Hypothetical Situation #001

[Jasper]

Say you wanted to conquer the world.  What would be the most bloodless way to do it?  Assume arbitrarily high resources, but solutions that don't require absurd amounts of money, unlimited time, or absolute loyalty in hired help, are naturally better.

I'm partially asking this because I'm not sure it's possible. 

Ideas?

[Adios]

Religion is a weapon.

[Jasper]

Yeah, but that's an extremely long term strategy.  2000 years and still only marginal power over the state.  Money has immeasurably more sway over things.

[Adios]

Yeah, but that's an extremely long term strategy.  2000 years and still only marginal power over the state.  Money has immeasurably more sway over things.

Then China wins by default of it's $2.4 trillion surplus.

[Jasper]

Yeah, but I'm not talking about existing players.  I'm trying to figure out what it would take for a new player to conquer the world.  

My first thought is yes, because if you do enough fiscal damage to a country I anticipate it's government will die.

[Brotep]

 

Just remember the three B's:

Bribery, Blackmail & Business

[Adios]

The game is closed. New players are not allowed in.

[Jasper]

That's why it's hypothetical, Charley.  The interesting question ITT is: What are the current (world) system's practical vulnerabilities that no existing player knows to exploit, or doesn't dare?

[Brotep]

The game is closed. New players are not allowed in.

They're allowed, it's just that they don't get to play with a handicap.

That's why it's hypothetical, Charley.

Oh, I thought it was hypothetical because you weren't actually vying for world domination.

The interesting question ITT is: What are the current (world) system's practical vulnerabilities that no existing player knows to exploit, or doesn't dare?

I don't think there's any great secret there. Individual greed at the expense of the system is effective for manipulation. The "players" all do it, it's just a question of how much they do it. Also, they tend to have a public face, so they have to worry somewhat about PR.

[Adios]

That's why it's hypothetical, Charley.  The interesting question ITT is: What are the current (world) system's practical vulnerabilities that no existing player knows to exploit, or doesn't dare?

In that case, the internet, technology and flow of information.

[Captain Utopia]

In practical terms, aren't they synonymous?

My first thought was AI - but Google is already aiming there, and they'll probably get there first.

[Adios]

A server under your control with only the information you want to go out. A series of EMP's designed to eliminate competition. Now the only information getting out is what you allow. No more open exchange of thought or ideas. No dissenting voices on a large scale. Satellite destruction would all but completely cripple most flow of governmental information. Panic would ensue as nation after nation was blinded. Paranioa would rule.

[Captain Utopia]

EMP's that powerful would also destroy any computers capable of reading the information you tightly control, so no one could read it.  DARPA originally designed the technology underpinning the internet precisely to deal with the prospect of nukes taking out entire cities, or network nodes.

But assuming that you could target it precisely to take down just all other servers currently in use.. and some basic networking was still there.. how many EMP's would that require?  My desktop computer is a server.  Well, it could be.  It's more powerful than whatever powers PD.com, and it's about three years old.  I have apache on it already that I use occasionally for testing various things, and I have install dvds that could get me up and running with basic forum software.  If you took out DNS I'd fire up bind, and pass out DVDs or usb thumb-drives for people to share and they could start resolving names into IP addresses again.

I think any plan has to assume that as long as there is electricity, and functioning hardware, there will be an internet.

[Adios]

EMP's that powerful would also destroy any computers capable of reading the information you tightly control, so no one could read it.  DARPA originally designed the technology underpinning the internet precisely to deal with the prospect of nukes taking out entire cities, or network nodes.

But assuming that you could target it precisely to take down just all other servers currently in use.. and some basic networking was still there.. how many EMP's would that require?  My desktop computer is a server.  Well, it could be.  It's more powerful than whatever powers PD.com, and it's about three years old.  I have apache on it already that I use occasionally for testing various things, and I have install dvds that could get me up and running with basic forum software.  If you took out DNS I'd fire up bind, and pass out DVDs or usb thumb-drives for people to share and they could start resolving names into IP addresses again.

I think any plan has to assume that as long as there is electricity, and functioning hardware, there will be an internet.

Remember we are playing a 'what if' game.

Target your attacks on a weekday when the majority of people are at work and most likely many of their computers would be turned off. Make your own server one way communications only, out going.

[Cain]

In pre-firearms eras, the people who came the closest were the Mongols, with a mix of mobile, highly disciplined armies, state of the art captured siege weapons, using terror of the worst sort against those who resisted and rewarding those who capitulated.  They also drew upon the armies of their conquered lands and used resistors/political prisoners as slave regiments.

In the modern world...well, I suggest reading up on the term "hegemony", both in its general political science and Marxist definitions, and pondering the implications of that.  Francis Fukuyama suggests economic strength translated into military strength, excellence at building international institutions that legitimize one's agenda and ideological/cultural power are the smart route to conquering the world, but he predictably leaves out the heavy doses of state-sanctioned terror for those who refuse to accept the agenda in the modern context.