One family controls North Korea because they promoted themselves as head of the communist party in north korea when a schism occured, and have since retained in power.
A Bolschevik/Marxist/Communist movement in a first-world Western country is simply non-existent- as these movements only launch in areas where people were subject to a worse system- like a feudal system.

It took that long to kill Gaddafi likely due to some convenient (and likely scandalous) deals struck between him and some countries in NATO- who knows?
The fact is, random citizens managed to match firepower with their own government and oust him with minimal outside assistance- a new symptom of today's age.

With nuclear weapons, MAD holds true- nobody would want to use them, with any 'opportunity' (unlikely to work as planned) put at risk of nuclear retaliation with results too devastating even for the winning side.

With that remains the idea that a threat would motivate large portions of people to huddle under some authority- not true either. Perhaps in America/Australia (strictly one-party-per-term system means we effectively DO have to throw our lot in with someone to get our desired protection); in Switzerland, they vote once in a referendum, and the party that pushed for it remains only the fourth largest.
There has been little evidence that even in the threat of terrorism, that most of Europe has done little to support any amalgamation or subservience to a higher power. The EU itself- the closest to a 'global government' is struggling to grow, even retain its own structure.

Sorry bloke,you are way too self confident.
North Korea, is a whole country as you agree ruled by one family.
How, Why,
If Hitler, had not marched on Russia, not declared war on America.
Would he have still ruled most of the world.
Life is not a novel, not scripted.
Winners write history.
Who, tell me, would have ever thought,Italy/Spain/Greece/Portugal/England would have,for years, spent so much more than they earned?
If you look back 100 years the very idea of the EU would have you giggling.
What if tomorrow morning the World Financial Crisis kills the value of all money?

Alternatively Belly you give far too much credit to risks that have little chance of gaining the extents of power you are implying- again, especially in today's age where more commerce is becoming more independent and organized, and powerful weapons are easier than ever for civilians to buy or build.
Winners do write history- Switzerland being one such example.
Had Hitler not invaded Russia or brought America into the war, he may well have taken over most of Europe- and likely lost it from continuous uprisings.
And how would a world financial crisis kill all value of all money? Even if it did, the money would be equally useless, and thus equally viable to re-assign; or nations would invoke a reserve currency, or a commodity-based exchance until a replacement currency could be properly implemented.
Besides, even if the stock market imposes a dead value on a currency, domestically people are still going to use it for their transactions and set their own prices- it happens already.
Internationally the same would happen- countries who value the trade with a country with a dead currency will quickly determine an alternate trading currency.

King Hazza we will not agree on this one, so be it.
I ask you this, who controls the wealth of the world.
And what is trade? born from exchanging food and needs like clothing weapons and every day needs what is it now.
It is a force for peace, but too a force for war.
I do not always agree, but many think the UN got involved in Lybia Iraq for oil.
I am forced to ask why no involvement in North Korea, is conflict with China the reason?
Why then do we not let China fix it?
I think you put too much value on as things are and neglect the twists and turns history has shown us can take place.

Who controls trade? Nobody. Countries can regulate it and facilitate it and try to impose sanctions, and corporations big and small have a large say in it and contribute to it- but none of these actually control trade as a plural. At best, richer countries and businesses may have a disproportionate degree of influence and benefit.

There was no involvement in North Korea exactly because North Korea is a bit too dangerous for America to handle (even though China is now considering becoming neutral to reunification of this country).
Meanwhile, Iraq was enemies with America and most of its regional Allies (especially Saudi Arabia)- and had oil.
Libya had barely any intervention until the rebels started to get the upper hand (as NATO didn't want to offend the Arab states- who are also dictatorships).
These states are influential because they have oil- but their clear attempts to counterlobby alternate fuels hasn't been entirely successful.

And even many of these countries could never be able to force the amalgamation of any super-nations or OWGs.
Even in WW2, the Allies were never a uniform government- but always separate nations simply assisting each other.
These days Russia is clearly following a policy of arming proxy-nations to win in civil wars, China is passively working to economic success (their capacity to buy out land only occurs because we elect greedy governments who let them because selling off things they shouldn't is what they're trying to promote for personal gain).
In short, nobody is in a position- or even trying to get in position- to force the need for a federalization.
Even the EU is starting to stall in both its expansion AND its integration- at no less than the nagging of its own individual members.

King Hazza I can not rebut your post.
I can remind you however you seem convinced things will remain much as they are.
History shows this is not true.
Trade is always in flux, it as you say controls its self.
But self interest also plays a role.
We tend to think helping developing country's develop is a good thing.
That is today, but what of tomorrow?
And loss of trade fall in our money system, becomes an opportunity for OWG.
In matters of diplomacy trade defense no country today, is in control total control of its actions.
We act as others requires to.