NationStates Jolt Archive

Considering that many rouge nations may wish to bring war to the earth, purpose that all UN members have a mandatory army of at least ten thousand units.

Units must be given sufficient weaponry and rations, as well as be given at least basic military training, as to keep them ready for fighting.

Although many UN members have a peace oriented government with no army at all, that would make them a prime target to attacking nations.
This small army will at least keep an attacker at bay until an allied nation comes to assist.

This doesn't belong here, it belongs in Got Issues

This doesn't belong here, it belongs in Got Issues
Actually I think that SkillCrossbones is trying to drum up support for a UN proposal so this would belong here.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

that came off horribly

It's not the rouge nations we need to worry about - the lipstick ones are far more of a clear and present danger.

Forcing UN nations to have an army would be a huge violation of national soverignty. My community, for one, has decided that it has more important ways to spend our money than maintaining a UN-mandated army (education and welfare come to mind). And being anti-war, the concept of having an army repulses us (though we recognize the right of other nations to choose to maintain their own army). Therefore reconsidering trying to require everyone to have an army. It's unneccesary.

Mark Heln
UN Delegate
The Community of the Frozen Chosen

Considering that many rouge nations may wish to bring war to the earth, purpose that all UN members have a mandatory army of at least ten thousand units.

10000 units of what? Do you mean 10,000 soldiers? Or 10,000 groups of some sort? If the latter, how big are these groups?

Setting an army size is absurd in NS, as nations range in size from 5 million up to several billion, and every population grows constantly. _Myopia_'s population is 4.137 billion - if we were militarily inclined (luckily, we aren't), a defensive army of 10000 would not really offer any protectionfor a small nation against us compared to not having an army at all.

Although many UN members have a peace oriented government with no army at all, that would make them a prime target to attacking nations.
This small army will at least keep an attacker at bay until an allied nation comes to assist.

As I pointed out above, in many cases this small army would no difference whatsoever in holding back an attacker. Additionally, if nations want to make themselves sitting ducks, that's their choice. There are some populations that would rather be invaded or even killed than engage in violence.

Our office cannot support a proposal that contains the words "rouge" and "nation(s)" in connection with one another. It is one of our less philosophical rules regarding the validity of a proposal.

Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith