Proposed Global Defense Force to replace individual national militaries

Proposed Global Defense Force to replace individual national militaries. The cost to each nation would be .5% of each member nation's GDP or Gross Domestic product. Every member nation would be protected by the GDF from external enemies and each member nation would put up .5% of their nation's annual earnings into this effort. The member nations would also be required to provide the same .5% of their national population as conscripts for the GDF. This would make the total strength of the GDF at about 15,000,000 men and women and provide an estimated budget based on 2010 figures at $291.1 billion

As a note the FY 2010, Department of Defense spending amounts to 4.7% of the USA GDP. This number amounted to $3.4 trillion in 2010. The savings to the US for such a scheme would amount to more than 3 trillion annually. Globally the world would save an estimated 5 trillion annually if every nation was to become a member.

The idea would allow member nations to save money and would ensure international cooperation and alignment. Risks would be reduced due to the interdependence of all nations in global security. Each nation would also be allowed to have police forces but they would be restricted to domestic security.

The object of this is to eliminate the need for war and make it very hard for a single nation to advance against any other nation. Where the united nations has failed is in providing security for the world. The nations of the world have relied on the United States for a long time now to provide this international security force. The fact is that the US has become bankrupt from this international police activity.

The world needs to police itself. The United States needs to contribute its fair share but should be replaced as world police force by the truly global defense force the GDF.

Well what do you think?

What do i think? I think its a recipe for a global police state.

Any links? I wish to learn more.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


But think of the savings. The US currently spends nearly 5% of our GDP on defense. Under this scheme we would only spend .5% or a savings of more than 3 trillion annually. We can not afford our current expenditure so by this method we could provide for the common defense of all nations for a very low cost.

The control of this GDF would be by the contract of the GDF which would provide for common defense only.

All part of the NWO

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

But think of the savings. The US currently spends nearly 5% of our GDP on defense. Under this scheme we would only spend .5% or a savings of more than 3 trillion annually. We can not afford our current expenditure so by this method we could provide for the common defense of all nations for a very low cost.

The control of this GDF would be by the contract of the GDF which would provide for common defense only.

So a little savings is worth giving up your freedom?

reply to post by uselesshobo


There are no links this is a discussion and it is original although certainly inspired by other thinkers. The question should be what would you want from such a GDF?

also, if it is only to provide common defense, then there would not be savings, as each country would still keep their own military for OFFENSIVE purposes.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


How much freedom do we have now as the defacto global police force? We are already a police state. I am discussing distribution of the cost and responsibility for global security to the rest of the globe.

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

How much freedom do we have now as the defacto global police force? We are already a police state. I am discussing distribution of the cost and responsibility for global security to the rest of the globe.

edit on 9-3-2011 by wayouttheredude because: dyslexic

No y ou are ignoring the way the world actually works.

A common 'world police' could not fight wars, and not only that, but what do you suppose they would be more interested in protecting...the corporations that provide their money, or the freedoms of the civilian?

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Part of the common defense is a signing of a non-aggression pact for all member nations. There would be no offensive capacity for member nations.

The world would save even more money if each nation would dismantle their war machines. If mankind is going to progress to the next level we need to do away with war before we kill ourselves off. For each nation to chip in and pay for an army of mercenaries is a step in the wrong direction. And if something like this gets started what's to stop them from taking over the world?

reply to post by wayouttheredude


Judging from the lack of UN response to the pleas for a no-fly zone in Libya by opposition leaders, I'd love to see this hair-brained scheme enacted.

The damned fools in the UN and the Whitehouse want "sanctions" and "resolutions" that haven't worked for 42 years, while people bleed and die and beg for a no-fly zone. The Whitehouse has not even bothered to reply to the messages from opposition leaders.

If North Korea invaded South Korea, it would take those silk-tie wearing mongoloids a year to pull their thumbs out of their rear ends and do something besides talk.

UMMMMMM not even close, where the hell did you get $3 trillion for FY 2010? lol. Total Spending FY 2010 = $685.1 billion. If we spent 3 trillion a year on DoD I'd expect hovering tanks, light sabers and death stars.

It's really not much worth discussing. No country that is of any strategic importance is going to sign away their military to some global force run by nationals of another state and feel at all protected. You may as well give up your soverignity completely. No non-aggression pact as ever worked well in the past. In fact, you could make a case for them causing wars. That's how a fairly local conflict in Serbia and Bosnia escalated into WW I and laid the basis for WW II. It's a terrible idea and won't happen.

reply to post by buster2010


The United States now spends 3 trillion dollars more for defense per year then the proposed annual budget for the GDF and we can not take over the world. How do you suppose the GDF would take over the world with less then half of a percent of our current military budget?

Also the chances of the world disarming is slim to none. Investing in a global defense apparatus is also pretty small but not quite as infinitesimal as global disarmament.

reply to post by Fitch303


You are right. I missed the boat on that one. total spending

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Part of the common defense is a signing of a non-aggression pact for all member nations. There would be no offensive capacity for member nations.

That's the most foolish thing I've ever heard. How can all the other member nations help if they themselves cannot wage an offensive war to repel the invaders? I'd love to be a non member and start invading if the only thing I could lose are the armies on foreign lands without having to worry about a counter offensive and being invaded myself. You know France had a GREAT defensive force that stopped Hitler right in his tracks..............I don't want to call you guys naive hippies but you're sure as hell not military historians.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

How much freedom do we have now as the defacto global police force? We are already a police state. I am discussing distribution of the cost and responsibility for global security to the rest of the globe.

edit on 9-3-2011 by wayouttheredude because: dyslexic

No y ou are ignoring the way the world actually works.

A common 'world police' could not fight wars, and not only that, but what do you suppose they would be more interested in protecting...the corporations that provide their money, or the freedoms of the civilian?

Who would decide to employ these forces ? what would their objective be?This is extraordinarily dangerous. So a motion is made by Chinese leaders to "global world command that those darn Americans are "aggressive" again by securing their southern border and World Commands sends in 20,000 malaysian and nepalese conscripts. to "stabilze the situation.. ever wonder where the" Blue helmets" =trargets ideology comes from?

This! Please tell me you are not idiotic enough to believe the superficial global peace b.s.("captain") This will be sold under(??) Americans will be naturally reluctant to shoot at u.s.national guard forces. Foreign u.n.forces" will be seen and treated as invaders..

For the 2010 fiscal year, the president's base budget of the Department of Defense rose to $533.8 billion. Adding spending on "overseas contingency operations" brings the sum to $663.8 billion.[1][2] When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009, the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $680 billion, $16 billion more than President Obama had requested.[3] An additional $37 billion supplemental bill to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was expected to pass in the spring of 2010, but has been delayed by the House of Representatives after passing the Senate.[4][5] Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $319 billion and $654 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $1.01 and $1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010.[6]

thats from wiki

and we don't need a global defense force, the temptation for some to try and seize the power of such a force would be to great.