NationStates Jolt Archive

Edit: This may be discouraging to warmongers. Use with caution.

So you want to destroy the UN, eh? Well, listen up! This might help to bring about a change.

I see a lot of people trying to conquer the UN which is thousands of nations strong. Don't get me wrong: I don't support the UN, either, but I don't declare war. Logically, military force has no sway over toppling the UN, for it is an organisation that is militarilly impenetrable. It would take over 5,000 threads at least for every non-UN nation to declare war on every UN nation, and even then, not all the non-UN nations would assist in the war! Of course, the UN would fight as a whole, I'd imagine, so how do you go about fighting the UN, anyways? Let's look at some possible methods.

:arrow: Method 1: The Delegate Factor

Delegates, by the way that they're appointed to their position, logically hold more endorsements than others in their regions, thus making their votes on UN resolutions count as several. A proposed method to attain power to fight against the vast sea of UN members would be logically reasoned as the following...

1: Join the UN
2: Jump from region to region sympathizing with your cause against the UN, and have them join as well.
3: Once, as many supporters as possible have signed up with the UN, cross-endorse each other as many times possible, and vote against the vast majorities (or minorities) within the UN in favor of an agreeable resolution for your side.

Decay the UN from the inside out, and pass all kinds of strange bills that are gauranteed to insult people's sensibilities so harshly that they'll want to leave so that pedophilia isn't mandatory in their nation or little children would be tested with smallpox to see lethality factors.

:arrow: Method 2: Remove The Members, Remove The Problems

I know many UN members, and my some stroke of luck, they all really seem to like it, except for those few who vote on all the resolutions that never pass. What I suggest is that you go to your local library, and pick up numerous books on constructing sound and logical arguments. I then recommend that you go onto the UN page, and construct a solid, and unassailable argument for members to leave the UN, and pass it on to as many members within it as possible. If you present your argument strongly enough, then several members, maybe even those with numerous endorsements, might leave. This could be used in tandem with method 1 for an amplified effect! Aim for the members who vote frequently, as well!

-

Those are really only the logical ways. Let's see the way that we see all the time which is impossible...

:arrow: I Declare War

This does not work, people! As stated before, the UN is thousands of nations strong! Many of these nations are rather large nations, such as myself and some of my puppets and friends! 1 billion or 2 billion populations don't topple easily when you consider the size military that they could have and support. Let alone all those nations out there, there is no feasible way that a bunch of anti-UN members could kill every last political leader, root out every last insurrection, and defeat every last fighting force coming their way!

-

I hope this serves as something to enlighten others on the proper way to go about destroying the UN...

This is an excellent post. Readers may wish to see our views on the subject.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=143353

Accordingly, the AIS also does not encourage aggressive and unprovoked military aggression against the UN -- it would be total folly. Only nOObs and the cerebrally-challenged would even consider it. However, on the other hand, we just couldn't stand the idea of having that rediculous blue UN logo associated with our country either.

Therefore, we take an alternative approach -- and that is to try to convince other nations to renounce their UN membership. We try to point out the shortcomings of the UN (see above post) and hope that both UN and non-UN countries will be convinced of our arguments and make the change of their own volition.

The problem is that when a new country joins the NationStates community, they immediately have the option of joining the UN -- and in most cases, they do without even knowing why. I think that if countries are not allowed to submit issues until they reach 500 million citizens (an indicator that the country owner is mature enough), then they shouldn't be able to join the UN until they reach 500 million people. Let countries learn how this whole thing works first. Then, give them the opportunity to make the decision themselves once the country owner is educated and matured.

yes well I have to say I'm with MMI

DID we mention the UN has nothing against keeping evil dictators and the likes out?

The thread here makes a valid point as does MMI, our fellow Alliance member (Alliance of Independent States or AIS) and Josh Dollins is likewise a valued AIS brother.

Inyurface is preparing, in the next realtime week, to post a thread very consistent with the views espoused by Archaic Slang Words.

The UN cannot be defeated through military conflict. It can only be brought down by one of two means:

1) Make it completely irrelevant (like the real UN); or
2) Take it over by a massive delegate takeover.

Both options are not the kind that would yeild the desired results immediately upon implimentation of the plan, but would take quite a bit of time to do. However, that being said, time is something we all have on NationStates.

