be difficult and as a previous post stated, even if any other country wanted a bit of the fun, you'd have to betray them eventually, leading to a war on multiple fronts as you said. Still, it was a problem Germany faced that they did manage to circumvent for some time.

But, if it becomes clear you are aiming for complete domination, that doesn't necessarily mean every country would turn against you.

Walmart hasn't taken over the world yet, just America.

[aNewHobby4me]

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.

Totally agree. War is a bad business model. I tried to mitigate the costs of occupation by an exodus of refugees (no need to guard someone who isn't there) in the direct military conquest, and by assimilating the population as quickly as possible in the 'diplomatic military conquests' (you're one of us, now!).

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.

Again, I totally agree. In my war gaming scenario I tried to delay this problem by stretching my planetary unification over four generations. Democratic governments suffer from a short-sightedness that extends only to the next election. I seriously doubt that they would see a plan that, when started today, would only be completed by my great-grandchildren's generation.

Peace, as history knows it, usually means "wait a minute while we reload!" That's why I planned on periods of expansion and conquest, and periods of 'peace' and consolidation. Meaning, of course, that the war continues at economic, cultural, and diplomatic levels.

My plan was as much keeping my costs down as it was making it as expensive as possible for the rest of the world to oppose me. I was using Japan as an economic weather vane. If I could keep Japan neutral and intact, the day that Japan decided that dealing with China was in her best interests over the US would be the day I won. The rest is just mop-up.

[zenithSmil3]

Hmmm... remember what happened to Rome?

[aNewHobby4me]

Hmmm... remember what happened to Rome?

The city? Yes, much squabbling about who is in charge, poor money management, and eventually they had their water turned off, as I recall.

Or were you referring to Imperium Romanum?

[zenithSmil3]

Oh, basically I felt Rome fell apart because it got too widespread... it was unable to maintain itself and outside forces didn't help much either ^^

[aNewHobby4me]

Oh, basically I felt Rome fell apart because it got too widespread... it was unable to maintain itself and outside forces didn't help much either ^^

Yes, the empire did grow beyond the range of convenient communications of the day. I would imagine that was the main reason for having two emperors, "in order to better administer the vast territory." Modern communications fixes that nicely.

As Warweredeclared pointed out, holding onto conquered territories is expensive (both then and now). They couldn't afford further expansion--so they stopped.

To their credit, the empire did last until 1453. Imagine how long it would have lasted had the Western Empire not converted to Christianity in 380? Or they hadn't used lead for their plumbing? Or if they (had/had not) ....

[hackingnexus]

nowdays it is not possible to overtake the world with simple brute force as the avarage person now has a lot more power and we don't just do what we're told we like to question are orders. Even if you did rule the world there will always be people who you have to stay on the good side as they are the leaders of their respective fields. i.e bill gates, lord j.sainsbury, sam walmart etc etc all these people lead their fields and everyone respects them, without them you couldn't rule the world yet the whole point of ruling the world is that you control everything independantly.

[zenithSmil3]

yet the whole point of ruling the world is that you control everything independantly.

I disagree. In a way, several countries are ruled by one collective, the government. However, that does not mean the government is ruling, controlling everything independently. Controlling the group, is the point. It is not controlling the individual.

Furthermore, I doubt those people you mention will hold up much of a resistance towards the new leadership =). Of course people don't just do what they're told. However, it has always been like that and should we stick the cobblestones down, no reason to utterly panic. Have you ever read Orwell?

[Charlieace]

I believe that the world will never again be attempted to conquered by force (spare an extra-terrestrial invasion).
What we must fear now is corporations and financial warfare.

China could ruin American (even further that is) by calling out the I.O.U America has given. We would go down in flames.

Corporate fascism is what we must avoid, as it is our greatest threat to the free world and the avoidance of world domination.
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if a bald old man stroking a cat hiding somewhere in the Black Forest owns Wal-Mart, Mc-Donalds, Burger King, K.F.C, Sam's Club, Bank Of America, and a few countries. When I say own I mean not publically, but behind the scenes.

So yes, world domination as you call it is a very real threat, and we must rebel in order to restrain that from occuring.

[aNewHobby4me]

nowdays it is not possible to overtake the world with simple brute force as the avarage person now has a lot more power and we don't just do what we're told we like to question are orders.

I think you are talking about civil disobedience here. If this is what you mean, are you saying that a nation cannot be held by brute force, as there would be a resistance movement?

Even if you did rule the world there will always be people who you have to stay on the good side as they are the leaders of their respective fields. i.e bill gates, lord j.sainsbury, sam walmart etc etc all these people lead their fields and everyone respects them, without them you couldn't rule the world[...]

I have disagree here for two reasons. The first being that you have listed wealthy businessmen, and while in peacetime they may hold a bit of financial leverage, this does not translate military might in a time of war. The second reason is that the people that need watching will be those that can sway public opinion. Yes, I agree that it would be better to have those people supporting you (at least the public appearance of support), but if they actively oppose you then you would be better off 'removing' them from the public eye. I leave it to you to decide how to remove them.

[...] yet the whole point of ruling the world is that you control everything independantly.

The point of ruling the world is to have one global, worldwide government. There will still be government on the state/province and local levels, of course.

I am not sure what you mean by controlling everything independently, though. Do you mean a single dictator, rather than a ruling council?

-- Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:56 am --

...I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if....

Ah, a conspiracy theorist! Would this be the same guy that, when much younger, stood on the grassy knoll in Dallas back in November 1963?