NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm firstly posting this here because i cant seem to get 2 endorsments in my dead and decaying region, and secondly looking for someone to elaborate on my ideas and come up with a un preposal.

The idea is pritty much to start a much larger un army.
Nations would dontate an amount of soldies and weapons - preportional to the nations size and wealth - and the nations army will then be dissolved. Every nation in the un should do this. The nation will pay for the maintenance of their equipment barracs etc. and up keap of their section of the army, and in return they would recieve protection from the entire un army.

I believe this would give greater protection to all nations in the un, would cost less money (leaving more to be spent on public services) and would give diplomacy a better chance before conflict occours. the only downside i can see to this is that in small countries with large armys would face unemployment.

Like i said i havt thught this through properly so feel free to elaborate on this and later on maybe put it up as a possible resolution

Guyinapie

The Holy Republic of Eredron opposes this proposal, and all others of a similar nature.

The idea is pritty much to start a much larger un army.
Nations would dontate an amount of soldies and weapons - preportional to the nations size and wealth - and the nations army will then be dissolved. Every nation in the un should do this. The nation will pay for the maintenance of their equipment barracs etc. and up keap of their section of the army, and in return they would recieve protection from the entire un army.

I believe this would give greater protection to all nations in the un, would cost less money (leaving more to be spent on public services) and would give diplomacy a better chance before conflict occours. the only downside i can see to this is that in small countries with large armys would face unemployment.
Guyinapie


Whereas your intentions have merit, the Carver States have a different notion of military force. Rather than build up and employ enormous armies, the Carver States believes in assassination of specific individual targets. The idea is that, with certain aggressive leaders removed, the impetus for a nation to wage war is severely diminished.

Osward Farber
Primate for Relations
Carver States

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=83067

I could write another long rant, but I've already addressed this topic in another thread.

the armed republic of portugal opposes this, the un does not need a global army. i will not allow an organization outside my country to decide what happens with my people

The Drama Isles would not support a global army under the guidance of the UN. Such a force is not loyal to its contributing nations, which means that if there were to be more than say, five conflicts throughout the world, and suddenly you neighbor attacks you, you can't defend yourself. Especially if the UN army is the force that is attacking you. Or if the UN were to declare itself the dominating force in the world, and wipe out everybody with their huge army.
Also, what nations would want to spend part of their own budget to upkeep a rival's military? If all the nations of the world were to be part of this army, then wouldn't it seem likely that an enemy nation would also submit forces?
Which brings me to my last point. A global army is logistically impossible to implement at this moment in time. Language would be a primary barrier. Many nations use different types of equipment, so there is no standard arsenal.

Correct me if I am mistaken but I think that is one of the first things it says when you try to join the UN.

I think it specifically says the UN cannot form a military or collect money (which would most likely pay the army).

Now I don't know if oyu guys have been around for a long time but you have to earn these things.
You have to build or buy your military forces.
Otherwise it does not make sense.Well it does but I oppose it.

to the drama ilses, the whole idea of this was to try and stop 5 conflicts breaking out all over the world. Its pritty much as close as you can get to disarmorment without people having outcry, although it would appaear thats already happened.

I support the idea of a UN backed military force, but there have to be some restrictions set in place, such as, not all countries should have to pay for this Army, look at many of the smaller and less economically strong countries, how are they to pay for this army? The larger nations must show that they are willing to maintain the UN by helping support the smaller delegates who need the UN for support. Also, this army could in NO way be used for offensive purposes, if a country is under attack, a UN backed military force could be used to suppress the attackers and rebuild the country. Finally, the larger nations should have no say in what the military force does, it should be run directly by the UN with little to no influence by a single country.

I think you may find in the UN Charter that the UN is not supposed to have a standing army. Peace-keeping forces are only allowed.

alright. having one random universal UN army is not only against the UN charter, its a generally dumb idea. first of all, no one would disband their own army just to help create some overly large "peace keeping" force controlled by the general consensus. the general consensus, as is proven by alot of these newer UN mandates, is generally annoying and utterly stupid to most logical people. and, eventually, the UN might rule my country by passing more and more pointless and sovergnty-infringing mandates. O_o. and of course, the random UN army will be there to pwn me if i do anything against it.

I support the idea of a UN backed military force, but there have to be some restrictions set in place, such as, not all countries should have to pay for this Army, look at many of the smaller and less economically strong countries, how are they to pay for this army? The larger nations must show that they are willing to maintain the UN by helping support the smaller delegates who need the UN for support. Also, this army could in NO way be used for offensive purposes, if a country is under attack, a UN backed military force could be used to suppress the attackers and rebuild the country. Finally, the larger nations should have no say in what the military force does, it should be run directly by the UN with little to no influence by a single country.

