NationStates Jolt Archive

I hope Delegates will take this idea into consideration, as I Believe it will greatly benefit the world around us, and will strengthen the bond between the countries of the UN. This proposal coud lead to the end of long drawn out wars like World War I and II.

we're for it as a concept
the soverignty of nations is highly over rated as to its value
to the individual citizen of any nation
not only would it be useful to clean up bloody little 'civil' conflicts in which large numbers
of civilieans are 'colateraly damaged' but it would enable the planet to present a united front in dealing with other worlds
should the time come thy consider our world and species mature enough to be worth dealing with
and would be perhapse one step on the road to making our world elegable for membership as a world
in the 'galactic' 'united nations'

i can see many nations and idiologs objecting to and protesting
such a concept, there are after all still those who object even to
the existence of such a body
but the time and the need is real
superpower nations have too long gotten away with behaiving like the 'rogue' nations they so object to.

until such a force is created there remains no effective way in reality to enforce international law. this will give international accords and aggreements real teeth, something long overdue and too long lacking.

(our approval whould of course depend on insuring that the u.n. becomes and remains one nation one vote (ooc the one real world objection to this in the mundane earth u.n. would be the so called 'security council' - that structure would HAVE to GO. here in the n.s. u.n. it is our understanding THAT problem does not exist))

=^^=
.../\...

Sounds like a good idea, but organization would be a menace.

It wouldn't work.
First of all, would smaller nations provide the same number of soldiers as larger nations? If so, this would be unfair to countries that have small populations and small budgets, while the larger nations could still fund their huge unstoppable forces. If it was proportional to the size of each nation, then the larger nations would have a lot more influence, which could lead to corruption.
Second, who is going to command this army? Every armed force has to have generals and usually one main commander, but this would be impossible with an international army. Whichever nation controlled the army would have too much sway in the international community. And it would be ridiculous to have a representative from each nation, because there are just too many.
Thirdly, if a nation is being attacked by this army, what happens to their citizens in the UN army? They aren't going to fight against their own country, nor their allies. If nations formed a bloc, they could withdraw their troops, crippling the UN army, and making them capable of overpowering it.
Fourth, spy intelligence and the like would be impossible. If every nation had troops in the army, they would all want access to any information that this army has uncovered. The UN could not hide intelligence from certain nations that are involved, which would make surprise attacks and anything related impossible. The nations in question would be able to predict every attack before it happened and plan accordingly.
Fifth, recruitment of this force seems impossible. If you left it up to individuals to sign up, you would never get enough people, and there would be disproportionate numbers from certain countries. Otherwise, you would have to have a draft, and many nations are against having a draft during peacetime.
Sixth, unless you plan on mandating UN control of arms technology industries, the UN army would fall far behind technologically. No nation is going to build nuclear weapons for the UN, nor advanced fighter jets or bombers or stealth planes or guns, etc.
Lastly, this would lead to an excess of UN debate regarding how and when to use this army. You could never get the UN to agree to attack a given nation without an uproar from the opposition.
There are too many problems with your plan, and your proposal is too vague. You would need to rewrite it to cover all of these problems before I would vote for it.

Letilan people will not join a hierarchial enforcer of the state.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Nor will the people of Anthonycha. It is a good idea assuming that the UN is benevolent. But with such a huge force there is too much potential for abuse. An army of that size can used for evil and the consequences that may come about are too horrible.

We are satisfied with the small army we keep here in Anthonycha and would not want to turn over control over any part of it to a PERMANENT world military.

We do support independent resolutions to form armies handling specific security issues. But once the mission is over, that army ought to be disbanded and the soldiers and commanders return to their respective home countries.

I will not approve of this proposal and will vote against it if it reaches the floor.

Confederacy of the Isles United Nations Delegate
Hung Tony

Catholic Europe will support this resolution. We need an army which is not tied to any nation and an UN army would be the best wya for this to occur.

