Welcome to Gaia! ::

Hmm, nobody seems to want to kick off discussion by revealing the details of their master-plan of world domination. How about starting with an easy little prompt?

Prompt: What single nation do you think would be the easiest to take over, and why? What methods would you use, and how would it be useful as a starting point for taking over the rest of the world?

Go!!!

Also, if you have quite a few followers who are well versed in politics, the easiest form of government to take over would be democratic. If you can get enough people into strategic places in the government, you can influence all the decisions.

With monarchs you have to make sure that their heir works for you. Have someone assassinate the king/Queen. If the heir doesn't work for you, assassinate him/her too. While the people are busy rioting, have someone lead the riots on. Use their anger and fear and promise them safety and protection again, promise them a new leader who will find whoever killed the beloved king/queen.

Of course, that was only political domination. You could also use a huge army..

What about the North Atlantic Treaty Agreement? How would you keep the US, UK, and others from interfering with your program of conquest (which sounds eerily similar to Hitler's plan of world domination)?


My theory has always been that the best way to take over a country is to be their hero.

Let me give an example. Myanmar (Burma) has long struggled for democracy against brutal dictators. The National League for Democracy and certain ethnic resistance groups have maintained a relatively high moral road while standing unwavering in their opposition to the generals running the country. Previously, all ethnicities have practically worshiped Aung San Suu Kyi, their larger-than-life, pro-democracy heroine, who has been under house arrest for most of the past two decades and is likely to wither away while striving to maintain the people's hope.

Say you entered Myanmar and successfully led its people to overthrow the military government. Then you work tirelessy with all the right, legitimate national and international groups to set up a new, just, multi-ethnic government committed to rebuilding and reconciliation, even managing to win serious support from the US (who would be thrilled with another ally in the region, bordering China), the UN, Europe, and the Southeast Asian community of nations (officially ASEAN). At this point, contigent on continued good behavior and especially if this had been intentionally set up, you could basically guide the new Burma forward with a great degree of agency (ability to choose and act).

Furthermore, this reborn nation (highly under the sway of their hero) would have the moral legitimacy (after reconciling hostile ethnicities, shown to be possible by the previous efforts of the National League for Democracy, Suu Kyi's party) to start some kind of new intergovernmental organization to take the moral high road on select types of issues against (or with) other world organizations such as the UN.

So long as people's trust is shown to be well-placed (an absolute commitment to and structural design for avoiding political self-interest in decision-making), this new IGO could make quick gains in world influence and provide a significant power-base to work with for further steps towards world domination. And all this from leading one nation in a successful rebellion (which is already started, if in a long-term stall). This is not undoable-- many rebellions and insurgencies have been fought and won by the leadership of outside groups (governments, individuals, mercenaries, you name it).

Again, this is just an over-simplified example using one nation in particular, in order to demonstrate the power of moral legitimacy. If we do right by them, people will want us to lead them... which makes it a lot easier. When you try to conquer and enslave, all sorts of annoying resistances spring up! wink

Get sweden, you get the world. They have EVERYONES money...the international banks of hell, since the entire world except them is in DEBT. Easiest way to be sure...of course everyone will be on your a** if we fail at them....so its also risky...

Not at the moment. In the future (say, 10 to 20 years down the road, when I have a lot more military experience and leadership capabilities), I guess.

It would be an all-or-nothing bid, though, and like all bold plans, has many things that could go wrong. Also, it rests heavily on an individual, which gives it a single, vulnerable failing point.

Lead the nation to start the crucial new IGO/alliance, while rebuilding it from decades of war and poverty. Those two things are what would allow me to multiply influence to a global scale. I also might found an international NGO or two out of whatever groups I had formed and operated with during the rebellion, to allow give me some independent, responsive ability to act.

At that point I'd probably ask my old roommate from college (who is, I exaggerate not a bit, probably the top economics undergrad in the country and is already worth millions from the Indian stock market) to advise the economic development policies. He wouldn't be in for anything as risky as world domination though, so he would never be made aware of any of the larger machinations.

Rebellions shouldn't be a problem, so long as my faction remains in the good graces of the people. Basically, you don't have to 'rule' a nation (let alone be a resented ruler) to influence its direction. If the people believe in you, it's hard for other political figures to go directly against you, especially if you save your political strength for key battles/issues/initiatives.

And remember, utilizing Burma in this manner is just one strategem. A complete plan of world domination involves many more. Because whatever you may think or plan, taking over a single nation (in this case, a third-world nation) is still a million miles from dominating the world.