That's an easy one. They rent their services for a price.

I support the idea of a UN backed military force, but there have to be some restrictions set in place, such as, not all countries should have to pay for this Army, look at many of the smaller and less economically strong countries, how are they to pay for this army? The larger nations must show that they are willing to maintain the UN by helping support the smaller delegates who need the UN for support. Also, this army could in NO way be used for offensive purposes, if a country is under attack, a UN backed military force could be used to suppress the attackers and rebuild the country. Finally, the larger nations should have no say in what the military force does, it should be run directly by the UN with little to no influence by a single country.

That's an easy one. They rent their services for a price.

Being a small country itself, Andorice does not have the flow of money to pay for the us of a military force to defend it from someone who may be on a quest to steal our lands. This force, which should be supported and maintained by the larger nations will keep those nations from invading smaller countries, which sustains a high level of peace.

alright. having one random universal UN army is not only against the UN charter, its a generally dumb idea. first of all, no one would disband their own army just to help create some overly large "peace keeping" force controlled by the general consensus. the general consensus, as is proven by alot of these newer UN mandates, is generally annoying and utterly stupid to most logical people. and, eventually, the UN might rule my country by passing more and more pointless and sovergnty-infringing mandates. O_o. and of course, the random UN army will be there to pwn me if i do anything against it.

I too worry about that large number of UN Laws, but it is always an option to leave the UN if you feel threatened by it. However, I'm sure that as long as Modarr doesn't feel the need to do anything drastic, the UN will not do any harm to it.

The United States of Manny and Moe also opposes militarizing the United Nations.

The UN Charter clearly defines the role of the organization. Its fundamental purpose is to allow nations to discuss and negotiate issues of transborder importance so as to avert war whenever possible.

The UN, by its very design, is to be neutral party in disputes between states. The introduction of a military force revokes the neutrality on which the UN relies to function. The mandate that member nations turn over military personnel and equipment will also violate the laws of many member nations, many of which have strict prohibitions against their military from serving in anything other than a specific self defense role.

This proposal is doomed to failure, and it should. Once the UN's neutrality is removed, it can no longer serve its purpose. Once it becomes a government unto itself, the primary members will depart - and the UN will cease to have any role in the wor.d

This is *almost* identical to a suggestion we made recently in a different thread, and yet, we can not support it. The fact that participation in this UN army is mandatory virtually ensures that few will consider supporting the proposal. If, however, the proposal were to make contributions to the UN Defensive Block voluntary, but with the catch that only those nations which contribute to the Block and dismantle their independent armed forces will be protected by the Block from agressors, it would become much more viable.

Individual states could keep their forces if they wish, but they will not benefit from the overwhelming numbers of the UN Defensive Block. On the other hand, those nations that join will not have military forces of their own, and thus will be incapable of agression against other states. However, they will be protected *from* agression *by* other states with a force far superior to what they could have raised themselves. Overall, the Block will encourage a defensive stance, thus decreasing the overall number of conflicts involving UN member states. It may also encourage nations that are not UN members and that have no desire to carry an agressive stance to join the UN.

As far as NationStates itself goes, of course, the proposal will only affect the RP in the International Incidents forum, where nations that are members of the Block will never be able to launch attacks, but will have vast militaries at their disposal if they are attacked themselves.

As for peacekeeping forces, they can be maintained by the UN as a separate organization. We do not feel the creation of a United Nations Defensive Block would contradict the Mandate, as it certainly would be aiding the development of peaceful relations between nations, and its classification as a "standing UN army" is debatable, since the mandate of the Block itself is limited to defense.

Office of the Governor

Smaller countries with smaller armys would obviously contribute to a lesser extent, all i really want i for all nations to disarm. But, while this is (currently) not possible i believe nations should not have complete controll over an army which for all intensive perposes they could do anything they wanted with. For instance, if a political party that had been in power for sometime and had built up a substantial army for the nations security, had been removed from power and replaced or overthrown by an extreme right wing government who dicided to do some ethnic clensing, or invading of countried to put minorities into slavery, it would be quite hard to stop them.

But then again if this considerably largeer UN army were to become of a particular political persuasion such a communism, who could stop them forcing it upon every country.

More constructive criticism such as offered by Andorice unless of couse you just here to insult my ideas