NationStates Jolt Archive

The largest continous empire in terms of geographical size was the Mongol Empire, which covered about 12,800,000 sq. miles (33,152,000 sq. km.) at it's largest and and at it's peak. Roughly around a quarter of the combined land-masses of Asia and Europe - quite impressive a feat.

The Mongolians knew how to rule through both fear and knew how to treat their underlings (a.k.a. the locals that resided in the area they conquered and didn't try and rebel against their conquerors), killing those that rebeled with an iron glove and those that submitted quite leniently. The Mongol Empire itself would collapse because of a power vacuum when Kublai Khan himself passed away and the relatives of the Khan failed to maintain Pax Mongoliania.

Nowadays, we have things like the Internet, intercontinental ballistic missiles, satellites, telephones, computers, NBC WMD's, and so on and so forth.

Do those factors, make world domination easier today or harder today? Or has it rendered the super-tedious task of world domination impossible today, or has world domination always been impossible.

Let's have a nice and civil debate and discuss about this.

In a nuclear age, it's hard to imagine anyone actually 'winning' a global war.

You also need to consider the difficulty in keeping such a territory under control. Some of the most ruthless regimes have terrorist and guerrilla wars, and that's just in a small country.

Total domination has always been impossible. Empires eventually implode.

By 1921, the British Empire held sway over a population of about 470–570 million people; approximately one-quarter of the world's population. It covered about 14.3 million square miles (more than 37 million km²)

just thought i should post that to save the other brits the trouble...



on topic, i don't think haegemony is possible largely due to the interdependence of global economies these days, and also the capital cost of modern warfare. the benefit would not outweigh the cost for some considerable time/after much investment, so it would either have to be done over many, many years, or by a very, very wealthy country.

plus, as has been noted, nuclear weapons kinda fuck everything up...

I must agree on the nuclear weapons part. You can't conquer something you can't live on. There should be a positive profit/loss balance. Wearing lead suits and farming rocks don't sound profitable to me.

Go to go with Liberated New Ireland on this one. Total domination is impossible. There will always be someone to rebel. For a good intro to this and more read the Dune hexology(?? or whatever a set of six books is)

The nearest thing to a complete domination i can concive is a mental one where all people understand that the individual human nature of each person is more important that the divids of nation race ect, and all people live by that ethic. It isn't really domination, more of a one human nation ideal.

Heres to hope!!

"I know not what world war three will be fought with, but world war four will be fought with sticks and stones" Albert Einstein.

At least i think thats how it goes, im not even sure if he said that... O well it gets the point across.

World domination became a bit moot when the concept of MAD came around I think. It's hard to attempt to take over the world when any number of your opponents can smash it up so bad, you wouldn't be able to live there anymore. Heck, even with missile shields, it's possible to irradiate your own lands so that the winds would scatter it. Or perhaps hit the arctic areas and let the currents/winds do the rest. MAD doesn't mean just incinerating your opponents cities.

Nuclear Weapons? Bah, economics is where it's at, kids. Within time Corporations will be powerful enough to bully nations, and command their resources. Control that, and you control everything.

Nuclear Weapons? Bah, economics is where it's at, kids. Within time Corporations will be powerful enough to bully nations, and command their resources. Control that, and you control everything.


Exept the people's wills, DOH!! that is after all where all the revolutions start!

But i agree it would be a silly to think that nucs would either garantee or stop attempts at global domination.

Think out of the box people. World domination doesn't neccessarily have to involve military action as the primary method....

The best time for world domination is always in that span of a few years between when a groundbreaking technology is discovered, and before eveyrbody understands it. Steam power, flight, nuclear weaponry...all were perfect times to take a stranglehold before they became so commonplace. The next one will likely be centered around the moon, fusion, or commercial spacefleets.

IMHO, the sense of "justic" and diplomacy these days make it hard to invade other countries in the first place.
Plus the UN :p

IMHO, the sense of "justic" and diplomacy these days make it hard to invade other countries in the first place.
Plus the UN :p

Iraq.