The thread will essentially outline the skeletal system of an ultimate plan to accomplish our goals. Essentially, there will have to be engineered a great anti-UN movement (which already exists, just lacks focus). We must begin by forming a PACT of Regions that will be bound by a unified goal... the end to the UN or at least a real and meaningful change. All regions signed to the anti-UN PACT would seek out and convert and/or recruit new nations or existing UN or non-UN nations into one of any of the anti-UN regions. All such regions will be named and registered on the thread. Cogent arguments against the UN will be posted for all to read. The PACT will not endorese unprovoked agrression against a UN nation simply because it is a UN nation. (that would defeat our cause and dwindle our support and our credibility) It would be a haven for those denouncing the UN to gather, until the day where either by shear numbers the UN becomes irrelevant, or that becomes the day where the regions simultaniously enter the UN, and with one fell-swoop, proposes and passes the ultimate resolutions. In time, these regions, once organized CAN make a difference and can number in the thousands. The seed must be planted today... for tomorrow we harvest. We echo MMI's position that the following is a good thread to read. This is only the beginning.
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=143353

Wow. This could actually work. And avoid the IGNORE cannon in the process.

If you want an outstanding read on just some of the major flaws of the United Nations, I highly recommend this article written by Gary Dempsey, and prepared for the The Cato Handbook for Congress, Chapter 55.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb107/hb107-55.pdf

It is linked to the Cato Institute's website. The Cato Institute is arguably one of the world's foremost leading political think tanks (and is quite leftist at times actually). This article focuses on the current world's UN but many of the article's themes are particularly relevant to NationStates UN as well.

Meh, I never saw what was so bad about the UN (On here, at least.) I mean, it gives you something extra to do when the game is slow.

I'll refer n00bs to this thread, so taggity...

,/'BUMP'\,

A definate must-read or possible sticky!

The thread here makes a valid point as does MMI, our fellow Alliance member (Alliance of Independent States or AIS) and Josh Dollins is likewise a valued AIS brother.

Inyurface is preparing, in the next realtime week, to post a thread very consistent with the views espoused by Archaic Slang Words.

The UN cannot be defeated through military conflict. It can only be brought down by one of two means:

1) Make it completely irrelevant (like the real UN); or
2) Take it over by a massive delegate takeover.

Both options are not the kind that would yeild the desired results immediately upon implimentation of the plan, but would take quite a bit of time to do. However, that being said, time is something we all have on NationStates.

The thread will essentially outline the skeletal system of an ultimate plan to accomplish our goals. Essentially, there will have to be engineered a great anti-UN movement (which already exists, just lacks focus). We must begin by forming a PACT of Regions that will be bound by a unified goal... the end to the UN or at least a real and meaningful change. All regions signed to the anti-UN PACT would seek out and convert and/or recruit new nations or existing UN or non-UN nations into one of any of the anti-UN regions. All such regions will be named and registered on the thread. Cogent arguments against the UN will be posted for all to read. The PACT will not endorese unprovoked agrression against a UN nation simply because it is a UN nation. (that would defeat our cause and dwindle our support and our credibility) It would be a haven for those denouncing the UN to gather, until the day where either by shear numbers the UN becomes irrelevant, or that becomes the day where the regions simultaniously enter the UN, and with one fell-swoop, proposes and passes the ultimate resolutions. In time, these regions, once organized CAN make a difference and can number in the thousands. The seed must be planted today... for tomorrow we harvest. We echo MMI's position that the following is a good thread to read. This is only the beginning.
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=143353

Only problem in avoid the UN Delegate Factor (Or UN Delegate overthrow) would be the Anti-UN nations would be in the UN, and now be the UN Delegate, even more vile in their stance then before.

Only problem in avoid the UN Delegate Factor (Or UN Delegate overthrow) would be the Anti-UN nations would be in the UN, and now be the UN Delegate, even more vile in their stance then before.

Yes, a true but obvious point. However, this would be a means to an end -- afterwhich, membership would be meaningless.

But would this not usher in a new UN? It is a hypothetical question, yes, but members wouldn't quit because of some simple or complex crasher groups, I didn't, nor did my ally.

But would this not usher in a new UN? It is a hypothetical question, yes, but members wouldn't quit because of some simple or complex crasher groups, I didn't, nor did my ally.

What if the final resolution was to disban the UN?

But would this not usher in a new UN? It is a hypothetical question, yes, but members wouldn't quit because of some simple or complex crasher groups, I didn't, nor did my ally.

What if the final resolution was to disband the UN?

It would be kicked out for trying to change game-play, its a UN Resolution Rule.

