Really? Hypothetically, is an organization with 100 tons of C-4 , but who are ambivalent and reticent about using it more powerful than an organization with one ton of C-4 , but who have no qualms about employing it to gain their ends?
We’re talking about a person, not an organization. And yes, a person with 100 tons of C-4 is more powerful than a person with one ton of C-4, no matter their respective inclinations to use the stuff. Power is about the ability to do things, not the inclination to do so.
I don’t necessarily equate power with the ability to kill people, so much as the ability to influence people’s lives. I think a good case could be made for the Pope, Dick Cheney, and Ben S. Bernanke (the new Fed Chairman).
Bush, on the other hand, is much more of an effect than a cause.
The captain of a nuclear sub and the pilot of a B-52 have the power to do one thing–launch a nuclear attack that could potentially lead to the destruction of the entire planet. That’s pretty significant, but they have no real way of leveraging that ability in order to “have things his way,” which is what the OP is asking about.
The POTUS has a vast amount of military might at his commnad, but his ability to have things his way, while much greater than most individuals, is severely restricted in many areas.
Kim Jong-Il, on the other hand, effectively has the entire population of North Korea as his personal slaves. He can order them to build him a palace, march to their deaths, invade China or South Korea (pretty much the same as above), or do the hokey-pokey. His realm of power is largely limited to his own country, but it’s nearly absolute. That counts for a whole lot of having things his way, in my book.
Of course, he’s also limited by the poor resources of North Korea and its very limited trade. Bill Gates can buy lots of things Kim Jong-Il probably can’t. He can’t order people to their deaths, but he can pay to have them do lots of things his way. He probably has as much power over his personal life as anyone else–he can live in any type house he can imagine, endulge in in virtually any hobby, have every meal he eats cooked to his liking. If he wanted to, he could probably seduce pretty much any woman he desired. He can also use his wealth and noteriety judiciously to effect society on a large scale by funding social, educational, and research initiatives.
Of course, the monarch of an oil-rich Arab state has all of that, plus political control of a nation, massive military might (compared to the average joe, at least), and the ear of most of the world’s leaders. That’s about as much power, as the OP describes it, as I can imagine. The world is their Burger King.
Rupert Murdoch. Controlling the media gives you power over the populace, and thus - in a democratic system - gives you an element of control over its leader.
No, absolutely incorrect about that. Power is the ability to force or influence others to do your bidding. If others believe that you aren’t going to act then there is no reason to follow your bidding.
The 9-11 hijackers took down planes with a few box cutters. Does one fear the manufacturers with their tens of thousands of box cutters in inventory, or a handfull of fanatics who are willing to use a few of them?
No, power is the ability to get things done, no matter the method.
So, name three things that a single sub captain has ever actively done to change the course of history.
Once again: Power is the ability. Not the probability, not the inclination, not the previous track record. The ability.
Also note that I’m not saying submarine captains are the most powerful persons in the world. I don’t believe they are. I’m just saying that if they are indeed, as astro says, about as powerful as a B-52 pilot with nuclear warheads, then they are pretty damn powerful.
So, explain how a sub captain has any ability to use this supposed power to influence anything to his own satisfaction.
I say he has no more power than does the guy who makes sure that New York City’s water supply is free from the waste that could spread deadly cholera to millions of unsuspecting people. Either one could senselessly take people’s lives, and despite their serious responsibilities, niether one is able to exert his will on anyone but his subordinates at work.
The most obvious answer is “any U.S. president,” I agree, but I think a fair case could be made for Bill Gates. Rich beyond the dreams of avarice, extremely influential in the realm of software development (on which so much of the machinery of modern life depends), and now running a nonprofit foundation which is handing out billions of dollars. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people will live or die in the next few decades depending on how Bill ‘n’ Melinda decide to spend their money - right now, IIRC, with a focus on nutrition and disease prevention.
That’s power.
For that matter, lots of people have said that Nancy Reagan controlled Ronald Reagan. Official power and actual power aren’t the same thing.
Right, and a very large part of getting things done is making the other person believe you will act in a particular way.
Simply possessing a tool, such as money, explosives, guns, etc does not give you power if the intended receiving party doesn’t believe you will use it. My friend can’t get her kids to behave, in spite of threatening various punishments, because the kids have figured out that she won’t follow through. OTOH, my brother-in-law never bluffs with my nephew and niece. Once he gets pissed off and starts counting to three, the kids jump. The difference between the respective children’s behavior is because my nephew and niece know that my BIL will act, so they react to the threat of a punishment, where the friend’s children know that it’s an empty threat. Despite both adults having the same ability to dole out similar punishments, the willingness to carry through translates into my BIL having greater control, and hence power, over his children.
I actually see two separate questions here, one of which deals with military power. Who has the most control over world politics, the most influence due to military and economic resources? This would probably be George W Bush.
However, I see “the ability to have things his way” as a slightly different question. If we are talking about the ability to live one’s personal life however you saw fit, I would probably say that it goes to someone fairly wealthy or a dictator of sorts. Bill Gates is a good candidate. While he may have to draw the line at doing anything explicitly illegal, the line is a lot narrower for the head of state. George W Bush would suffer far more if he decided to go to Nevada for prostitutes and booze than Bill Gates would. George W Bush probably has less freedom of movement due to security reasons than Bill Gates (I’m sure Gates has to be careful but I doubt he’d have as much paparazzi following him as a Hollywood star). There are many things a head of state cannot do for political reasons that would have less of an impact on a person like Gates.
However you phrase the question, I really don’t see how a sub captain is in the running. It is true that they can kill a huge number of people. I am sure this can be a very effective way of getting what you wanted, provided there was a very restricted subset of what you wanted. For example, if what you wanted was global economic stability so that your country had a stable economy, you’re probably out of luck. The president, however, has the option to use these weapons as well as a whole bag fill of diplomatic, economic or military tricks. There is a far wider range of outcomes available for you to shoot for.
Including the millions who get pissed every time he opens his mouth, even if all he’s said is “AT-CHOOOOO!”
I agree, and would say that that guy is powerful too, just like the bomber pilot. They are nowhere near someone like the American President or Bill Gates, but they’re powerful.
no! You’re wrong! Because… er… dammit, I hate it when folks find common ground in GD. 
Nuclear weapons in the US miiltary are not under the control of any one person.
The Captain cannot launch nukes on his own.
The precise details of why he cannot are, of course, classified. How the nukes are “released” into his authority is classified as well. But, it ain’t just a whim of any one person that makes that happen.
The commander in the silo cannot do it either.
Nor can the guy in charge of the B2’s.
I don’t think that the President could get away with just nuking someone for the fun of it, either. It’s a team effort, with command and control all specified in advance, for exactly that reason.
Tris
I don’t have a firm cite on this (It might have been Matt Drudge), but last week someone pointed out that in Hollywood, the RCC has less influence over film content than PETA.
Not like the good old days!
Sure, but it’s been determined through empirical testing that such a check is acutally meaningless as Congress will cave so as not to be accused of ‘not supporting the troops’.
-Joe