I would like to thank all delegates who either supported my proposal or who have othered problems or new ideas for my proposal. I will take this into account with any future proposals, and I intendt to make them more specific on the idea of the UN army. Some responses to your questions could include the delegate of each area of the world would be given the power to decide how many soldiers from the area they will send. If an delegate decides they do not want to send any soldiers then they must expect less suuport for them in a future war, unless they have a valid reason that would be judged by UN delegates. Not only this but i will answer the question on who would lead the army. A general would be elected by UN delegates, and his power would be limited by the UN delegates to prevent the General performing acts that would only benefit his country, while at the same time causing problems for other countries. I have not answered all the questions, but i will take them alll into account when I improve this proposal.

i agree with Carlemnaria completely, in that it is the only way to enforce international law, and to stop powerful rouge states from ingoring these important laws, i think we can all see what i am thinkomng of here - U cough S cough A.

I hope Delegates will take this idea into consideration, as I Believe it will greatly benefit the world around us, and will strengthen the bond between the countries of the UN. This proposal coud lead to the end of long drawn out wars like World War I and II.
No, because there are non-UN nations. Besides, a UN army is easier to kill.

I hope Delegates will take this idea into consideration, as I Believe it will greatly benefit the world around us, and will strengthen the bond between the countries of the UN. This proposal coud lead to the end of long drawn out wars like World War I and II.
No, because there are non-UN nations. Besides, a UN army is easier to kill.

how is a UN army easier to kill, it will be based around international law, and therefore will not start wars for no reason, and the first port of call for any problem is negotiation, and if it is forced to go into war, then it will do so with the backing of all member states. there is very little chane that it wil have to go to war agaist a bigger force than itself.

All disputes between nations can be resolved peacefully. Militaries are not needed. The Democratic States of The Nieve Nine does not beleive spending money on a military is needed to ensure peace. Militaries after all are designed to fight wars, and war is what we don't want.

Instead of spending all this money on building a military, we could be using this money for "peace bribes". Money is the solution to everything.

i am not saying that all disputes cannot be resolved peacffuly, however both, or should i say infact, all parties must cooperate, and you must understand that this is not always the case. alot of the time, the concerned states do not want a peaceful solution, and therefore that option is removed. so we must have a backup plan. i am not saying that it should be the UN's prime tool for sorting out disputes, but it is needed, incase all other methods fail.

I hope Delegates will take this idea into consideration, as I Believe it will greatly benefit the world around us, and will strengthen the bond between the countries of the UN. This proposal coud lead to the end of long drawn out wars like World War I and II.
No, because there are non-UN nations. Besides, a UN army is easier to kill.

how is a UN army easier to kill, it will be based around international law, and therefore will not start wars for no reason, and the first port of call for any problem is negotiation, and if it is forced to go into war, then it will do so with the backing of all member states. there is very little chane that it wil have to go to war agaist a bigger force than itself.
No, because it follows your idiotic laws will be your undoing. Nukes, Chemical, Bioweapons, orbital deployed destruction of civilian targets. And who says all the member states will agree? You have to set up a meeting between thousands of nations. And while you're arguing, the rest of the world is gearing up to kick your a**es. Your own size will be your undoing. A UN military is a corrupt way for the UN to force itself on non UN nations.

The purpose of the UN Army would be to defend against atacks from rogue nations, and also to destroy key Military targets, when neccesary. Not as you say, to use Nuclear/Chemical/Biological Weapons, I do not think you fully understand the purpose of the Army, and you are jumping to unjustfied conclusions. It seems to me that you think it wil be used to destroy any country that does not fully comply with International Law. That is wrong. It will only be used, when all other options have been exhausted, and eventhen it will have very strict restrictions on the targets it attacks.

I therefore conclude that it will primarliy be used for defensive and preventative purposes.

How do we know this general won't do that? It's clear that it would fall victim to corruption.

This general will be elected for a start, by UN delegates, and even then his power could be removed by the UN delegates, if there any signs of corruption.

