Should The UN be Militarized?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 07:06 PM
link   
This is a somewhat far-fetched idea perhaps, but what about expanding the Security Council to include a Military force?

This would include an Intelligence Agency, Counter Terrorist Force, Maritime Force, and Logistics, as well as Peacekeeping Forces. The troops would all be professionally trained and under direct control of the UN.

The idea is that the UN can operate against rogue nations and terrorist groups without having to rely on member nations all the time. Also a Logistics Corp would allow the UN to respond instantly to natural disasters such as the Tsunami, and the earthquake in Iran. As well as peacekeeping, the Maritime Force could aid the US against drug trafficking in the Carribean, and operate against pirates in SE Asia.

This Force would require several small bases around the world. Perhaps sharing with existing military forces would be a good way of cutting cost.

Obviously, cost would be a major issue, but the force doesn't have to be that big. After all, the UN would also be able to call on member nations to aid in operations.

Any thoughts?

I also included a link to the UN's Org. Chart.

www.un.org...




posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   
I don't see any problem with better coordination and integration to make the current sysytems more effective but I can't really see the need or that a separate militarised section of the UN would have on balance a more positive effect.

Jayzuss, can you just imagine what the loopy UN = NWO ding-bats would make of that one!?



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Ya know, the UN already has access to the most advanced and capable security contractor in the world.

If the UN asked the US (along with support from other UN members) to plan and mount a major operation in the Sudan so that the UN could make positive changes there, do you think we would say no?



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
If the UN asked the US (along with support from other UN members) to plan and mount a major operation in the Sudan so that the UN could make positive changes there, do you think we would say no?


- I'm quite sure that if the US wasn't interested then that is exactly what you guys would say.

The Iraq debacle has already have made it quite plain that your current administration are only really interested in international co-operation when it suits what they determine to be your own narrow selfish interests and to hell with what the rest of the international community thinks.

Fine. So be it.

But my money is on it not being too long until you guys start to regret that kind of stance.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
If the UN asked the US (along with support from other UN members) to plan and mount a major operation in the Sudan so that the UN could make positive changes there, do you think we would say no?


- I'm quite sure that if the US wasn't interested then that is exactly what you guys would say.

The Iraq debacle has already have made it quite plain that your current administration are only really interested in international co-operation when it suits what they determine to be your own narrow selfish interests and to hell with what the rest of the international community thinks.

Fine. So be it.

But my money is on it not being too long until you guys start to regret that kind of stance.



well, i was going to say something similar to smink but he has said it all (and more)

but anyway smink, do you not feel that the UN could a least do with a logistics group?

and do you really feel UN = NWO? what makes you say this?



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daystar
well, i was going to say something similar to smink but he has said it all (and more)


- Think nothing of it Daystar, it's a gift!



but anyway smink, do you not feel that the UN could a least do with a logistics group?


- To be honest I'm not sure they don't already under some guise or another.
(It might be something which exists under treaty on paper right now but I would not be surprised if it wasn't defined and agreed long ago.....you know, when the US helped set up the UN and was in favour of international co-operation).


and do you really feel UN = NWO? what makes you say this?


- No mate.
I was being sarcastic.

Whilst I will conceed that there always exists the possibility for a NWO of some sort the practicalities and logistics of creating one (in the manner that some want to be afraid of) is IMHO far beyond the capabilities of anyone now or for a long time into the future.

Afterall, if most national govs can barely control what goes on in their towns of a night-time what chance global control?



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daystar
This would include an Intelligence Agency, Counter Terrorist Force, Maritime Force, and Logistics, as well as Peacekeeping Forces. The troops would all be professionally trained and under direct control of the UN.


I agree the UN needs to take a more proactive role in both the military and more aspects of the world.
If its not careful it will see itself taken apart slowly by organisations such as the EU and AU which will have conflicting goals and areas of interest.
I'd rather be a member of the a more powerful UN than the EU which is restricted to Europe.

Long live Global unity i say



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
I agree the UN needs to take a more proactive role in both the military and more aspects of the world.


glad you agree Wizard. my idea is that they would operate like a militarized police force, and be aided by member nations if necessary. peacekeeping, counter terrorist, anti piracy, drug enforcment, etc

this would of course take nothing away from their excellent diplomatic and charity work



If its not careful it will see itself taken apart slowly by organisations such as the EU and AU which will have conflicting goals and areas of interest.


so i take it you feel that making the UN more active would help to prevent this?

i would hate to see the UN taken apart like you say, as i feel the world would be worse off without the UN, to say the least. for example, look at the work they're doing for the Tsunami survivors. sure, there are other aid agencies involved, but you cannot argue with the massive contribution of the UN



I'd rather be a member of the a more powerful UN than the EU which is restricted to Europe.

Long live Global unity i say


amen to that!



