Fallout Studios Forums

Hehe. This is lame. Seriously, if I were to take over the world: I have two logical plans, and only one has a military involved.

First, if we're forgetting the de facto theory of Nuclear Holocaust (one of my personal favorites) I would go sit in a binker, preferably the one here in Utah, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons), built in the mountains a giant cavern bunker straight into one of our tallest mountains, which is about ~13,000 feet above sea level, and pretty much not nukeable (All it holds are thousands and thousands of records and papers, it's pretty cool) and launch the entire American nuclear arsenal, which is the largest in the world (at least in active warheads, the Russians have more warheads, but most of them are not active and need launch missles and delivery systems), and destroy the entire world, then, when its all over, I'm the only one left, and I rule.

The other way to take over the world, and the only one that will work, is controlling the trade and economy, forcing the rest of the world to come in line with the dominant country. This has happened in the past, the British are the first to have sucessfully attempted it. During the peak of the British Empire, the Brits controlled the seas, and therefore all world trade, when Britain said no to trade, then it didn't happen, and those countries were forced to capitulate, The United States stood against Britain, in 1812, but it forced a treaty out of War Weariness. Today, world trade is dominated by the United States, and the United States makes most of the Global deciscions. It is the deciding nation for all global and international disputes, just look at the Kosovo issue right now, a perfect example: the United States says Kosovo is a country, Kosovo is a country now. That's why everybody hates the US, is because we are arrogant, and the ruling superpower. The best way to dominate the world is by controlling the global trade economy, and the only true way, force of arms only goes so far, before it fails, as it has always done. Just look at the fall of the Mongol Empire

Crazykenny, on 7 Mar 2008, 12:09, said:

Oh golly gosh! I apologise Kenny, and I can see now that you were quite the intellectually superior and morally righteous person there Kenny. Clearly you must have come across the golden formula, a dash of belittlement, a pinch of pretentiousness, and simmer with a stick of sarcasm. For future reference, I class "normal” here as having a little bit of fun, maybe joking around a little. Because to be honest it’s hardly a deadly serious topic, is it? And no, that doesn’t give me a right to spam it, but I seriously think it’s not that big of an issue.
I know you’re not the kind of guy to start a flame war, so let’s leave it here, as I have no idea what your problem is with me.

As for the topic, Noswar's suggestion might be the best way so far. Similar to mine in many ways I think

Noswar, on 9 Mar 2008, 7:04, said:

Restating what I said before, nuclear war would most probably still leave a functioning remnants of the superpowers.

I would do this:

1- Order army to take the world at any and all costs.
2- Wait.


Edited by rich19, 11 March 2008 - 22:49.

War is a waste of customers, thermonuclear more so. The economy is the bigger picture, economic recession and depression would most certainly take over the world, and in the end all you achieve is stalling the continued stability of human life and advancement.
Edited by Flechette, 12 March 2008 - 11:48.

But 'war is good for business', isn't it? People get veeeery rich off wars. Not everybody, I agree, but there the Military Industrial Complex is as strong today as it ever was. And the World Wars hardly slowed down human development (technologically speaking) - rather the opposite.
Start talking nukes, however, and well yes you get some significant economic problems. Like, economies not existing any more.
Edit - typo correction
Edited by CommanderJB, 13 March 2008 - 03:34.

Dr. Strangelove, on 11 Mar 2008, 1:16, said:

It was sarcasm.

And yes people get really rich off, war, ever heard of the boomin' twenties after the WW1, yeah, the winners were doing quite well for themselves afterwards.

Even Germany wasn't doing too badly until they got invaded by the French since they couldn't pay their war reparations - then they got into 'wheelbarrow full of money gets me a loaf of bread' territory, and the associated economic devastation swiftly followed.

CommanderJB, on 13 Mar 2008, 12:43, said:

If only most of the time in making more efficient weapons of war than the other side, many of today's inventions were made by teams of people who came from different countries, and even then, some people were discredited or ignored to due the price of war. Adolf Hitler supported german scientists to discovered lung cancer 34 years before everyone else yet there was no one left to tell the world about it and by the time people were aware it did harm, people had been using cigarettes as dietary aides and many had suffered as a result, all from war.

While war won't effect every single participant in the aftermath, there will certainly be losers as a consequence, many of which have been losers for decades, perma-depression a every day fact of life for much of their population.

BUT, it did make edwin starr create War, and I can settle that was a good side effect from war.

smooder, on 9 Mar 2008, 14:10, said:

Cant really recall that I said I was intellectual superior, or that I have a problem with you.

Crazykenny, on 13 Mar 2008, 10:29, said:

Okay nice one Kenny. Sorry for the sort of flame. Was a little... iritable that morning.

Lol, I didnt take it as a flame. I just wanna see how good your arguments are online

Now... back on topic

my plan would be to dominate with air power and bomb it back to the stone age then use indirect fire to arty it into the ground

And you think Russia can do that without Europe getting reinforcements from the US of A?