NationStates Jolt Archive

It has come to my attention that various nations have inquired about creating a permanent UN army. I would like to know who opposes to this and why and who agrees to this and why.
Gisellapalooza is a nation that believes that a permanent UN army would only be detrimental and would drain resources, not to mention the possible descrimination accompanying this.
Sincerely, Gisellapalooza

I agree with you Gisellapalooza that the United Nations needs no standing army.

A permanent army is the only way to enforce resolutions and to aid policing actions.

It is naive to think that there is no place for a U.N. army. Military Policing is an extremely important role for the U.N.

a permanent UN military force is one step further toward making the UN a world government that overrides the soveriegnity of nations.

Now if the UN is a wonderfully democratic institution that could always be trusted to make the right decisions, always took care of everyone or whatever your philosophy wants the perfect government to be that isnt so bad

However, absolutely no guarentee of that and once the UN runs the show, getting national independence back is probably a lost cause

A permanent army is the only way to enforce resolutions and to aid policing actions.

It is naive to think that there is no place for a U.N. army. Military Policing is an extremely important role for the U.N.
OOC: Actually, and my experience is not very extensive in this, doesn't the RL UN use 'it's forces' only for the most grevious cases? I mean, it isn't going to go in and police a nation "militarily" because, say, it violates a trade resolution, is it? I'm trying to remember examples of when the UN forces have been deployed. In the past, I remember Bosnia and Hercegovina. And I think of the possibility, in the future, of Darfur. Otherwise, I'm just drawing a blank. This is probably a mix of me not paying as much attention as needed before, and me being really tired. I think I'm calling it a night. Not that any of you care...

Maybe there should be a UN police instead of an army to make sure the laws are followed and justice is served to those nations thats don't follow. (Maybe there is already a UN police, but I wasn't sure...)

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=5224569&postcount=1

I refer you to the section on "Global Disarmament".

International Security
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Global Disarmament
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Precisely what it sounds like. "International Security" increases government spending on the police and military while "Global Disarmament" reduces government spending on the police and military. Both resolutions affect the military more than they do the police, but they do affect both.

These categories can cover any kind of weaponry used by the police or military: including, but not limited to, conventional, nuclear, biological, chemical, space-based, and non-lethal.

Do not use these categories to establish a UN military force. These are resolutions to change the level of national government spending. The UN does not maintain its own standing military under any circumstances."

It may also be good to point out that the base cause of not having one has usually been, game mechanics - A U.N. standing military force of any sort, would need to have extra coding done into the program of the game. This is something [violet] on average says " No. " too. Not that you can blame them really.

After all, you may be the " 1337 haxor " but your not the one behind the curtain keeping Oz ticking over, ;)

While you can R.P. your own group, I'd be very careful about invading / defending / turning up declaring to be an actual U.N. army, as that could even be classed as impersonating a game body.

* E.g. - a while back in the past people pretended to be Moderation / game / staff or various game organs ... no need to add, they got bundled into a sack, thrown into the back of a truck, nd driven off in the dead of night, never to be heard from again.

But, if you apply some thought to it, you could always make a point in R.P. you are striking for reasons listed in various U.N. resolutions and your obligations to uphold basic human rights, etc, etc, etc ...

;)

A permanent army is the only way to enforce resolutions
And here I was thinking that this was done by the Compliance Ministry, silly me.:D

Here at NSUN all resolutions will be fulfilled. You can not choose not to fulfill it. You have to leave the UN instead... so there is no need for a standing army. This is a perfect world, the UN Works :)

Here at NSUN all resolutions will be fulfilled. You can not choose not to fulfill it. You have to leave the UN instead... so there is no need for a standing army. This is a perfect world, the UN Works :)
yeah, dude...psychodelic...utopia...duuuuude...

*passes the pipe*

*takes pipe*

The UN doesn't need a standing army. It would be impossible to do, as an autonomous user would have to RP with it. It's an unnecessary waste of UN resources; if individual nations wish to form alliances for larger armies they are already free to do so under whatever banner they choose, they do not require the UN's endorsement, nor should they receive it.

Any proposal that attempts to create a UN army will be deleted.

No exceptions.