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   
I think a force like the GDI would be good, or makeing the UN like NATO where if one person gets attacked the others will stop the war.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
If its not careful it will see itself taken apart slowly by organisations such as the EU and AU which will have conflicting goals and areas of interest.
I'd rather be a member of the a more powerful UN than the EU which is restricted to Europe.


- Errr. hang on.

Exactly when has the EU been a party to 'taking the UN apart'?

If you want to see naked outright hostility in action against the UN you need to look to the USA right now.

I really wonder what made you feel the need to pretend the EU has also been acting in a hostile manner to the UN Wizard.
Balance?
Balance is fine....until the attempt becomes downright untrue.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
I think a force like the GDI would be good, or makeing the UN like NATO where if one person gets attacked the others will stop the war.


excellent wasp! you are coming round to my way of thinking! GDI is actually the inspiration for this thread; GDI is actually the UN militarized in the C&C universe.

i found myself wondering if this would be possible in real life.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Exactly when has the EU been a party to 'taking the UN apart'?


Funds, resources, political influence, manpower, money etc that currently goes to making the EU superstate could be plowed into the UN to make it a bigger better organisation.


If you want to see naked outright hostility in action against the UN you need to look to the USA right now.


Thats why reform is needed, to give the UN a real and powerful international identity, no matter how powerful the USA is it is nothing without other countries, the UN under proper reform could help regulate the actions of the US in places such as the middle east.


I really wonder what made you feel the need to pretend the EU has also been acting in a hostile manner to the UN Wizard.


UN Wizard
i misread your post


anyway......the EU is doomed to fail in the long term, the UN however has an unlimited potential.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
Funds, resources, political influence, manpower, money etc that currently goes to making the EU superstate could be plowed into the UN to make it a bigger better organisation.


- Well despite your speculative insistance, the EU is not a superstate now and is so far from being one now that the matter is really not worth considering. Certainly not in relation to this.

Those funds, political influence, resources, manpower and money were not invested in the EU at the UN's expense.

They have nothing to do with 'taking the UN apart'.

Your original statement is just plain wrong; the EU has never attempted to 'take the UN apart'.

You might as well say that about any expenditure that doesn't go the UN's way if you're really going to try that tack.

In which case how come you pick on the comparitively miniscule amount the EU spends on itself but utterly ignore the greatest fortunes the world has ever seen that the US spends on it's military?

In fact how come any wiff of EU 'self-interest' (which afterall by definition includes the UK) has you practically outraged and disgusted and yet US self interest no matter how much more gross has nothing but silence if not actual approval from you?


Thats why reform is needed, to give the UN a real and powerful international identity, no matter how powerful the USA is it is nothing without other countries, the UN under proper reform could help regulate the actions of the US in places such as the middle east.


- Wizrd mate the UN is not a sovereign entity of its own. It is a co-operative based on the voluntary efforts of the member states. This is both it's strength and it's weakness.

It cannot just strut about the place 'doing'. It's very nature means nothing can happen without collective agreement and that is hard enough to get even when the nuimbers are reduced to those of the security council alone.


anyway......the EU is doomed to fail in the long term, the UN however has an unlimited potential.


- Dream on.


The EU goes from strength to strength whereas the UN is currently subject to extreme hostility from the USA (not the EU, let me point out once again).

I too would like to see a more effective UN but I have yet to hear a realistic constructive word about how to get this in the context of free sovereign nations democratically involved in one.

Quite how you also rate losing the EU from the world equation as a step forward is also rather baffling.....the world coming together by one of the longest, most meaningful and successful co-operatives falling apart or being destroyed.....how does that one work?



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 11:04 AM
link   
No way. I am not some radical neo-conservative however the UN cant control and handle an international crises without US help. IF the un was militarized we would have an uncooperative and cumbersome force.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by benedict arnold
No way. I am not some radical neo-conservative however the UN cant control and handle an international crises without US help. IF the un was militarized we would have an uncooperative and cumbersome force.

Thats due to the US's military sheer size and firepower superiority above the rest of the word.
It cant control international crises due to the very reason that NO countries military is prepared to send thier men and women to die for another persons war.
Now if they had this force they would be able to enfore the agreed treaties, keep the peace and generally act like the globabl policemen that it was designed to do.
We could do with cleaning the UN's house mabye....



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 06:55 PM
link   
No.

This just has so many problems I don't know where to begin.

1) Who pays for it? It would cost BILLIONS of dollars to creat a brand new state of the art army from scratch. If EVERY country paid the SAME amount, I still don't like it.

2) Where do the soldiers come from? Does each country send some of it's own soldiers? Do you sign up directly? What language do you speak?

3) Who gets the contracts to pay for the weapons? How do you decide? Surely, Russia would have a problem if a US military contract was given and vice versa. Too much opertunity for scandal and bribes.

4) Where are the military bases located? They are going to need bases world wide to operate from. Where are they? Does the UN but the land from each country, or is it given? (don't forget the HUGE economic benifits from having a military base in a town).

etc etc etc....

I think this is a really really REALLY bad idea. Too many things can get screwed up, too much money involved, too much power for an international group.

