NationStates Jolt Archive

UN Military

Northeast free world
20-06-2005, 16:06
With the UN countrys outnumbered 3to1 Why not start a UN military force that all nations could help build. If a UN country was attacked we could use this force to fight that nation. However the UN should vote to use the force to help a UN country. Also NO UN COUNTRY COULD START THE WAR.
Western Chappell Heath
20-06-2005, 16:13
I don't think that would be allowed.Rules for UN proposals
The UN doesn't get an army. Nor does it get to form The World Police. This is pretty clear: don't do it.Besides, preparing for war gives the attitude that it's going to happen anyway, which is a self fuffiling profecy that must be avoided.
20-06-2005, 16:16
You couldn't do it as part of the UN portion of this game - though, you could in the context of a roleplay - calling on all UN nations to ban likely wouldn't work - but you could try.
Powerhungry Chipmunks
20-06-2005, 16:19
With the UN countrys outnumbered 3to1 Why not start a UN military force that all nations could help build. If a UN country was attacked we could use this force to fight that nation. However the UN should vote to use the force to help a UN country. Also NO UN COUNTRY COULD START THE WAR.

Starting a UN army is against the rules for proposals.

The problem is game mechanics. In order to incorporate war or an army into the Nationstates game, there would need be programming changes. Max has made it clear that he is not willing to submit himself and his programming staff to constantly cahnging the game to meet with UN proposals. A coallition of UN nations, and their forces can be roleplayed (as in The Petranama Panel--which I can provide a link to in a bit), but it can't be inserted into game mechanics (which would mean that, say, on the UN page, there'd be a link called "help command the UN army").

And I disagree with the idea that UN nations should not start wars (as do the majority of member nations as confirmed by Globel Disarmament resolutions). I personally feel the UN has no idea why, in the future, I may need to start a war, and that restricting me from starting a war for that unknown reason (which the UN may actually endorse) is arbitrary, and undue micromanagement. That's my opinion anyway.
Northeast free world
20-06-2005, 16:45
you guys are right
30-06-2005, 13:47
My question here is what is the difference between sending in UN (------) forces taken from inside the UN members to help a member recover from nature or hostile action. Many times these come from active national military forces.. May be made up of Military Special Forces, Military Police, Military Medical, and other such.. In the past we've wasted time getting suport into regions who might need them because we have to go get special approval from member nations to send in their (-----) forces... Those lives are lost and we may allow things to get more out of hand than if we had a standing (----) force fully trained and equiped for such matters.

The greatest concern of UN members is that we are taking away our swords and handing us a glass shield to defend against an enemy who is far more advanced than swords even. I understand that not all nations or regions want to build an army or navy for fighting... but they have police to stop crime in their own areas.... also medical and other resources to rebuild if needed after nature or hostile strikes them... Also they are prepared to restore order and keep peace in such events.... The UN has no way to do so while it continues to take away the means to protect itself or even members.

We know that waging war is not part of the UN function and among members we are well aware of that and abide by it... but outsiders don't abide by UN rules, thus we either alone or as one must provide for our defense.. As I read over proposals I see us not working to promore common defense but taking the means away from members.. every time we restrict another weapons system or establish more bans on say sattalites to monitor weather, (because these also can be used to spy one others in preparation for war). WE have become pawns to our own fears..

Should the UN form a (-----) force tight rules could be put into place as to what it can and can't due.... The first is make an offensive strike.. against another member or nation or region not a member... by noting it would be completly DEFENSIVE and act under strict rules. Also that resources would come from withing UN membership and it's shall not be mandatory that all nations regions have an army and navy ready for this (-----) force.... they can provide medical teams, engineers, equipent in place.. thus each nation can decide their place in providing for the common defense and know that if they have the BEANS they can get BACON from another and BULLETS, BOATS, and BEDS from others when they have a grave need for such.. To restore general order and peace to thier region after nature or hostile assaults and devistates their nation or region...

This would allow them to focus on promoting internal changes that would in time better life for their people and thus spread to other places as the fears of outside threats become mute because we have the means to stop them..

Trouble is what to call this (----) Force as Military, Police, are out...
30-06-2005, 15:13
Police Force.... Provides for Internal security of an area. While Military Force defends the borders of that area to allow the Police Foce the freedom to do it mission inside the borders. Only when an External threat comes into an area do these two join efforts to stop the External threat.. Thus the Police Force would work inside the UN only when there is armed aggression against one member by another. Military Force would block any efforts by and External enemy who might try to invade a UN member.

This (-----) Force would only be sanctioned to move in event of nature or hostile actions agains a UN member, or in special cases those not members with approval of the UN membership..

Since this is role play there would be no actual (Force).. A call by members to deploy it may be made if say earthquakes struck a member region or nation and devistate it. It would be set that say six members must submit a need for assistance if a nation or region outside is in need of assistand and then a % of the whole membership must approve before we can even move in to help... individual nations and regions would not be restricted from providing assistance on their own but this would provide a means for the UN to support them without current calls to each nation or region for support as we would already have a (Support) Force in place to provide for recovery and security of a devistated area. Since now we have nothing in place to do this as... Nature is as big a threat as those nations and regions outside UN membership.. thus this (Support) Force... would be our responce to these two threats... when and if they happen... This force would not be a so called Army Navy to change the outcome of a war just help recovery after one..... and insure fair and just treatment of people of the defeated region... Sanctions against members should be put in place if they should assault other nations either members or not first stirke.. As I saw some place someone wanted to eject them from UN that would not be productive as outside they can join the ranks of those who already are a threat to it.. Inside we do have some means of control over them..

This could well be done in a Forum for Assistance called by a single member to discuss and gain approval to us this (Support) Force... As this is role play we don't need an army or navy to move around just talk it over in Forum vote and it's done..

The symantics of the name we give this (-----) Force is in keeping with normal word usage... but we set what if does... in role play.... and were it does it....
01-07-2005, 12:48
Even tho this goes against the rules and I'm not even in the UN, I'll happily refute the idea of a UN Military

IC: Why would the UN need a military? None of us non-UN naitons, no matter how much we hate the UN, would declare war on you (OOC: Unless they're n00bz). Plus, giving a federal body of power, such as the UN, a military, can only lead to abuse. Sci-fi rule-of-thumb: NEVER give the central body of power an army. It only leads to abuse. Though the prospect of a subsequent anti-federal rebellion excites Super-power.

Besides, the pathetic UN Military could never stand up to the might of our superior mobile suit forces.
01-07-2005, 12:52
Super-power, take a number and get at the back of the line. It's currently 37,581 nations long, and I happen to be in the top 100 if the UN actually pulls this.