NationStates Jolt Archive

I have recently tried to put up a proposal to make a unified UN army, as this is something important in real life. It was deleted since it is illegal to propose anything that gives the UN an army. I have since altered it to make it legal and I am waiting for a moderator to review it so hopefully I can propose it.

This is the thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13503534#post13503534

Now, hopefully many of you understand why it would be very useful in the real world to have such a force. I will appreciate any support I get on this. But for here, let us debate on why it would be so useful to have a unified force, and for the opposition: why it is impractical.

I personally think that many nations banding together for their own protection is a noble idea that should be approved by the UN. Afterall, isn't that what the UN is all about? A real life example of this is the European Union's centralized army. While each nation has its own army, there is also a centralized army that is growing every year.

So, questions? comments? agreements? disagreements?

A real life example of this is NATO, which has obviously outgrown its original treaty and original intent (to keep the US in, the Soviets out, and Germany down).

I think the new NATO is newborn into new roles, and may dissolve if its members can't agree on the use of NATO forces. Then again, it may thrive, and its members will see some benefit in working together, if only for the reason that it reduces the incentives for individual nations to act on their own.

Kosovo and Afghanistan are "new" uses of NATO.

I do not think that anyone would seriously let the UN have such an armed force.

NATO nations appear to have some reasons to act collectively - they have marked collective interests.

The world's nations, as a whole, have no collective interests.

In a perfect world, an international fighting force would be an ideal solution. In reality, it simply wouldn't work. Issues such as different international policies and different doctrine prevent it from working, even within organizations like NATO. An example of this is Afghanistan. Though there are many nations there, quite a few refuse to do any front line fighting. Imagine a fighting force in which half the soldiers can't/won't fight.

Well, the new edited resolution sets forth funding to nations that wish to band together and form a united military. It no longer states the UN has any military or any control over any military. Thus I see no legal issues. It changes no game mechanics.

Think of how weak the Balkan states are, but think of how strong they might be if they made a united military force? Think of how many examples around the world you could come up with. Many nations are simply stronger than a single nation (there are a few exceptions), and if that provides them better security, it should be funded, provided that it is used for their defense.

Well, the new edited resolution sets forth funding to nations that wish to band together and form a united military. It no longer states the UN has any military or any control over any military. Thus I see no legal issues. It changes no game mechanics.

Think of how weak the Balkan states are, but think of how strong they might be if they made a united military force? Think of how many examples around the world you could come up with. Many nations are simply stronger than a single nation (there are a few exceptions), and if that provides them better security, it should be funded, provided that it is used for their defense.

Essentially a military alliance.

Yeah, pretty much. And the proposal would finance such alliances.

The thing is I could completely change the proposal's wording to say: "The UN will provide financing for military alliances" and build on that, yet it would still have the same gameplay effect in the end (increase military spending for international security). It's rather simple. I just want to propose it already and stop waiting around for legal appoval.

A real life example of this is the European Union's centralized army. While each nation has its own army, there is also a centralized army that is growing every year.
Completely wrong.

There's a European Gendarmerie Force, which is for controlling very violent riots. There is no European Army. Yet.



As to a UN military force - yes, please. Then we can stop this whining about "our troops get it hardest :(" or "why doesn't nation x pledge more troops?". Get them recruiting it for themselves, too, and make it quite clear to people that their job is going to be more akin to what Mother Theresa did than John Rambo.

What he said.
V
V

Completely wrong.

There's a European Gendarmerie Force, which is for controlling very violent riots. There is no European Army. Yet.


The only thing close would be the vague European Battle Groups which have yet to be put into practice.

*personally bewildered by inclusion in the Nordic Battle Group*

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/EU_Dreams_Of_Common_Army_999.html

They're up to 60,000 strong. I think that's an army, even if it is small. The latest project are the battle groups.

Well, I still have yet to receive any reviews over legality, so I'm about to just take the risk of posting it again. There are no legal issues that I can see, so if it gets deleted there better be a damn good explaination.

Seems to me that unless the army is to defend Earth against aliens, then it wouldn't be an world army, but a world police force.

Well, think about it for a moment. If it were a centralized UN army, then it would only be drawn from UN nations. It would still fight those opposing the UN nations and keep stability within the UN nations.

However, as I said, for legal reasons, the proposal was changed so that the UN financed military coalitions.

But the debate here is about international armed forces, which does not necessarily mean GLOBAL armed forces. It simply means several nations coming together to make a centralized military force, as the European Union is going to try to do. So long as more than one nation is involved, the term international is applicable.