And besides, living in the real world, the US is going to end up paying for 40% of this multi billion dollar army, and as all of you Euros love to point out, we have a fairly large national debt.

So hey, you guys can pay for it and commit your troops to it. And since the US makes all of the best military equipment in the world, our end of it will be making all of that hardware for the UN Army to use.....in exchange for all those billions the army will cost.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
1) Who pays for it? It would cost BILLIONS of dollars to creat a brand new state of the art army from scratch. If EVERY country paid the SAME amount, I still don't like it.

Wealthiest countries pay most , poorere countries pay what they can.


2) Where do the soldiers come from? Does each country send some of it's own soldiers? Do you sign up directly? What language do you speak?

It would be like the normal UN just with a bit of NATO stuck in.


3) Who gets the contracts to pay for the weapons? How do you decide? Surely, Russia would have a problem if a US military contract was given and vice versa. Too much opertunity for scandal and bribes.

Well surely they would use the countries militaries and just combine the tech.


4) Where are the military bases located? They are going to need bases world wide to operate from. Where are they? Does the UN but the land from each country, or is it given? (don't forget the HUGE economic benifits from having a military base in a town).

Hmm good point, but If they got the land given then it would be benifitial to all concerned.




I think this is a really really REALLY bad idea. Too many things can get screwed up, too much money involved, too much power for an international group.

Like there isnt enough things easily screwed up?
Take NATO, largest ,most technologically advanced and most heavily armed force in the world!


And besides, living in the real world, the US is going to end up paying for 40% of this multi billion dollar army, and as all of you Euros love to point out, we have a fairly large national debt.

Why they dont do so in the UN anyhow.


So hey, you guys can pay for it and commit your troops to it. And since the US makes all of the best military equipment in the world, our end of it will be making all of that hardware for the UN Army to use.....in exchange for all those billions the army will cost.

...That is a debateable fact and unless you REALLY want to start an argument about it we should agree its very controversial that view.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 10:44 PM
link   
No personally in my opinion it has not shown to be responsible enough. no one is perfect but the UN is to corrupt...



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
No personally in my opinion it has not shown to be responsible enough. no one is perfect but the UN is to corrupt...


And the US is perfect is it



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Wealthiest countries pay most , poorere countries pay what they can.


And thats what I am saying. NO! I am sick of the US paying for everything. The US already pays for 35% of the entire UN. And now the US should pay another 30 billion dollars? No!



It would be like the normal UN just with a bit of NATO stuck in.


So now NATO takes on the responsability? Hmmm, sounds like more burden on the US, UK, Poland, etc. Why should WE take on all of this crap? NATO is fine as it is. If the UN needs help, just ask NATO instead of sucking up billions of extra dollars.



Well surely they would use the countries militaries and just combine the tech.


It won't work like that. If you want the UN to have their own military they need to stream line everything. 1 main rifle. 1 main pistol. 1 main fighter. 1 min bomber. 1 main tank. 1 main APC. 1 main transport. Etc Etc Etc.



Hmm good point, but If they got the land given then it would be benifitial to all concerned.


Its not that easy. You need bases in the middle east. What country is going to allow an international military base in their country that will most likely consist of mainly christians? What about in sout America where the economic boom will be fought over? How do you award one country the base and not the other?




Like there isnt enough things easily screwed up?
Take NATO, largest ,most technologically advanced and most heavily armed force in the world!


Exactly my point! There are already a million things that are screwed up! Why make another multi billion dollar one? The UN has PROVEN through SCANDAL and IRRESPONSABILITY to be unworthy of trust. Again, if they need a military force, call NATO - it's already there and won't cost any more money.





Why they dont do so in the UN anyhow.


I am not sure what you are trying to say here. If you are saying the US doesn't pay that much, I will have you know that we pay 30% of the TOTAL UN buget. Why in the flying # should we have to pay for 1/3 of an organization that lives to tell us how wrong we are? I would like the US to leae the UN all together. It would disolve in a week because no one else would put up the money.



...That is a debateable fact and unless you REALLY want to start an argument about it we should agree its very controversial that view.


Not really. The US produces the vast majority of the worlds best military gear. Our planes are clearly the best. Our MBT is the best. We will have the best rifle as soon as the XM-8 comes out. Best helo's. Best ships. Best subs. Best missles. Best bombs. Best artillery.

And since as you said "the rich countries should pay the most", should all of those US dollars then go to buy Rusian equipment? HELL NO! Every cent of our money should go towards buying US equipment, just like the Russians would want their money buying their stuff.

This is exactly how scandals happen. Who ever is in charge of deciding where the oney gets spent gets bribed.

In short, if the rest of the world wants to do it, go ahead. I don't want 1 cent of US tax payers money spent on this. We don't need an international military. If we have a problem, we can take care of it ourselves with our own military. It would cost less for us just to show up with our own military.

[edit on 13-2-2005 by American Mad Man]





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join