Originally posted by TrueAmerican
So what is in your vision for this restructuring of the UN that you speak of?
The UN needs a standing force, always composed of several nationalities balanced geographically and politically, which is staffed on a rotating basis
by different sets of nations in proportion to their military spending. (I can anticipate several questions about this concept and have a few ideas i
could go into detail on if you like)
This force would have a mandate to intervene whenever certain conditions were met, according to the report of the appropriate UN body (IAEA for nukes,
although other situations, such as genocides, would also be addressed by this force). There would be no discretion apart from the facts. If the rules
are not followed, the force strikes according to a preapproved contingency plan, period.
To facilitate this of course, we'd still have to streamline nuclear technology exchange rules in order for the IAEA to be dependable. This would mean
setting up a standard framework for the proliferation of nuclear technology, where all transfers of equipment and payment went through the IAEA.
If a purchase of centrifuges that didn't go through the IAEA is discovered, the standing force is automatically authorized to launch strikes against
the contraband and the facility that furnished it.
The goal is that there is no more argument over the US being heavy handed or Russia undermining the rules. We all get together and set clear, easy to
follow rules before the game begins, and from then on if you break the rules, the offending materials are promptly destroyed as previously agreed.
Also, isn't one big problem with a move towards international nuclear law that it is still only as good as the ability of the US to enforce
With a standing force established, nations would be required to set aside a certain percentage of their resources for short tours of duty under UN
service, meaning that those who normally won't mobilize will have to. For one period it might be a large US force working with several smaller
nations. The next it might be China with several small nations, or later a combined EU force with several smaller nations.
If things came to the level of Desert Storm you'd still need to raise forces, but for situations where you just need a division or so that can act as
a separating force or detatch smaller units for security operations and a few aircraft capable of making surgical strikes, this would save us a lot of
(I anticipate someone suggesting that this arrangement could result in overzealous attacks, so of course the Security Council should be able to waive
the rule by majority vote or with one veto AND a concurring opinion by the World Court)
If the US weren't involved, what are the chances any other country is going provide the military backbone on its own to enforce disarming or
The possibly always exists that nations will order their forces not to fulfill their obligation, but why join the program to begin with if they were
going to do that? It might be wise for the agreement to include sanctions on nations which
We may just be STUCK with unilateralism, Vaga, whether we like it or not. Or at least until China or Russia steps up to the plate and really
puts their foot down instead of just yappin. Come on China, go MAKE your little brat in NK lose the nukes.
That's the beauty of the plan. I'm under no illusion that everyone will just sign the kind of deal that I'm proposing. We'd have to wrangle quite
a bit over it. It would involve using soft power to force Russia and China to ackowledge certain rules. They are setting fires for us to run around
putting out, just like the cold war, and it's exhausting us. The Soviet Union fell first, but we can't keep it up forever either and they know it.
So what we need to draw the line and say "we've got a new plan to fix this problem, and you're going to sit down and offer your input to make it
work, but at the end of the day you are going to sign it and follow it with us because we aren't going to trading with you while you're part of a
problem that is slowly killing us.
The idea of phased, complete world nuclear disarmament is one that only the most optimistic can dream about, as long as the extremely deep
rooted problems such as Iran-Israel remain. Noble ideas, but good luck.
It would take a pretty strong catalyst. It won't happen in the form of everyone just putting the nukes away. We'll have to render them obsolete and
get out ahead of the next offensive technology to prevent that one from being developed. For example, if there was a UN controlled space-based defense
system that was used to automatically down any ICBM launched, or any nuclear-capable bomber or cruise missile that entered a nation without proper
authority, then the countries with nuclear aresenals too small to saturate the system would be disarmable. Then there'd be some real potential for a
slow draw down, because things simply aren't as bad between the biggest nuclear powers as they were when those weapons were needed.
All you've got to do then is enforce a ban on the deployment of whatever the next system is- which wouldn't be incredibly difficult if the next wave
is space-based, which seems fairly likely.
I'm under no illusion that it will happen tomorrow and I'm under no illusion that any nation should be expected to expose its back to an old enemy
on blind faith, but I don't think it hurts us to keep talking about it and keep running the scenarios in hopes that there is a way where all parties
can "trust but verify" and back out of the nuclear age gracefully.