NationStates Jolt Archive

THIs is UN existence MAIN Objective!
if unfortunattley this isn't possible in real world. Maybe here it can be. I didn't go ahead with this proposal and i don't even have the needed endorsements to do that... Even though, i think we should propose that the first thing to be done with this objective is to strictly forbid the weapon exportation... And, if possible, even forbid it's production... The world would clearly be a better place to live if there were no guns. I created this topic in order to have a discussion about this goal and how to make it. I hope to have some feedback and that at the end of the discussing that is going to folow this text we'll found a solid proposal that will realy have some impact. Maybe my man ideias r inadequate and utopic. I'm here to listen alternatives but i also think who's against the creation of this proposal shouldn't even have joined UN.

PS (For the world security maniacs): war just leads to war. there's no logic in fighting violence with violence. It has never worked.

OK, this is the umpteenth time this has come up.

This is an absolutely retarded idea.

Tell me, what do I do when a non-UN member tries to invade me? Capitulate without putting up a fight?

You're right--war is irrational. You know what that means, though? It means that those who initiate war are irrational themselves. And you know what that means? It means that the only way they can be dealt with is on terms that they understand--namely, violence.

It is too slippery a slope to make such regulations.

First, to ban the exportation of weapons would be a PERFECT justification for stockpiling. A nation can claim that their only major industry in place is weapons production, and that they cannot afford to shut it down. And since they can't export them, what are they to do other than keep them and train their army in the use of everything they develop?

Second? What is a weapon? If you eliminate all nuclear weapons, men will fight with missiles. If you eliminate missiles, they'll fight with guns. If you eliminate guns, they'll fight with swords and we'll be heading back to the stone age.

War is a fact of life, just as is death, sickness, and hunger. We can fight these things, lessen them, prevent as much of them as we can, but we will never completely eliminate them until the entirety of our society has made a great stride forward in social evolution.

Its a good idea, but Ithuania is right. Non UN members would bet attacking left and right. If you want to solve the weapon problem you need to take basically the opposite approach:

Have the UN give out weapons, not nukes, but lower tech weapons. Those who would use them, would become part of the UN, where they could be watched, and could slowly be removed, by regulations.

Otherwise, by compleatly outlawing it, people will do it illegaly and then you can,t do anything

leader of Zervok

yeah, i already thought of that... that question would probably raise up soon or latter..... i just didn't refeered to it on the beguining to make the things more gradual and globaly constructed...

so... an army is neeeded... alright...

first of all, that fact don't eliminates the possibility of making a proposal against weapon exportation. I continue to have this proposal in mind as the first best step to world peace.

as aswer to that problem, we cannot forbid the wepon production. But we can sugest a creation of a UN army and a obligation of investing 50% of the nations defense budget on this UN army... this way UN would have always the power to stop new rising wars, even when involving milittary powerfull UN nations...

are you going to have 20,000 people attack every time there is a little dispute. A UN force is not bad, but it would not be efficiant.
I would suggest that a section of the UN site would be used for calls of assistance..

are you going to have 20,000 people attack every time there is a little dispute. A UN force is not bad, but it would not be efficiant.
I would suggest that a section of the UN site would be used for calls of assistance..

It is too slippery a slope to make such regulations.

First, to ban the exportation of weapons would be a PERFECT justification for stockpiling. A nation can claim that their only major industry in place is weapons production, and that they cannot afford to shut it down. And since they can't export them, what are they to do other than keep them and train their army in the use of everything they develop?

Second? What is a weapon? If you eliminate all nuclear weapons, men will fight with missiles. If you eliminate missiles, they'll fight with guns. If you eliminate guns, they'll fight with swords and we'll be heading back to the stone age.

War is a fact of life, just as is death, sickness, and hunger. We can fight these things, lessen them, prevent as much of them as we can, but we will never completely eliminate them until the entirety of our society has made a great stride forward in social evolution.

if a nation lives from wepon production it is living from the unfortunes of the other nations and shouldn't even be part of the UN. The weapon development requires many high-tech concepts and machinery that could be invested in something good for the menkind. ... i supose it isn't difficult to stop constructing tanks a begin to start makin cars, or stop makin fighters and invest in comercial airplanes...

are you going to have 20,000 people attack every time there is a little dispute. A UN force is not bad, but it would not be efficiant.
I would suggest that a section of the UN site would be used for calls of assistance..