UN did a great job to stop a sovereign nation being invaded and it's ruler deposed there didn't it.

Iraq.

UN did a great job to stop a sovereign nation being invaded and it's ruler deposed there didn't it.


In fairness it tried, but our leaders (bush/blair) we're told by God! Who could oppose! ;)

World Domination has always been impossible. In the old days, distance killed empires. Nowdays, distance is less of a factor, but the same communication that would help a conqueror, would also help efforts to get rid of one.

Iraq.

UN did a great job to stop a sovereign nation being invaded and it's ruler deposed there didn't it.
Let's stay on-topic people....

The best time for world domination is always in that span of a few years between when a groundbreaking technology is discovered, and before eveyrbody understands it. Steam power, flight, nuclear weaponry...all were perfect times to take a stranglehold before they became so commonplace. The next one will likely be centered around the moon, fusion, or commercial spacefleets.
Maybe so, but if the people that are being conquered steal a sample, then it's probably all over man...

I must agree on the nuclear weapons part. You can't conquer something you can't live on. There should be a positive profit/loss balance. Wearing lead suits and farming rocks don't sound profitable to me.

True. Nuclear holocaust is bad for the stock markets.

Nuclear Weapons? Bah, economics is where it's at, kids. Within time Corporations will be powerful enough to bully nations, and command their resources. Control that, and you control everything.

Within time??

A united globe is a complete impossibility. There will always be plenty of petty groups whom would resist even the most enlightened rule.

Now it is hardly possible.

The building of empires and controlling crowds depends on information control for brainwashing purposes. Currently information is almost impossible to control...

The Media seems pretty well controlled and in the hands of a few global conglomerates.

Viacom is run by a former Military Intelligence agent, and assistant to the Attorney General. It has on its Board of Directors some interesting characters as well.

Viacom owns MTV, BET (Black Entertainment Television), Comedy Central, Logo (only LGBT gay channel so far to be on satellite and most cable), VH1, Paramount Pictures, Nickelodian, Spike TV, TV Land, Nick-at-Nite, several pre-school to elementary to university specialized channels. Through their subsidaries there are several international channels as well.


There is also Time Warner, the CEO of Time Warner prior to that, he held various positions in state and federal government, as counsel for Nelson Rockefeller and as a senior White House aide under President Gerald Ford


I would say if they wanted, they could control American culture fairly well

Exept the people's wills, DOH!! that is after all where all the revolutions start!
Marketing departments.

This is where you want to go today...

Total domination has always been impossible. Empires eventually implode.
That's not the point. One could potentially dominate the world then collapse. The question isn't so much one of technology as of people. If the masses don't mind a unified global state, then no problem. But generally they follow the opposite, more bigoted path of nationalism.

Far easier. islam is doing it right now and whenever anybody challenges it, it's racism. I wish Germany has that kind of credit back in the 1910s.

The largest continous empire in terms of geographical size was the Mongol Empire, which covered about 12,800,000 sq. miles (33,152,000 sq. km.) at it's largest and and at it's peak. Roughly around a quarter of the combined land-masses of Asia and Europe - quite impressive a feat.

The Mongolians knew how to rule through both fear and knew how to treat their underlings (a.k.a. the locals that resided in the area they conquered and didn't try and rebel against their conquerors), killing those that rebeled with an iron glove and those that submitted quite leniently. The Mongol Empire itself would collapse because of a power vacuum when Kublai Khan himself passed away and the relatives of the Khan failed to maintain Pax Mongoliania.

Nowadays, we have things like the Internet, intercontinental ballistic missiles, satellites, telephones, computers, NBC WMD's, and so on and so forth.

Do those factors, make world domination easier today or harder today? Or has it rendered the super-tedious task of world domination impossible today, or has world domination always been impossible.

Let's have a nice and civil debate and discuss about this.

The Mongols were able to accomplish their feats because they were willing to do things that nations today are generally unwilling to do.