I have introduced a new proposal on a more specialised unit. This will be easier to organise. I want to know your opinions.

I have introduced a new proposal on a more specialised unit. This will be easier to organise. I want to know your opinions.

Who's going to pay for it ? taxes will have to go up. Can't afford it. :P

I have introduced a new proposal on a more specialised unit. This will be easier to organise. I want to know your opinions.

Who's going to pay for it ? taxes will have to go up. Can't afford it. :P

Did you not read the proposal you stupid idiot - it says who will pay for it.

How do we know this general won't do that? It's clear that it would fall victim to corruption.

There will be many restrictions put in place, to stop the one general from taking complete control of theArmy. For example, every descision will have to be agreed on by every UN delegate

Did you not read the proposal you stupid idiot - it says who will pay for it.

Sure, that's what it says. But sooner or later they'll renege on their commitments, and we're gonna end up paying for it.

are we not already paying through the bloody nose quite litteraly for
the abscence of it?

if all powerful nations were too impoverished to take wanton unilateral
action against distant civilian populations of course there would
be no need and no call.
hopefully the day will come when no nation looks to war to advance
its intrests at the expense of others.
it is not unreasonable to hope that the existence of such a force
might very well hasten that day.
governments make war on each other to keep thier own civilian populace from realizing just how little need they have for them.
we have come to see the day when they do this by devistating not
each other's military forces but
each other's civilian populations,
and then saying "oh woopsie, sorrie, colateral dammage, can't be helped you know".

an alternative solution might be to not allowy soverignty to claim geography but to only be voluntarily subscribed to by individual communities. those belonging to different nations thereby being intermixed next to each other, united as nations only by their internet links, and thereby eleminating the entire concept of national boundries in a geographic sense.

farfetched as that may sound, and down the road a piece though it may
be, such nonterritorial soverignty is a further step in civilization.
certainly this is a more appealing approach then any army. but for the
time being, wile armys roam this ringworld, or dyson sphere or whatever it is that nations states must surely be, as huge as it has grown (galactic sector perhapse?)
the concept of the force under discussion seems for the time being, the more likely and achievable approach.

research into weaponry effective against weaponry without posing a threat to human or other life might well be promoted as well.
reducing all soverign national armys to engauging with pointed sticks
however advanced their nation's civilian tecnologies
would certainly bring no tears to THESE eyes.

we think everyone needs to look at the real costs and bennifits of
their priorities, not just the idiological and economic assumptions
they may be fanaticly emotionaly attatched to.

real policies have real effects on real people, places and things, and prioritising the movement of little green pieces of paper ahead
of them is just as tyrannical as any other form of fanatacism

=^^=
.../\...

It seems my proposal is accussed of affecting the mechanics of the Un, which there probaly right about anyways. So now it seems my proposal has no chance of going through. Thank you for your support anyways.

Hey This man has a Huge space station that could destroy the world in a few minutes so there is no reson to make an army like this. It will stop a long drawn out conflict in a matter of seconds :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


OOC It is a joke dew to the RP the Golden Hawk

While the nation of Sophista in no way supports this proposal, we would be more than happy to take production orders for the powder blue helmets that will be required to designate said force. We assure you, our helmets offer state-of-the-art protection in a stylish and easy-to-use package.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Could you make me some of those hemets in Dark blue

Any special orders, I have been informed, will have to be made through the economic liason at our embassy. From there, we can establish a rate and shipping instructions.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

we have no need to support a UN army - the DSH enjoys orbital platforms, and has a vast stockpile of weapons grade uranium.

Do the maths yourselves. :D
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (DSH) (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

*Grand Duke Henrik is seen giving a speech to his Royal Council... *

"Laioians must be in the forefront of the fight to prevent the UN from creating a military. The power-mad UN bureaucrats will use it to strengthen their grip on individual nations."

"It is apparant that the UN and its goons are already placing themselves above ALL nations. We must unite to defeat this grap for illegal power."

We have our own army, and many militias.