that's the reason why 50% of the nation's defense budget would be invested in a nation's army... and u wouldn't need to send the whole UN army to any little conflict.... besides that... with a huge UN army, who would be crazy enough to make an ofensive to a UN nation?

but with more defence spending and more investment of weapons, they become easier to get. It is a PERFECT raeson to stockpile weapons

and what happens between 2 UN nations, if there was a UN army

but with more defence spending and more investment of weapons, they become easier to get. It is a PERFECT raeson to stockpile weapons

and what happens between 2 UN nations, if there was a UN army

the invader is always wrong. It violates one of the real UN basic principle: "the right of any culture to live in an independent country" and the UN army should be directed against the invader.

any other issue than a milittary conflict should be treated using a vote of all un members to economicaly punnish the country in question.

well perhaps funding for a UN progect on defence should be proposed, along with this. A wall never hurt anybody, unless it wasnt built properly.

so.. i suopse that bye now the proposal is this:

v0.0

1 - It's stricly forbiden to export weapons. Any country that mainly lives only from the world conflics should convert part of their war industry in other industries (automobile,comerial airplanes, aerospacial, comunication, informatics).

2 - 50% of Any UN member defense budget is directed to the UN army.

3 - The UN army will only go to war if the military issue in cause is a millitary offensive.

4 - The UN forces will always be directed against the invader, because it is the one who is disrespecting the "right to independence of any culture".

5 - Any other non-military issue should be handled in a non-millitary way (i.e. Economicaly) with the need of all un members aproval.


Pleaze coment this lines ..... i hope us to find a wise proposal

so.. i suopse that bye now the proposal is this:

v0.0

1 - It's stricly forbiden to export weapons. Any country that mainly lives only from the world conflics should convert part of their war industry in other industries (automobile,comerial airplanes, aerospacial, comunication, informatics).
Let's say, though, you have a moral nation. Since this is a moral nation, it does not meddle in the private affairs of its citizens. Therefore, if it just so happens that its primary industry is constructing instruments of war, how is it supposed to change that fact without becoming an immoral nation?

2 - 50% of Any UN member defense budget is directed to the UN army.
How about no? I'll manage my own military affairs, thank you very much.

Concerns I have with some of the points (actually all of them):

1. Many smaller countries cannot manufacture sufficient weapons to defend themselves. These nations rely on weapons purchased from other nations.

2.Aside from the sheer tyranny of this (the UN is actually taxing member nations' defense budgets now?!), you really want the UN to transform from a huge, bureaucratic, inefficient, tyrannical international organization, to well, a huge, bureaucratic, inefficient, tyrannical international organization with an army?

3. I doubt the UN will ever use its newfound power that responsibly.

4. This is one of the worst points. Tell me, for example, that the US was wrong to invade Germany and Japan in WWII, and Afghanistan after September 11?

5. All UN member's approval? Are you nuts?! In such a large organization, it is impossible for everyone to agree. Hell, we couldn't even get a unanimous vote against the 'Equality for All' UN resolution.


And other concerns:
1. How is the UN going to respond to conflicts between UN nations and non-UN nations?

2. Who will administer, manage, and man this UN army?

Concerns I have with some of the points (actually all of them):

1. Many smaller countries cannot manufacture sufficient weapons to defend themselves. These nations rely on weapons purchased from other nations.

2.Aside from the sheer tyranny of this (the UN is actually taxing member nations' defense budgets now?!), you really want the UN to transform from a huge, bureaucratic, inefficient, tyrannical international organization, to well, a huge, bureaucratic, inefficient, tyrannical international organization with an army?

3. I doubt the UN will ever use its newfound power that responsibly.

4. This is one of the worst points. Tell me, for example, that the US was wrong to invade Germany and Japan in WWII, and Afghanistan after September 11?

5. All UN member's approval? Are you nuts?! In such a large organization, it is impossible for everyone to agree. Hell, we couldn't even get a unanimous vote against the 'Equality for All' UN resolution.


And other concerns:
1. How is the UN going to respond to conflicts between UN nations and non-UN nations?

2. Who will administer, manage, and man this UN army?

Answers(Just my opinion)
1. By economic sanctions or blockade of their trade routes, I suppose.:roll:

2. The army will be composed of clone troopers led by Jedi Knights. :lol:

Seriously, it will be difficult to create and maintain, not without turning the UN into a federation of states. What you will have is a world government, not world governance as is the case(supposed to be) presently.

