Resolution: Arms Consolidation
Arms Traders
22-01-2005, 12:36
Arms Consolidation
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.
Category: International Security
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Arms Traders
Description: This Proposal aims at the Consolidation of Weapons, Weapons Systems, Troops, Funding, and Equipment of UN Member Nations.
This document proposes that all UN Member Nations will make ready 10% of all its armed forces, and place them at full standby and be ready to deploy at 24hrs notice.
These forces will be responsible for aiding any UN Member Nation in any DEFENCIVE action on or off their soil. These forces may also be called in to provide a strike force against rouge states threatening the security of the UN or any UN Member Nation.
Distribution of forces will be as follows:
All committed forces will be based in their home country and forces closest to the event will be deployed first.
Deployed aid forces will be under nominal and tactical command of the aiding country.
This 10% Commitment includes all missile systems excluding weapons with a yield of greater than 20KT. A 1% commitment of weapons with yields greater than 20KT will be placed instead.
Weapons with a yield of greater than 20KT will be deployed only after a conference between region representatives. There will be a vote by the region representatives requiring a 75% majority.
Conclusion:
The Consolidation of arms within the UN would not only be a great defensive measure, but a large detterant to those who would wage war with UN Member Nations.
What do you think? ive already submitted it... and i need some approvals....
Firstly - rouge should be spelt rogue. I know it is a tiny thing, but you would not believe the comments you would get if this were submitted with the wrong spelling :}
Secondly - I am curious as to what happens if two UN member nations go to war with each other.
Thirdly - I would like assurances that I would not be forced to send my people in to a battle, or a war, that I do not support.
Fourth - Are "region representatives" delegates? Or someone else?
Assuming you can answer the four (three) questions above, I will consider giving this more thought, though generally I am not a fan of war proposals, as war is never an answer to anything.
Flibbleites
22-01-2005, 16:29
This sounds like it's trying to form a UN army which is illegal.
DemonLordEnigma
22-01-2005, 17:32
Arms Consolidation
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.
Category: International Security
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Arms Traders
Standard stuff.
Description: This Proposal aims at the Consolidation of Weapons, Weapons Systems, Troops, Funding, and Equipment of UN Member Nations.
This document proposes that all UN Member Nations will make ready 10% of all its armed forces, and place them at full standby and be ready to deploy at 24hrs notice.
Why just 10%? Out of curiousity.
These forces will be responsible for aiding any UN Member Nation in any DEFENCIVE action on or off their soil. These forces may also be called in to provide a strike force against rouge states threatening the security of the UN or any UN Member Nation.
Even if said UN member is one I am attacking for some reason?
Sounds like an attempt to create a UN military, which is illegal.
Distribution of forces will be as follows:
All committed forces will be based in their home country and forces closest to the event will be deployed first.
Deployed aid forces will be under nominal and tactical command of the aiding country.
This is beginning to sound a lot like real life...
This 10% Commitment includes all missile systems excluding weapons with a yield of greater than 20KT. A 1% commitment of weapons with yields greater than 20KT will be placed instead.
Um, all of my missiles have yields greater than 20KT. Any less than that is considered a torpedo.
Also, that section is self-contradictory. It needs cleared up, as the exact meaning is lost.
Weapons with a yield of greater than 20KT will be deployed only after a conference between region representatives. There will be a vote by the region representatives requiring a 75% majority.
Okay, this is sounding like you want the UN to vote on it for every war.
Conclusion:
The Consolidation of arms within the UN would not only be a great defensive measure, but a large detterant to those who would wage war with UN Member Nations.
Not really that good of a deterrance. The UN is massively outnumbered and it wouldn't take much to grab people of the right size and overwhelm nations.
What do you think? ive already submitted it... and i need some approvals....
I think it needs clarification and editting.
Lagrange Wei
22-01-2005, 18:11
our nation join the UN as a neutral, we will not be pushed into deploying our troop. what is the UN's position for interfering with the affairs of other countries, that has not request for former assistance?
I refuse on all counts; that UN should remain as a world body and not an alliance designed to bully "unpopular" states or fight wars for others...
military alliances should be form by nations that desires to join them. we will join such an alliances when there is a need for one, but a military alliance should not be compulsory.
help only when help is necessary...
10% of all UN nations militaries is a military beyond reckoning, and a logistical nightmare worthy of the ninth ring of hades.
Adamsgrad
23-01-2005, 18:01
This sounds like it's trying to form a UN army which is illegal.
I agree entirely.
From what I understand, the UN is supposed to promote international peace and security through diplomacy, not the the used of armed force. The establishment of a UN army would break the principles on which the organisation is based.
Skinny87
23-01-2005, 21:10
I agree with the point made above - I only have a very small nation, and therefore an even tinier armed forces. If I kept having to mobilise that part of my armed forces, my military budgets would suffer, as would my economy as I would have to draft in troops to cover the gaps made by releasing the 10% of my military. I would also be worried that my troops are being taken away to fight in a war that my public and I disagree with. The there is also the fact that creating a UN army is illegal, which this resolution appears to be calling for
So on these points I would vote against this proposal
Flibbleites
24-01-2005, 01:21
The establishment of a UN army would break the principles on which the organisation is based.
And more importantly it is illegal to attempt to form a UN army.
Nargopia
24-01-2005, 04:42
The United Nations is a socio-political alliance, not a military alliance. Due to the vast differences in nations' moral and political views concerning military operations, I submit that this resolution would only increase international turmoil.
10% of a nation's armed forces? What are you going to do with 10% of an IGNORE Cannon? Come to that, what am I meant to do with only 90% of one?
DemonLordEnigma
24-01-2005, 04:59
Simple: I count the beam of it as 10%.