NationStates Jolt Archive

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


Category: International Security
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Sedulion

Description: Realizing that the UN has not established cooperative peacekeeping forces, it is hereby proposed that such a force be created.

This is needed to secure UN members from foreign invasion, to quell war between UN members, to establish peace within nations in a state of civil war, and to do whatever other actions are deemed necessary and proper.

It is proposed that all UN members contribute at least one thousand military personnel to the UN International Armed Forces. UN members in a particularly weak status will be ensured protection.

The UN International Armed Forces is to be under the control of the UN, but is not considered a superior authority over the militaries of other nations.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 105 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat Mar 8 2008



This is an important issue that has not yet been addressed. I realize war has no real effect in the game, but were this the real world I would like to be safe in the knowledge that my country was secure from invasion.

Questions, comments, debates?

The moderators have preempted you, I'm afraid:

Originally Posted by The Most Glorious Hack http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/nation_states/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8913201#post8913201)
Army, Police, SWAT, etc

The UN doesn't get an army. Nor does it get to form The World Police. This is pretty clear: don't do it.Sorry.

Dang. Well, I guess we'll see how far it goes. lol

It is a real world need. It's not like the UN will be physically invading nations just as none of the other proposals are literally applied. But oh well.

Maybe I'll start discussion in the general forum later.

It'll "go" nowhere because it's illegal. Deleted.

Well, you don't really have to be an ass about it. Simply saying, "Sorry, but rules are rules." would have been much more eloquent.

But rest assured this will be debated. Do not worry, I will not make another attempt to propose it. However, a question if you would. Where exactly is the set of rules in which such proposals are banned? I would like to know so I do not propose another illegal proposal.

There happens to be a sticky (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) in this forum that covers it.

Welcome to the UN.

Danke schön. Will review.

Alright, well my mistake. I just noticed the same link is in the FAQ. I will be sure to read it over thoroughly before submitting anymore proposals.

However, I will be sure to start a topic on such an international army in general discussion. The European Union already has a centralized army that is growing. It really is a good idea. Something for Nationstates 2 perhaps?

Personally I like it and if it came to a vote I would back your idea 100%. I realise we wouldn't really invade a country, but it has been pointed out that this game is to be based on the real world.

I think I found a way around the rule. I sent promotions out to several delegates on the proposal, so it would only be polite for me to create a new proposal of the same name.

I simply have to make it absolutely clear that the International Army (or Armies) are not controlled by the UN, thus it is not a "World Police" or what have you.

Rather, I can simply reword it to say the UN will fund any conglomerate of nations willing to create such an army. It would more or less be a "regional" army among a conglomerate of nations, and for many regions this would be a useful roleplaying device. Since it has no real game effect but to increase military spending, why not do it?

I see nothing illegal with that alteration. I will of course read through the proposal rules first, and then I will post the new proposal here.

Realizing that the UN cannot establish cooperative peacekeeping forces, it is hereby proposed that such forces be created.

Nations that endeavor to set up these cooperative forces will be financed by the UN so long as the purpose of such a force is to secure those nations from foreign invasion, to quell war between their members, to establish peace within nations in a state of civil war, and to do whatever other actions are deemed necessary and proper.

It is recommended that members of such a coalition contribute at least one thousand military personnel to their force. Those coalition members of a particularly weak status should be ensured protection by the force.

The forces are to be recognized as under the control of that coalition, not any single nation. However, it is also recognized that such a force will not have superior authority over its member nations.

(Note: this in no way changes game mechanics.)

--------------------------------------------------------

Well, tell me if there is anything illegal about that, and if not I will post it. I there is, please tell me exactly what it is.

Firstly, this would probably be just as illegal. Secondly, why is it so important to have a UN-affiliated force? Independent military coalitions can sort matters just as easily. UN funding for such is completely unnecessary, presuming that nations able to deploy their armed forces internationally are likewise able to fund such deployments on their own. Besides that, the UN currently lacks any constant source of revenue; it would be exceedingly difficult to expect it to fund its members' activities when it can barely fund its own.