[quote="Tudo ao Leu
the invader is always wrong. It violates one of the real UN basic principle: "the right of any culture to live in an independent country" and the UN army should be directed against the invader.

any other issue than a milittary conflict should be treated using a vote of all un members to economicaly punnish the country in question.[/quote]

1) "the invader is always wrong. It violates one of the real UN basic principle: "the right of any culture to live in an independent country"
- If Britain & France had sent in their troops to enforce the Versailles treaty when Hitler marched his troops into the Rhineland in 1936, the massive bloodshed of WW2 would have been avoided. The arguments against such a move is the same used here: force is wrong, and really, the Rhineland was a part of Germany albeit a demiliterized part but it IS their country after all
- this precludes a pre-emptive strike by a smaller power against a larger power(s) massing troops/tanks/artillery along the borders: forcing a smaller nation to 'wait' to be attacked is lunacy....witness what happened during the Yom Kippur War, Israel was almost annihalated but for the last minute US airlift of munitions and supplies.

2) "any other issue than a milittary conflict should be treated using a vote of all un members to economicaly punnish the country in question"
- dont you remember the League of Nations tried that 'economic sanctions' against JAPAN in 1931 over the invasion of MANCHURIA...so was Manchuria freed because of League sanctions? NO! It only happened after the downfall of Japan through military means.
- - dont you remember the League of Nations tried that 'economic sanctions' against ITALY in 1935/36 over the invasion of ETHIOPIA...so was Ethiopia freed because of League sanctions? NO! It only happened after the downfall of Italy through military means.

well meaning and intentioned....but also naive

donation could be volontary
and perhaps you could allow war, as long as it doesnt harm civilians. Not that I favor it, but to get it passed through
lastly, wars are short. By the time the UN could react it would be over. I would have a section where people can look at the cause of the war and if 1000 people support action then UN forces would be sent.

And other concerns:
1. How is the UN going to respond to conflicts between UN nations and non-UN nations?

Answers(Just my opinion)
1. By economic sanctions or blockade of their trade routes, I suppose.:roll:


:roll: one set of 'rolleyes' deserves another

economic sanctions do NOT work, they never have:

- League of Nations sanctions on Italy: failure
- L o N sanctions on Japan: failure
- UN sanctions on South Africa: failure
- UN sanctions on rebel diamonds in West Africa: failure
- US sanctions against Cuba: failure

The problem is that nations will act for their own self interest regardless of what an international body determines. Britain refused to approve oil sanctions against Italy, hoping to move them as a partner to contain Hitler.

When the US enacted a sanction against oil and scrap metal against Japan as a result of Japanese aggression in China, one could argue that the depriving of the resourses was a major factor prompting Japan to seek them elsewhere....namely in Indochina and the Dutch East Indies. So sanctions of needed industrial goods was actually a catalyst FOR war and NOT the means of deterring war.

And other concerns:
1. How is the UN going to respond to conflicts between UN nations and non-UN nations?

Answers(Just my opinion)
1. By economic sanctions or blockade of their trade routes, I suppose.:roll:


:roll: one set of 'rolleyes' deserves another

economic sanctions do NOT work, they never have:

- League of Nations sanctions on Italy: failure
- L o N sanctions on Japan: failure
- UN sanctions on South Africa: failure
- UN sanctions on rebel diamonds in West Africa: failure
- US sanctions against Cuba: failure

The problem is that nations will act for their own self interest regardless of what an international body determines. Britain refused to approve oil sanctions against Italy, hoping to move them as a partner to contain Hitler.

When the US enacted a sanction against oil and scrap metal against Japan as a result of Japanese aggression in China, one could argue that the depriving of the resourses was a major factor prompting Japan to seek them elsewhere....namely in Indochina and the Dutch East Indies. So sanctions of needed industrial goods was actually a catalyst FOR war and NOT the means of deterring war.