If you had the mindset of the Mongols, and the US military at your disposal, you could easily subjugate the world.

Let's look at the last few organisations who've stated goals have been World Domination: the Third Reich, the Soviet 'Empire' and (sorta) al-Qaeda. All of these groups have given World Domination a bad reputation, which has led to a situation where the main aim of every state within the last 60 years to try and make global conquest impossible, the UN, MAD, etc. have all been to this goal.

But why ignore the media point as far as where corporations could easily play a huge part in globalization in the future.

Though also, look at the European Union, they are having problems yes but they have managed to get the Euro standardized. Could we not become globalized enough to one day have the United States, EU, and other bodies merge together? It may be more of a Federation situation, but there would still be a central governing body. I can see it happening.

Could we not become globalized enough to one day have the United States, EU, and other bodies merge together? It may be more of a Federation situation, but there would still be a central governing body. I can see it happening.

No. By the time that happens, Europe will be a muslim continent.

What is meant exactly by world domination? One person ruling the planet as a dictator? I mean, domination is rather a laden term.
I very much doubt anyone can come to such power at the moment. But perhaps future technology will make it possible.

No. By the time that happens, Europe will be a muslim continent.Nah, by that time islam will be thoroughly secularized. Even if Europe were predominantly muslim (which is unlikely) it wouldn't be a barrier.

Okay, just ingnore me noisily....

Nah, by that time islam will be thoroughly secularized. Even if Europe were predominantly muslim (which is unlikely) it wouldn't be a barrier.

I doubt it. And Europe will be 30% muslim by 2050.

The Mongols were able to accomplish their feats because they were willing to do things that nations today are generally unwilling to do.

The Mongols didn't have the ability to incinerate entire countries and have the same done back to them.


If you had the mindset of the Mongols, and the US military at your disposal, you could easily subjugate the world.

No, you could easily irradiate much of the planetary surface, not rule it. You need to stop breathing in super-patriotism fumes and start smelling reality.

Russia may be a lot weaker than it was as the Soviet Union, but they, and a few others, have more than enough nuclear weapons by themselves to slag the surface. They certainly wouldn't sit still and let themselves be taken over without using weapons of last resort.

People who have tried to rule the whole world before with military force have always failed because eventually, the rest of the world wises up to their goals and bands together to get rid of them.

People who have tried to rule the whole world before with military force have always failed because eventually, the rest of the world wises up to their goals and bands together to get rid of them.
Exactly what I said earlier on: there are many ways to world domination, military force is only one way, and IMHO, it's probably the hardest and most expensive, as you'd need a lot of resources, time, skill and power.

Think out of the box people!

Never fight a land war in Asia...

World domination isn't that hard. People think it requires a lot of military force, but it doesn't. All you need is one superhuman ultra-intelligent lab mouse called "THE BRAIN".

And only slightly less well known is this; never go up against a sicilian when death is on the line! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA -Urk!

I said (whilst being sensible) it's impossible. However, one day the world WILLbe mine through complete control of the last remaining sources of fossil fuels that I acquired through my followers fierce determination. Without out the resources, society will grind to a halt and I will take command of the world. Revolution's won't be difficult because insulting me will be capital offence and any military uprisings will be delt with in a bloody fashion. :sniper: :mp5:

Simple... no?:p

I doubt it. And Europe will be 30% muslim by 2050.

30% does not a domination make.

And besides, by that time the Muslims in question will be mostly fifth/sixth generation immigrants. Have you ever met a sixth generation immigrant who was culturally isolated from the mainstream of society? Because I haven't - and I never will because it goes against all sociological laws.

It's called dominant ideology theory, a casual drip-drip effect of indoctrination from society keeps on the tracks of its current ideology (unless that ideology is crooked, Ancien Regime France, Imperial China, etc.).

Let's try and keep a less joke-filled thread and focus on the topic at hand at whether world domination is easier today or harder today, or has it always been impossible peeps....