How much money would you need to just straight up take over a poor country?

[MikeyC]

If you've got stupid money, you might as well start your own country.

 

[TTT]

You need an army and something to sustain that army for years and pretty soon you will be running out of money. Any decent sized country with a population of 5 million and above is difficult to take over on an ongoing basis. Even small countries run budgets of at least 200million. The numbers are difficult to sustain and developing countries electorate tends to make decisions differently compared to Western norms, you can give clean water but people will take it and vote for someone of their ethnic group. The Congo is a non starter, too big of a country to control and any attempts usually attract many other interested players, in the late 90s Kagame and Museveni tried and that ended up drawing in troops from 4 other countries.

 

[CopiousX]

I was thinking about this topic earlier today, and i realized that the largest black ethnic groups on earth could totally afford to do this. We living badly out here but there are many more people living worse than us, who would gladly sell land in exchange for food and a chevy pickup truck . Coincidentally, the largest black ethnic groups are all fighting among their people for land, (ados/fba, igbo, yoruba, hausa, oromo, kikuyu, etc).


It would be something modeled after the Louisiana Purchase, but for full sovereignty not land leases. Wouldnt even need a whole country; just a decent piece of land for a citystate. Even more so than money, i think the UN power balance would be a bigger issue; so you might have to buy 3 countries simultaneously to appease the western faction, russia faction, and china faction of existing global bodies.

Look at you nikkas with your warped colonial minds

Its not colonialism if the inhabitants willingly sell you their sht. I think of it as a service.

 

[CopiousX]

You need an army and something to sustain that army for years and pretty soon you will be running out of money. Any decent sized country with a population of 5 million and above is difficult to take over on an ongoing basis. Even small countries run budgets of at least 200million. The numbers are difficult to sustain and developing countries electorate tends to make decisions differently compared to Western norms, you can give clean water but people will take it and vote for someone of their ethnic group. The Congo is a non starter, too big of a country to control and any attempts usually attract many other interested players, in the late 90s Kagame and Museveni tried and that ended up drawing in troops from 4 other countries.

Thats too much. Thats like buying the grain factory when you only need a loaf of bread. Think of how the US only bought Ohio and Washington from the brittish but instead of them trying to buy all of Canada.

i do agree with you that longterm money is important. But i figure that one ethnic group's existing bussiness interests would just be transfered to the new spot. It would be the equivalent of FBA/ADOS moving Tyler perry Studios to a portion bhutan or Igbos moving Nollywood production to the island of Tuvalu, or Hausa moving Dangote's HQ to Comoros.

 

[Ezekiel 25:17]

Money is only part of the equation. It's more propaganda and the people surrounding you. Hitler took over Germany and was nowhere near rich.

For me there'd be no point in taking over the country if I didn't have the right resources to make it prosperous