Is World Domination Possible?

SkulkBait · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kill4thrills @ Feb 18 2005, 05:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> lol everyone is thinking nukes nukes nukes, but the way of nuclear domination is over, because of MAD, as mentioned previously, and the fact that it's nearly impossible to nuke all your enemies without them knowing and retaliating, resulting in mutually assured destruction (MAD).
 </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Like I said, </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If one power controlled all the nuclear wepons in the world</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

There is no MAD then.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
if it is world domination you want, you will need to employ smaller, much subtler methods, and that, my friends, is miniturization. nano warfare to be precise, whether it is a genetically engineered super virus/germ, or a nanobot army, small microscropic killers will be the way to go (X-files, Deus Ex, Twelve Monkeys style) because you don't arrouse any suspicion this way, you and your group of conspirators can conspicuously and effectively wipe out most of the world's population, and then re-populate the world as you see fit. a positive side to this is that the world you inherit won't be a nuclear wasteland. it will just be devoid of human life

<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd-fix.gif' /></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
You've been watching too much TV.

kill4thrills · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Feb 18 2005, 04:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kill4thrills @ Feb 18 2005, 05:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> lol everyone is thinking nukes nukes nukes, but the way of nuclear domination is over, because of MAD, as mentioned previously, and the fact that it's nearly impossible to nuke all your enemies without them knowing and retaliating, resulting in mutually assured destruction (MAD).
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Like I said, </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If one power controlled all the nuclear wepons in the world</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

There is no MAD then.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
if it is world domination you want, you will need to employ smaller, much subtler methods, and that, my friends, is miniturization. nano warfare to be precise, whether it is a genetically engineered super virus/germ, or a nanobot army, small microscropic killers will be the way to go (X-files, Deus Ex, Twelve Monkeys style) because you don't arrouse any suspicion this way, you and your group of conspirators can conspicuously and effectively wipe out most of the world's population, and then re-populate the world as you see fit. a positive side to this is that the world you inherit won't be a nuclear wasteland. it will just be devoid of human life

<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd-fix.gif' /></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
You've been watching too much TV.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
you can't control all the nuclear weapons in the world unless you destory the others who have them. and you can't destroy the others who have them without them destorying you, so your method doesn't work.

biological warfare is a very real threat. anthrax, for example, has been genetically engineered, weaponized, if you will, to make their shells readily airborne and thus lethal when inhaled in sufficient quantities. imagine the possibilties of weaponizing other much more contagious and deadly infectious agents. if you can do it with anthrax, why not with something like ebola? it can kill in about 24 hours and can spread like wildfire.

AvengerX · February 2005

I'm not to worried about anthrax, I'll just have the comm drop me a Heavy armor and I'll be good to go. maybe an HMG while I'm at it to fight of the hordes of nanite mirco-killers that are going to wipe out all the human race

Manta · February 2005

I'm sure it's possible. The question is how far would you have to go to do it? Even if someone did take over the world, there would probably be some form of rebellion somewhere, especially since it's the entire world.

To sum it up: it's possible, given the resources, but it wouldn't last. Not many things do.

X_Stickman · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Feb 19 2005, 06:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I'm not to worried about anthrax, I'll just have the comm drop me a Heavy armor and I'll be good to go. maybe an HMG while I'm at it to fight of the hordes of nanite mirco-killers that are going to wipe out all the human race  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
GG for mocking biological warfare....

BaconTheory · February 2005

I guess that it is possible, but definately not plausible. I mean, if someone were to try and take over the world, then it would basically be World War III with all of the superpowers battling it out. We would almost definately use nukes at some point if we were fighting othr super powers, but it really comes down to who has the bigger and better toys. The US has one of the best armies in the world. We would definately be able to take over a couple countries, but we would most likely be stopped and turned back eventually. And even if someone did try and take over the world, we would all be stuck in a quagmire of broken alliances and war declarations. It would take several decades to fix it up.

TommyVercetti · February 2005

Taking over the world using military might is impossible. Simply impossible. Even if you did somehow manage to do it, you'd have rebellions left and right.

You'd need something much harder to see, something that let you preside over the nations of the world without the people even knowing about it.

CommunistWithAGun · February 2005

Even if it happend, after the "ruler" dies, can anyone say power vaccum?

AvengerX · February 2005

not really... when a president dies does the nation fall apart? no... we just releclt another one.

Cronos · February 2005

And what, pray tell, makes you think that any empire forged by conquering other nations would be anything remotely resembling a democracy?