Firstly, I do not see anything illegal about this. Give me real reasons. I will continue to edit this until it is legal. People like this proposal and it will get in.

Secondly, that is simply your opinion. The European Union in real life has already formed such a force. And aren't UN funds basically funds from its member nations? The proposal's only real effect in the game is to raise military funding, just as any other proposal's only real effect is the effect chosen, having nothing to do with the writing. Thus, ANY proposal that has that effect is technically funding militaries of nations.

Furthermore, your arguement on nations being able to deploy internationally a military force really applies to those powerful and rich enough to do so. Forming a coalition army allows a group of nations that may have normally been weak to do the same thing. Nations of the European Union by themselves are not so strong, but combined their military spending is second only to that of the United States. They move closer and closer to a unified military every year, and their current unified military continues to grow. This is obviously highly approved by the real UN.

And even furthmore, you cannot depend on a single country to the dirty work of the world forever. Just look at how the US is starting to fail? Soon it's purpose will be overtaken by the European Union's army, and maybe even the armies of Russia and China.

So, I hope you now see why this is an important proposal and why so many will back it. If I can get it past the legal issues, it will certainly pass.

Yet the moderator has yet to tell me whether it is legal. I think I may seek out other moderators opinions if I can.

By the way, I in no way intend to make this some sort of grudge match. I simply want to put up the proposal without fear of it being illegal. I mean only the best towards everyone.

Firstly, I do not see anything illegal about this. Give me real reasons.Well, OK, you haven't really fixed much in terms of legality. You've simply stated that nations are "recommended" to commit troops and left control in the hands of the coalition. However, you've ignored the fact that the UN is still the one establishing (and funding -- by what means I know not) this force, which is what makes it a UN force to begin with. Command and control make no difference; the fact of the matter is, a UN-created "non-UN" force is still a UN force. Which is still illegal. I imagine this must be very disappointing for you, but mods do not look favorably upon exploiting supposed "loopholes" in the rules to get around them. Rules are not UN resolutions, you know; they can't be "bent," only broken. :p

I will continue to edit this until it is legal. People like this proposal and it will get in.I don't know of any way you can make this legal.

The European Union in real life has already formed such a force.And that is relevant to NS, how?

And aren't UN funds basically funds from its member nations?No, UN members are not required to pay dues. That little issue keeps getting rejected every time it's proposed.

The proposal's only real effect in the game is to raise military funding, just as any other proposal's only real effect is the effect chosen, having nothing to do with the writing. Thus, ANY proposal that has that effect is technically funding militaries of nations.Nope, that's Gameplay, one; and two, the effect of UN resolutions is technically an unfunded mandate. Nations' budgetary stats change not because the UN has given them extra money, but because member states are assumed to have raised their own military funding to come into compliance. The actual effect of your proposal text, however, is zero. It's completely voluntary. Therefore anyone can claim that the increased spending that occurred under this mandate was the result of an accounting error and no real change took place.

Furthermore, your arguement on nations being able to deploy internationally a military force really applies to those powerful and rich enough to do so. Forming a coalition army allows a group of nations that may have normally been weak to do the same thing. Nations of the European Union by themselves are not so strong, but combined their military spending is second only to that of the United States. They move closer and closer to a unified military every year, and their current unified military continues to grow. This is obviously highly approved by the real UN.This is lovely, but does not explain why the NSUN needs to establish an international military force, just because the RL EU is supposedly making one.

And even furthmore, you cannot depend on a single country to the dirty work of the world forever. Just look at how the US is starting to fail? Soon it's purpose will be overtaken by the European Union's army, and maybe even the armies of Russia and China.First off, you're dreaming if you think the run-down, underfunded militaries of France, Germany and Luxembourg can hope to match the military might of the United States. (You can take that particular line of argument to General (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1227), where it belongs, by the way.) Second, this is NationStates, not Real Life: there is no one nation "doing the dirty work of the world." There is no United States, there is no solo world superpower, so I don't really see how this strengthens the argument in favor of your proposal.

