Pay special attention to section (c) of Stage 3 below.

The United States undertook bilateral negotiations with the communist Soviet Union in 1961 which lead to a "Joint Statement of Agreed Principles for Disarmament Negitiations" which was circulated to all UN Members in Sept of 1961. According to UN Document A/4879, 20 Sept 1961, the relevant parts were that member States would only have non-nuclear armaments, establishments, etc to maintain internal order and that the States shall support and provide manpower for a UN Peace Force. Later in the fall of 1961 the United States submitted its own proposal for "General and Complete Disarmament" to the UN Assembly. In it were provisions for three stages of disarmament.
Stage 1: States (nations) shall develop arrangements for the establishment of a UN Peace Force.
Stage 2: States shall further develop the peacekeeping function of the United Nations U.N.) and establish a United Nations Peace Force and progressively strengthen it with the purpose (in Stage 3) of deterring any threat or use of force.
State 3: Progressive, controlled disarmament would proceed to the point where no State would have the military power to challenge the United Nations Peace Force. The final phase of the disarmament program would be directed toward the attainment of a world in which:
(a) States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also support and provide agreed manpower for a U.N. Peace Force.
(b) The U.N. Peace Force, equipped with agreed types and quantities of armaments, would be fully functioning.
* (c) The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.*
(d) The peacekeeping capabilities of the United Nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all States under such arrangements sufficiently far-reaching to assure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world.

As excerpted from the Dept of State Bulletin, 16 October 1961.
Much of the information above came from the book, International Military Forces: The Question of Peackeeping in an Armed and Disarming World, by Lincoln P. Bloomfield.

If one were to ask people on the street if a one-world government would need a military force, most would say yes. It’s a damn shame people are this stupid.

Eventually, at this pace we will need a world entity (governing body) to deal with intergalactic matters. So who votes for the UN to be that entity?
I don't. Or do we even get a say? Lol

Originally posted by RobinB022
I think this is one of the reasons for the famous speech by JFK;

And by extension...one of the reasons for his assassination (for his opposition to the agenda of those "secret societies").

Originally posted by HamrHeed
Eventually, at this pace we will need a world entity (governing body) to deal with intergalactic matters. So who votes for the UN to be that entity?
I don't. Or do we even get a say? Lol

Having a unified global force to fight off invading aliens was Ronald Reagan's fantasy (well one of them...he was pretty kinky I understand ). But you are right....where do we get to exercise our vote on international matters? It is a rhetorical question.....answer: we wont have a vote.

This is a great topic.

It doesn't seem likely that everyone will just take the high road and agree to stop shooting each other. Too much historical baggage. So then, the logic goes, there should be a peace keeper with superior arms to it's enemies. Currently this responsibility is mostly on the shoulders of the United States Military (with debatable results).

Should 300 million Americans carry the tax burden of protecting the 7 billion humans of the world. Of course not.

So do we shift this responsibility to a UN type organization. Lower defense spending, maybe a positive effect on the American deficit? Although, USA is major financier of UN.

But would a UN Military be trustworthy? Probably no less than an American military...

American companies would still be the major contractors, American leaders would still have major influence on policy, and America wouldn't have as big a target on their back.

A world military, if supported by China, India, Pakistan, Brazil, Russia as well as the western nations may be a quicker path to some level of demilitarization.

With regard to defending against an alien attack, lets hope there is a galactic version of our hypothetical world military to protect us. And if not, let's build a giant laser on the moon.