It's going to be a despotism, if not an autocracy that does it, and unless he names a successor that can iron-fist his way through any coup, uprising and so forth, it's doomed to fail.

AvengerX · February 2005

I'm not saying it'd be a democracy. I'm just saying that most goverments have a chain of command. so it'd be ok. and you could make it into a check and balance system to keep anyone from tearing anything apart too bad

Nineteen · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TommyVercetti @ Feb 20 2005, 12:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> You'd need something much harder to see, something that let you preside over the nations of the world without the people even knowing about it.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
exactly and the scariest part is, for all we know the question of world domination is already answered

Lt_Patch · February 2005

*breaks out foil hat* Illuminati anyone? *pre-dodges the flames*

Nineteen · February 2005

k ill grab mine and we can have a party in my bombshelter <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' />

flintlock · February 2005

while i agree with the people saying that a military take over wouldn't work...for very long, i have a hard time believing in the illuminati (or something similar) it just seems to me that such an institution would have made a mistake at some point giving us something more then a hint of their existence.

...then again....maybe i work for them and i'm just spreading lies and propaganda.

so, anyway, i don't think world domination is possible, not as long as humans are the key variable

UltimaGecko · February 2005

I figure if an extraterrestrial life-form came down, and wanted us to converse on a species leader-species leader basis, that we'd get around to developing a world governement that would elect one.

Or, in a more probable sense (since at the current state, the US would force its delegates to be sent), if the entire human race became at war, there would probably be a large order of world peace (especially if they're hostile from the get go and just start raining down hell).

In the present, however:
Politically: very improbable. The culture difference between locales would make it impossible to unite your citizens with the citizens of foreign lands (without some really hard work); plus, if you're the US or any other highly advance civilization, the public goes nuts over 'the rights of others'.

Militarily: utterly impossible. Nuclear powers would fight you if it came to that, even if you managed to muster the special forces to take every enemy silo at the same time you'd fail on at least a marginal percentage of the attempts (which means you probably have ~100 nukes coming for your country). Even phasing out the nukes, it is still impossible. The present use of firearms gives any average man to take out one of your soldiers or civiian enforcers (imagine if we had telecommunications with no chemical propellents though, then it might be possible).

Economically: Unfeasible. Controlling the worlds production of everything necessary would be overly bureaucratic. As close as Microsoft, EA or Sony gets to global monopolization, they're still held down politcally, and beyond the politcal boundaries exist the bureaucratic ones (if they went beyond software), once you start mixing things on such a large scale (say: we want to control wheat, operating systems, steel, bobble-head dolls and light switches) you're not really dominating the world anymore (and this would suffer from the militarily description - if a company could manage that). It would be a nice way to gain individual power, but you'll never rule the world doing it.

We'd need some kind of technologial or extra-worldly event to create an era of world domination (although, I'm not seing many downfalls of one global currency). I think a US set-up, with countries working like states would work fairly well. It's the fact we currently have superpowers that the UN can't function like this today (why have a <s>corrupt</s> global police force, when you have a global mob that can control them <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /> ).

mr_drug_lord · February 2005

us totally dominates right now

as for total world conquest, not possible for a long time

theclam · February 2005

I think that Humans are tribal animals, at heart. If world domination is possible, then I don't think it would be stable at all (just like Anarchy). We'll eventually break up into warring factions, which would end global domination.

As to whether it's possible, I think so.

If the US (or some other country) got a hold over Russia's nuclear arsenal, then they'd have the vast majority of nukes in the world. Everyone would join us or be nuked. We'd have to be willing to nuke other countries and willing to suffer nukes from their retaliation, but we could do it. I doubt that it would last, however.

aeroripper · February 2005

World Government

As someone else said it would have to be subtle and insidious.

And FYI for everyone think we have the greatest most wonderful military in the world, we have the power to destroy a whole lot of stuff, but lack the ability to control the aftermath. We couldn't control vietnam and its happening again in Iraq, think we would have learned our lesson by now.......

As for the illuminati it certainly is possible, or the "New World Order" world government. Wasn't there something in the kyoto protocol about global warming and how in the future the world's population would have to be reduced 80% (read bioliogical pandemics) and the population forcifully kept at 5,000,000 by a tyrannical government. If this were in fact true, when it happens it won't be any surprise to us because we've been pacified to accept it since we were kids. I read that part about the kyoto protocol from www.infowars.com. He's a conspiracy theorist and since i havn't read the kyoto in full yet (LONG) i can't say whether he took it out of context like some of the other stuff he does.