So, I hope you now see why this is an important proposal and why so many will back it. If I can get it past the legal issues, it will certainly pass.Yeah, UN militaries are very popular with the rank and file. You know what else? Trash like Protection of Dolphins Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9378670&postcount=107) and Max Barry Day (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13132957&postcount=224). Legality is your only real obstacle here; however, it's one hell of an obstacle.

You really don't want this to succeed, do you? Just because you disagree doesn't mean you're right. All of your statements are very opinionated, and I would really like a moderator's point of view.

It is not illegal in the fact that it is NOT a UN army. It is not controlled by the UN, nor created, it is only funded. The only real legal issue you did address is the fact that it is not mandatory, which can be addressed.

The rest of your argument is completely of opinion. You more or less insulted Europe's military, which more than equals the U.S. in power.

Also, the fact you bring up that this is nationstates and not real life is completely irrelevant. These proposals are proposed to "simulate" a real life UN feeling. I including nothing within the proposal about real life, I only made arguments with examples of real life on this forum. That is legitimate.

By the way you are arguing, you are obviously holding a grudge about this. Please start trying to argue rationally rather than take whatever cheap shots you can.

Now can I please get a moderator's opinion here? I'm not going to stop until I can find a legal way to make this. It's not like I'm creating a UN army anymore.

Nations that endeavor to set up these cooperative forces will be financed by the UNLooks like you're making it optional.

The forces are to be recognized as under the control of that coalition, not any single nation.Military by committee? Not illegal, just unwise.

(Note: this in no way changes game mechanics.)A line like this doesn't belong in any Proposal.

Thank you. This actually really means a lot to me. I will be sure to revise it accordingly.

The only hard part will be: how will I make it into something mandatory? It can be done though.

Sorry if I have seemed a bit rude. My patience was being overtaken by perisitence. I'l be sure to take a cooler tone from now on.

Realizing that the UN cannot establish cooperative peacekeeping forces, it is hereby proposed that such forces be created.

Nations will be required to set up cooperative military coalitions so as to increase cooperation between nations and to lessen conflict. These forces will be used to secure the coalitions from foreign invasion, to quell war between their members, to establish peace within member nations in a state of civil war, and to do whatever other actions are deemed necessary and proper.

It is recommended that members of such a coalition contribute at least one thousand military personnel to the coalition force. Those coalition members of a particularly weak status should be ensured protection by the force.

The forces are to be recognized as under the control of the coalitions, not any single nation or the UN. However, it is also recognized that such a force will not have superior authority over its member nations.

You really don't want this to succeed, do you? Just because you disagree doesn't mean you're right. All of your statements are very opinionated, ...Welcome to the United Nations.

In the future, you could try responding to my opinions, instead of griping over the fact that I have them.

Now then...

Realizing that the UN cannot establish cooperative peacekeeping forces, it is hereby proposed that such forces be created.

Nations will be required to set up cooperative military coalitions so as to increase cooperation between nations and to lessen conflict. These forces will be used to secure the coalitions from foreign invasion, to quell war between their members, to establish peace within member nations in a state of civil war, and to do whatever other actions are deemed necessary and proper.

It is recommended that members of such a coalition contribute at least one thousand military personnel to the coalition force. Those coalition members of a particularly weak status should be ensured protection by the force.

The forces are to be recognized as under the control of the coalitions, not any single nation or the UN. However, it is also recognized that such a force will not have superior authority over its member nations.I really don't know how the contradiction escapes you. "Since the UN can't establish a military force, the UN hereby establishes one," is the way I read it.