It would be kicked out for trying to change game-play, its a UN Resolution Rule.

Then we study the rules and find an appropriate resolution to accomplish our goal. That would require study and deliberation but I have no doubt that something could be done. Frankly, the very fact that "we can" would be so disruptive that many would have no choice but to take notice.

Regardless, the UN & their delegate fear this idea. There is no doubt. The UN is weak and it and its members are accutely aware of that fact. This thread is seen as a threat because it is a plausible idea to bring about great change, awareness, and perhaps even the game mechanics themselves.

To be honest, anything at all that changes gameplay will either be ejected from the floor and you'll be warned, or if it gets to be voted on, it does nothing. Other then that you would defeat your purpose by joining the UN to fight the UN.

But would this not usher in a new UN? It is a hypothetical question, yes, but members wouldn't quit because of some simple or complex crasher groups, I didn't, nor did my ally.

Great question, but as Archaic Slang Words points out, legislation would be passed that would be completely unacceptable to the majority of members and their beliefs. Since membership to the UN automatically confers legislation passed in one's own country as well, this would seriously destroy all of the UN's credibility with the majority of it's current members belief. This would essentially "speed up evolution" as it were, regarding the UN's incompetence, irrelevance, and pointless existence. If that is true, most would either fight back or simply quit if the organization went to ruin.

I suspect that in your case of "crasher groups", you and your ally didn't care either way what legislation(s) the crasher groups passed. Otherwise, if you cared, you would have either taken efforts to reverse the power or you would have renounced your membership.

I'm glad you asked the question however, it's a great hypothetical thought exercise at the least!

Max has already said no Game Mechanics will be changed, also the UN is a vital role for most of NS, as the Forums are mainly com-links in essence and not the real game. In short, the UN will most likely stay in its place forever.

Just like to note one more time: Anything that has to do with changing Game Mechanics will not be so extreme as to take out the UN or Cripple it that Badly. No UN nation actually complies with a message that says they are all kicked out of the UN thanks to a recent proposal, for it would greatly change the game mechanics and crash NationStates for hours on end as people tried to reapply and as the changes occured.

Max has already said no Game Mechanics will be changed, also the UN is a vital role for most of NS, as the Forums are mainly com-links in essence and not the real game. In short, the UN will most likely stay in its place forever.

I guess we just may find out some day how this UN-crashing will affect the UN.

What is that supposed to mean? Please be clearer.

To be honest, anything at all that changes gameplay will either be ejected from the floor and you'll be warned, or if it gets to be voted on, it does nothing. Other then that you would defeat your purpose by joining the UN to fight the UN.

But isn't this part of "gameplay". Doesn't the belief that the UN should not exist part of "gameplay". As a representative of MMI government, we have serious reasons for believing that the UN should not exist. We make no efforts to ruin "gameplay" for other countries. In fact, we feel that our frequent posts on the matter significantly enhance "gameplay" for what is, by the way, a game called NationStates. I think even those who would "warn" would agree. Change is part of nature and life. It is part of everything. If there are good reasons for change, it will happen.

Just like to note one more time: Anything that has to do with changing Game Mechanics will not be so extreme as to take out the UN or Cripple it that Badly. No UN nation actually complies with a message that says they are all kicked out of the UN thanks to a recent proposal, for it would greatly change the game mechanics and crash NationStates for hours on end as people tried to reapply and as the changes occured.

Now there's an idea... pass a resolution that would kick everyone out of the UN that voted against another resolution. Brilliant.

I don't think you understand, Max said their will be no more Major Game Play Mechanic Changes, the UN is staying.

I don't think you understand, Max said their will be no more Major Game Play Mechanic Changes, the UN is staying.

A resolution to kick certain parties out... is that "play mechanics" or the democracy of the UN in action? If so, is that "major?" Where is Max's thread/publication defining these terms? It would certainly offer better insight into how to accomplish our goals.

He says it numorous times I believe in his chat's to players, first more then second. Besides, its debateble if you can pass a resolution kicking UN members out of the UN, doubt it would ever get many votes, but its probably possible.

He says it numorous times I believe in his chat's to players, first more then second. Besides, its debateble if you can pass a resolution kicking UN members out of the UN, doubt it would ever get many votes, but its probably possible.

Would be intersting to see just how far a concentrated effort to "overtake" the UN would/could be. It would be fun regardless of the outcome.

Yes, it would be fun.

OOC: I am going off-line now.

Yes, it would be fun.