<b><insert conspiracy theory talkie here, take it with a grain of salt if you like></b>

Like that speech Bush Sr. gave on sept. 11 1991 about ushering in a new world order, or how he was constantly speaking about this. Billermburg (sp), caryle group and that other one i can't remember supposedly having links to the illuminati and even after sept 11th were talking about new world order.

EDIT: Although i really don't think our government had anything to do with this directly, and dismissed most of the conspiracy theories because of lack of substantial evidence. After reading what structural engineers and real professionals have said first hand about it it seems like the official story is mostly it (there was a big article in popular mechanics about it where they talked to hundreds of people in their respective businesses about it and got their opinion and testimonies.... a lot more than a blurry picture and gross assumptions :-P.

That being so, there is still some troubling real questions that need to be asked seeing how the government has been known to do stuff like this before. Go read about the northwood report back in kenndys day that said they could fly planes into buildings and blame cuba to go to war. Some others was to shink a (unmanned) ship like we did with the USS maine, and that the casualty list in newspapers would bring about a helpful wave of indignation. Not to get to conspiracy theorist but kennedy did want to destroy the CIA and get rid of the federal reserve. But there "was no second gunman" and it was lee harvy like the story went. Just like oklahoma city where local news reports all cited that there were 3 bombs total in the building and 2 of them didn't get exploded and were removed by anti-terrorism trucks. Yet the story grew bigger and bigger along with the blast hole from the ryder truck that barely made a very large indintation in the ground... now that's the accepted story. Yet they always refused to release all the video cameras that filmed the whole incident, now since sept 11th just about anything can be labled "national security sensitive" and disappear off the face of the earth. 50 years of having a cold war hasn't helped our republic either, you learn how to keep things secret.

What about the patriot acts? Seems "our" government is instilling less and less faith that their protecting us with each attack and billions in funding they get everytime. Good, so all the ones who are responsible for these blunders can get a nice raise and tell themselves their doing a good job. Everybody tells them to do what is necessary to protect us and they say take off the shakles.

</end conspiracy theory talks and general politcal anger>

anyways back on subject, all i can say is that if the world ever gets to a point where there are no more major wars but mostly peace, the tools and methods of keeping the peace might be scarier than anything a war can provide.

BulletHead · February 2005

Avenger, we CAN block 99.99% of nukes- it's called the Star Wars Defense Initiative

To my knowledge, it is still well and active, and we have things such as

Ice Fortress- a multi-billion dollar satellite that uses mini x-ray satellites with small nuclear charges in the middle- the charge detonates, and x-rays are focused out of hundreds of tubes in the body forming powerful x-ray lasers- hundreds of lasers per mini satelite, 10 mini satelites per ice fortress- number of Ice Fortress stations- classified used to take down ICBM's before they can separate, as well as take out decoys and separated warheads

Boeing 767 refit- the USA has I believe 3 planes in service with specialised argon / radon laser weapons equiped in the nose, with energy for about 20 shots each- used to take down ICBM's in the later stages in the upper atmosphere

Terrain and Water based laser stations- Russia has one, though I know not the name. It has it's own nuclear facility, and it is capable of putting out a few hundred megawatts of energy on the laser scale- able to cut a large swath thru any ICBM strike

EM Sheilding- not as far off as you may think... once we figure out how to have a positive, negative, AND neutral charged shield grid, we will be fine... right now, we can only make a positive shield. Not that effective on it's own

Patriot and other missile intercept systems- hundreds of missile, ballistic, and other such batteries are capable of being focused skyward, taking out missiles in the high elevations of the atmosphere where the fallout will be reduced to a generaly harmless point

Nukes- yes, a nuke can fry other nukes- un shielded ICBM's fall when a nuke is detonated nearby, as the nuke sets off a VERY large Electro Magnetic Pulse, thus frying targeting computers, gyros, and anything else electronic inside the missile

As far as a worldwide government, it'd have to be galaxy wide, and it'd be based in San Fransico, called the UFP, or United Federation of Planets. Allies include the Klingon Empire, the Vulcans, and other such races. Yes, I believe very much in Mr. Roddenbury, as he has proven himself time and again to be very, very near to the truth, if not exactly the truth. Anti-matter- real Deuterium- Real Tritanium and Duranium alloys - real Dilithium Crystal- FAKE Phasers- PHASed Energy Rectification- REAL

Ya see, unless we BANISH money, we can't unite the globe... that green **** is EVIL!

Now, I'm going to bed... more to come tomorrow when I'm not half asleep

Xeno · March 2005

hitler was close. he made some pretty stupid mistakes. ie. attacking russia.

he was close though.