With the power of the Jedi we'll have nothing to worry about. :lol:

i do like the idea about global peace. but like everyone is saying, how do we protect ourselves from non - un members from invasion? if we did agree on this then non members will have free reign with all our nations. i'd love to agree with ya cuz global peace would be VERY nice. but we gotta think about all us un people too. about our nations saftey.

if it really happens, I think most countries will step down at the threat of action from the UN.
but also war is a volantary part of NationStates, besides region crashing. The small countries that have little knowledge that the person they threaten can obliterate them should be able to request just a little help. Otherwise the person knows what they are getting into and its their fault.
and the war part was supposed to be fun. When the UN comes crashing in it would eliminate all the fun.
If anything the UN should only interfere with alliances. I think there is this new alliance to conquor the world thats starting up. That would be the only real time you would need UN forces

if a country felt meanaced it could always require the UN forces aid to avoid the invasion even before it had already startedd..

Obviously, the economic sancions only would be used in other situations than an invasion. No one has the right to make war if he hasn't a war victim.

When the conflict was betwen two UN members.. as i said, the invader is always wrong because he is violating the right to independence that any nation has... then, the UN forces would be used against the invader.

and the war part was supposed to be fun. When the UN comes crashing in it would eliminate all the fun.


damn!!!! what's the UN main objective?!?!?! FUN??? fuck that ... fun would be to end with the war in the world....

That imperialistic view u seem to see the world is the one that is making all the shit in our RW....

i do like the idea about global peace. but like everyone is saying, how do we protect ourselves from non - un members from invasion? if we did agree on this then non members will have free reign with all our nations. i'd love to agree with ya cuz global peace would be VERY nice. but we gotta think about all us un people too. about our nations saftey. i already answerd that question .... that's the reason we'r talkin about a UN army

When the conflict was betwen two UN members.. as i said, the invader is always wrong because he is violating the right to independence that any nation has... then, the UN forces would be used against the invader.
I have to disagree with you there, if an invasion is unprovoked then yes certainly the UN military should go after the invader but
1) If a country does succeed in proving to the @name@ leadership that there is infact a threat from the other country and must take action then the @name@ should not interfere unless human rights abuses are directly committed by the invader.
2) If the invaded country wishes no action to be taken by the @name@ then no action should be taken.

u r telling me that would be legitimate for a country to attack another if it proves that another to be a menace?!? how would a country prove that?!?!.
in that case the UN forces could go to the menaced country and take some defense positions... they shouldn't never START a war...

Uh… I think there’s something wrong with the fish. I didn't understand a word you just said.

Second? What is a weapon? If you eliminate all nuclear weapons, men will fight with missiles. If you eliminate missiles, they'll fight with guns. If you eliminate guns, they'll fight with swords and we'll be heading back to the stone age.


Perhaps not the place to start a discussion like this, but anyway...

What, pray tell, would be wrong with going back to sword combat? I don't advocate a return to the Stone Age, as you put it, but at least in hand-to-hand combat people were forced to see up close the horrors of war.

Now? Push a button, kill a few hundred people in some place you've never visited.

In NS war threads, it's appalling how often I see nuclear weapons used, and almost always against civilian targets.

So... disarmament by force? Do you think the non-UN members are going to willing surrender their land and sovereignty?

im pointing out that war is not actually built into the game. If nations go to war they are doing it volontarly. So, the change has to be in the climate. Perhaps putting in a warning of how many times the person attacked someone, would serve as a permenent warning to stop attacking people.

Also, the fourms are free, you cant prohibit anything related with possibly going to war. If you prohibit war nations would have war using telegrams.

Lastly, its non UN contries that are the problem and UN decitions dont apply to them.

Alexandre president of the Republic of Alex The Tall (UN Delegate of Hobo Joe City) said that dersarmement need to be done, but not whit the force, because if we use the force we accept the fac that peace is don't tought enought to send a message clearly to every nation.

So please do it, but whit the peace, it's the only solution.

Alexandre president of the Republic of Alex The Tall (UN Delegate of Hobo Joe City) said that dersarmement need to be done, but not whit the force, because if we use the force we accept the fac that peace is don't tought enought to send a message clearly to every nation.

So please do it, but whit the peace, it's the only solution.

I agree. My idea is that the UN has a stockpile of weapons, accecable to everyone. At the same time war is prohibited beween 2 UN nations. So with the 4 possible senarios
attacker attacked
NonUN NonUN- the UN cant do anything to affect them anyway
NonUn UN - the UN nation can acces the stockple and defend themselves.
UN NonUN- I suggest the NonUN either joins the UN it can leave later.
UN UN- prohibited

or maybe not weapons but defence mecanisms. Like walls, and everyone contributes like the alternative feuls