Russia, US and China Vs. The Rest of the World

[Candy Cough]

If these 3 Superpowers united, could they win over the entire world?

Nukes are not allowed

[Gorgodeus]

Only 1 of those is a superpower.

[Deleted]

No one. The point of conquest is to be able to hold on to what you just won in a battle, and in today's world it's extremely difficult and costly to keep fighting off guerillas trying to take back their land.

The last attempt at conquest was done by the USA in Vietnam and we all know how that ended. It just doesn't work anymore to keep land against a hostile population.

What you do today is conquer with money. How does it work?

1. First you gotta be a rich country or association of rich countries.
2. Then you check out the poorer countries for anything they might have that you need. It could be anything: natural resources, geopolitical importance, strategic importance, even work force and potential markets.
3. Now you offer to give them money, lots and lots of money, in the form of a loan. A loan they couldn't possibly pay back, and you know it as well as their leadership.
4. Using lobby and bribes, you convince their governments to accept the loans anyway.
5. When it's finally obvious that it's time to pay up and they can't afford it, you offer to take other things as payment. Things such as the ones at nr.2
6. You form some sort of association of yourselves and the new vassal countries, in order to better control and impose your will upon them.
7. Welcome to the European Union.

[Macaquerie]

Conquering land is pointless in this day and age anyway, unless you're a nutcase who thinks looking big on a map still matters for some reason. Soft power gets you much farther these days. Look at Vietnam - all the napalm in the world didn't win us that war but we managed to get them to love us just the same.

[Deleted]

No one. The point of conquest is to be able to hold on to what you just won in a battle, and in today's world it's extremely difficult and costly to keep fighting off guerillas trying to take back their land.

I imagine in the scenario of this thread, trouble makers and anyone anywhere near them would be carpet bombed or put in concentration camps.

[TITAN308]

There is literally no way to "take over the world" without using nuclear weapons to basically clear out the land you want to eventually seed.

As someone pointed out it would be impossible to hold everything in check if you allow the current residents to remain alive.

[Deleted]

Except Finland, because nobody invades Finland. Right?

...

There is literally no way to "take over the world" without using nuclear weapons to basically clear out the land you want to eventually seed.

As someone pointed out it would be impossible to hold everything in check if you allow the current residents to remain alive.

Kill them with nucular weapons.

[Deleted]

I imagine in the scenario of this thread, trouble makers and anyone anywhere near them would be carpet bombed or put in concentration camps.

Yes because that worked so well in Vietnam and works so well now in Syria. Can't carpet bomb that which you don't know where it's hiding, and concentration camps only increase the hatred of the local populace, creating even more guerillas.

- - - Updated - - -

There is literally no way to "take over the world" without using nuclear weapons to basically clear out the land you want to eventually seed.

As someone pointed out it would be impossible to hold everything in check if you allow the current residents to remain alive.

How exactly would nuking the land and making it impossible for anything to grow or exploit, and also creating radiation clouds which eventually reach your own country, be any way to conquer anything?!

[TITAN308]

Yes because that worked so well in Vietnam and works so well now in Syria. Can't carpet bomb that which you don't know where it's hiding, and concentration camps only increase the hatred of the local populace, creating even more guerillas.

- - - Updated - - -



How exactly would nuking the land and making it impossible for anything to grow or exploit, and also creating radiation clouds which eventually reach your own country, be any way to conquer anything?!

Nature will clean it out eventually. I didn't say the process would happen overnight.

[Khadgar]

Conquering land is pointless in this day and age anyway, unless you're a nutcase who thinks looking big on a map still matters for some reason. Soft power gets you much farther these days. Look at Vietnam - all the napalm in the world didn't win us that war but we managed to get them to love us just the same.

We were not trying to colonize Vietnam. Our objective was to ensure it did not fall under communist control. That objective could have been achieved with a different approach.

[Buckeyenut88]

Only 1 of those is a superpower.

This is so true.

[Deleted]

This is so true.

Wrong. China is a superpower also and US since financial crisis is not a world's hegemony. When you think of it from 1989 to 2008 is like 19 years. US' reign was short lived.

[Khadgar]

There is literally no way to "take over the world" without using nuclear weapons to basically clear out the land you want to eventually seed.

As someone pointed out it would be impossible to hold everything in check if you allow the current residents to remain alive.

Nazi Germany had no problem holding Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Denmark, Yugoslavia, Greece, Norway and Western Poland in check.

If ambush attacks were carried out against their men they would just round up dozen's of men and kill them to send a message and warn off further attacks.

[Gorgodeus]

Wrong. China is a superpower also and US since financial crisis is not a world's hegemony. When you think of it from 1989 to 2008 is like 19 years. US' reign was short lived.

I don't think you understand the difference between a regional power and a superpower. Only the US is considered a superpower at this time. One of the main criteria is the ability to project force worldwide. Neither China nor Russia are capable of that at the present time. And "projecting force" does not include nukes.

[Deleted]

Nazi Germany had no problem holding Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Denmark, Yugoslavia, Greece, Norway and Western Poland in check.

If ambush attacks were carried out against their men they would just round up dozen's of men and kill them to send a message and warn off further attacks.

Nazi Germany was defeated too fast to really experience a war of attrition vs. local populations. You think killing random people deters resistance fighters? It actually creates more, if not to fight for freedom but to take revenge, and resistance fighters are never from the same village/region and they don't care the new authorities kill some random strangers.

[Deleted]

They would stand no chance against the 220+ other countries.

[Nadiru]

It could be the US + China or the US + Russia and the side with the US would force military capitulation on the rest of the planet within four years. All three is way, way overkill.

[Deleted]

It could be the US + China or the US + Russia and the side with the US would force military capitulation on the rest of the planet within four years. All three is way, way overkill.

No chance, not even with all 3.

[Wyrt]

They wouldn't be able to handle the rebels and freedom fighters across the globe. The US can't even handle that in Iraq, no way it could be handled on a global scale. They could nuke them, but there's little point in conquering land that's radioactive.

[Deleted]

They wouldn't be able to handle the rebels and freedom fighters across the globe. The US can't even handle that in Iraq, no way it could be handled on a global scale. They could nuke them, but there's little point in conquering land that's radioactive.

They would get nuked back.