AvengerX · March 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Xeno @ Mar 1 2005, 12:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> hitler was close. he made some pretty stupid mistakes. ie. attacking russia.

he was close though.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
yeah, invading russia by land is never a good idea.

aeroripper · March 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>yeah, invading russia by land is never a good idea. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

unless you have -150 degree snow suits.

And lots of food

AvengerX · March 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (aeroripper @ Mar 1 2005, 12:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>yeah, invading russia by land is never a good idea. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

unless you have -150 degree snow suits.

And lots of food  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
and a strong desire to conquer a gaint mostly worthless land mass

theclam · March 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BulletHead @ Feb 28 2005, 10:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Avenger, we CAN block 99.99% of nukes- it's called the Star Wars Defense Initiative

To my knowledge, it is still well and active, and we have things such as

Ice Fortress- a multi-billion dollar satellite that uses mini x-ray satellites with small nuclear charges in the middle- the charge detonates, and x-rays are focused out of hundreds of tubes in the body forming powerful x-ray lasers- hundreds of lasers per mini satelite, 10 mini satelites per ice fortress- number of Ice Fortress stations- classified used to take down ICBM's before they can separate, as well as take out decoys and separated warheads

Boeing 767 refit- the USA has I believe 3 planes in service with specialised argon / radon laser weapons equiped in the nose, with energy for about 20 shots each- used to take down ICBM's in the later stages in the upper atmosphere

Terrain and Water based laser stations- Russia has one, though I know not the name. It has it's own nuclear facility, and it is capable of putting out a few hundred megawatts of energy on the laser scale- able to cut a large swath thru any ICBM strike

EM Sheilding- not as far off as you may think... once we figure out how to have a positive, negative, AND neutral charged shield grid, we will be fine... right now, we can only make a positive shield. Not that effective on it's own

Patriot and other missile intercept systems- hundreds of missile, ballistic, and other such batteries are capable of being focused skyward, taking out missiles in the high elevations of the atmosphere where the fallout will be reduced to a generaly harmless point

Nukes- yes, a nuke can fry other nukes- un shielded ICBM's fall when a nuke is detonated nearby, as the nuke sets off a VERY large Electro Magnetic Pulse, thus frying targeting computers, gyros, and anything else electronic inside the missile

As far as a worldwide government, it'd have to be galaxy wide, and it'd be based in San Fransico, called the UFP, or United Federation of Planets. Allies include the Klingon Empire, the Vulcans, and other such races. Yes, I believe very much in Mr. Roddenbury, as he has proven himself time and again to be very, very near to the truth, if not exactly the truth. Anti-matter- real Deuterium- Real Tritanium and Duranium alloys - real Dilithium Crystal- FAKE Phasers- PHASed Energy Rectification- REAL

Ya see, unless we BANISH money, we can't unite the globe... that green **** is EVIL!

Now, I'm going to bed... more to come tomorrow when I'm not half asleep </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
We can't block nukes. Our missile defense system is abysmal. It can't even pass rigged tests. We're 20 years away from having a viable missile defense system.

By then, you will be able to carry a nuke in a BMW Mini. Why would anyone spend $Billions developing an ICBM that can hold a nuke, when they could park a boat with a nuke, in any coastal city in the world?

If you're attacking a country in order to dominate the world, then ICBMs are a bad idea. They are easy to spot hours before they will strike, using satellites (or spies). What you want to do is use a suicide bomber to nuke something.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Patriot and other missile intercept systems- hundreds of missile, ballistic, and other such batteries are capable of being focused skyward, taking out missiles in the high elevations of the atmosphere where the fallout will be reduced to a generaly harmless point</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

See here:
<a href='http://www.cdi.org/issues/bmd/Patriot.html' target='_blank'>http://www.cdi.org/issues/bmd/Patriot.html</a>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>During the Gulf War, the Patriot was assigned to shoot down incoming Iraqi Scud or Al-Hussein Missiles launched at Israel and Saudi Arabia. The U.S. Army which was in charge of the Patriots claimed an initial success rate of 80% in Saudi Arabia and 50% in Israel. Those claims were scaled back to 70 and 40 percent.

...

"The results of these studies are disturbing. They suggest that the Patriot's intercept rate during the Gulf War was very low. The evidence from these preliminary studies indicates that <b>Patriot's intercept rate could be much lower than ten percent, possibly even zero</b>." (Statement of Theodore A. Postol before the U.S. House Of Representatives Committee on Government Operations, April 7, 1992)</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Is World Domination Possible?

Comments