I fail to see any need for this. If nations want or need to form a coalition they'll do it without the UN telling them to do so. Furthermore, this appears to be nothing more than an attempt to create military forces under the aegis of the UN, while trying to skirt the rules prohibiting such actions.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Welcome to the United Nations.

In the future, you could try responding to my opinions, instead of griping over the fact that I have them.

Now then...

I really don't know how the contradiction escapes you. "Since the UN can't establish a military force, the UN hereby establishes one," is the way I read it.
Ah, but if you squint, you'll see he's using synonyms. The first paragraph states "cooperative peacekeeping forces." The second clearly has "cooperative military coalitions." Obviously the two are totally unrelated entities. :rolleyes:

Well, I'm still ironing it all out. You guys just pointed out more flaws that I can deal with. Also, the fact of the matter is I have now ironed it out enough to where there are no real legal problems. You may read it as such, but I don't think the mod does.

As far as debating your opinions, that was never the purpose of this thread. I only wanted to resolve legal issues, not bicker over your personal opinion. If you want to talk about it in the general forum, I happily will debate you. However, here I only want to make progress, so I care nothing of your personal opinion on the matter, unless it brings to light something else I can iron out.

That's politics...

And actually I rather like the way the new proposal is written. We'll see how it flies with the mods. I'd really like to know what the majority opinions are on this. Maybe I'll start a poll.

Impossible. So it's funded by the UN, controlled by... who? Committee of coalition? Every country included? Result= UN. Beep! Illegal.

I'm very sorry, and like a thousand other members, I do wish that NS had war and military as part of its coding, but the bitter truth is that it doesn't. And it's not likely to magically spring into existence any time soon (NS2 maybe, but here? No). There is no loophole, even if you try searching for one. And suppose you do. Maybe, by some insane possibility, with mad members, and wishful thinking, you get it passed? Congratulations. You get it passed. Effect= zilch. I know you said it would not affect game mechanics, but if it doesn't, I don't see any reason to pass it.

Meh. I'm opposed to this proposal as well. There's no need for such a coalition force at Nation States. This simulation has worked fine for a very long time without such a military force, and it will continue to do so.

Well, the original proposal was the best one, but it was completely illegal. People like the idea of a united UN army. In the real world something like it would be really effective.

These other proposals do not give control to the UN, but rather several coalitions of countries, thus it is not illegal. More or less, each coalition would be controlled by a comittee of the nations. Of course, by the rules, these commitees are completely imaginary with no nations actually sitting on them.

The proposal is not about trying to make powerful military alliances, but rather to make the world more secure. That is exactly the effect it will have, and the effect it would have in real life.

Well, the original proposal was the best one, but it was completely illegal. People like the idea of a united UN army.And just WHO are all these people. So far only one person has commented in this thread that this is a good idea. Everyone else has told you that it's a bad idea and that it's illegal.
In the real world something like it would be really effective.Who gives a flying fuck about that mythical "real world?" That has no bearing on this.

These other proposals do not give control to the UN, but rather several coalitions of countries, thus it is not illegal.It's still an attempt to create a military force under the aegis of the UN. Ergo, it's a UN military force, and is thus illegal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Well, the original proposal was the best one, but it was completely illegal. People like the idea of a united UN army. In the real world something like it would be really effective.

(OOC, obviously): Um, no. In the real world, the combination of incredibly messy chains of command and conflicting political direction has hamstrung UN forces on every occasion that they've been assembled. The only thing it's been really effective at is getting troops killed.

These other proposals do not give control to the UN, but rather several coalitions of countries, thus it is not illegal. More or less, each coalition would be controlled by a comittee of the nations. Of course, by the rules, these commitees are completely imaginary with no nations actually sitting on them.
(IC): We can think of little worse than war run by committee. While we appreciate the author's benevolent intent even while we disagree with his direction, we cannot but think that the practical difficulties such inchoate organisation presents are not worth the attempt to circumvent the constraints upon proposals.