OOC: I am going off-line now.

OOC: This was fun! Good debate/discussion!

Max has already said no Game Mechanics will be changed, also the UN is a vital role for most of NS, as the Forums are mainly com-links in essence and not the real game. In short, the UN will most likely stay in its place forever.

But our proposal does not result in any change in "game mechanics" since we would affect change through the mechanism. It is legitamate and part of the game. In fact, I suspect that the ability to facilitate this outcome would actually strenthen the game, since it would empower others who are 'beyond the masses' to have some hope.

Plus, wasn't the heroine in Jennifer Government a defender of the disempowered? A champion against "the system"? I think Max made the point well in an incredible novel. Besides, nothing is forever.

Scrambled eggs. You never know.

First off, Jen was against Corporations, not the United Nations, and secondly (yes I am lingering tonight, staying on) think of it this way, NS2.
Also notice who Jen was working for, the Government, the UN is a form of Government in essence.

NS2 Will have a good deal of the above, but for NS1 to have this they would have to completely rewrite scripts (gamecodes).

First off, Jen was against Corporations, not the United Nations, and secondly (yes I am lingering tonight, staying on) think of it this way, NS2.
Also notice who Jen was working for, the Government, the UN is a form of Government in essence.

NS2 Will have a good deal of the above, but for NS1 to have this they would have to completely rewrite scripts (gamecodes).

Yes, I know she turned from the Corporate to defend the downtrodden. But in many ways, Jen's Corporate is similar the UN and the UN's downtrodden. Also, while Jen was an agent of the government, it is also true that governments frequently mimic the Incorporated and vice versa. In fact, they are both sides of the same coin.

Also, I can't wait for NS2. In the end, Max will probably get some of my money, again. :?

**bumpidy**

**bumpidy!**

thats crazy there will be a massive world war between the un and us people that are not with the un most countrys will get caut up in this world war because nations with low population will get attacted and destroyed for know reason :x :x :evil:

thats crazy there will be a massive world war between the un and us people that are not with the un most countrys will get caut up in this world war because nations with low population will get attacted and destroyed for know reason :x :x :evil:

We wouldn't be making war with the UN or UN countries. That would be silly foolish.

::BUMP::

True, attacking the UN is suicide and if you attack a UN Nation in the name that they are in the UN, well that has the same effect.

True, attacking the UN is suicide and if you attack a UN Nation in the name that they are in the UN, well that has the same effect.

We wouldn't attack anything or anyone. This would be gaining control through legitamate channels within the game mechanics.

.:BUMP:.

I think the main reason people have a problem with the UN is the resolutions they pass - they're almost unilaterally far-left-wing, and that disgusts us. I loved the UN at first, but after seeing resolution after leftist resolution being passed, with my NO vote making no difference whatsoever, I decided to leave.

Now don't get me wrong, the D.F.I.T. is pretty left wing, but only middlin'. These resolutions intrude into ours, and others, internal affairs.

I'm a lefty in real life, but I support actual opposition - these things shouldn't be thrown through so easily. Its horrible...

Many of these nations are rather large nations, such as myself and some of my puppets and friends!

isnt it braking the rules haveing more the one nation under your control in the UN?

its says in the FAQ clearly:
I have more than one nation. Can they all join the UN?

No. You may only have one nation in the UN at any given time. To enforce this, UN member nations must supply an e-mail address

Many of these nations are rather large nations, such as myself and some of my puppets and friends!

isnt it braking the rules haveing more the one nation under your control in the UN?

its says in the FAQ clearly:
I have more than one nation. Can they all join the UN?

No. You may only have one nation in the UN at any given time. To enforce this, UN member nations must supply an e-mail address

I think the main reason people have a problem with the UN is the resolutions they pass - they're almost unilaterally far-left-wing, and that disgusts us. I loved the UN at first, but after seeing resolution after leftist resolution being passed, with my NO vote making no difference whatsoever, I decided to leave.

Now don't get me wrong, the D.F.I.T. is pretty left wing, but only middlin'. These resolutions intrude into ours, and others, internal affairs.

I'm a lefty in real life, but I support actual opposition - these things shouldn't be thrown through so easily. Its horrible...

Here, here. We agree totally. The UN is a farce. It can't even control it's own predatory members.

Many of these nations are rather large nations, such as myself and some of my puppets and friends!

isnt it braking the rules haveing more the one nation under your control in the UN?

its says in the FAQ clearly:
I have more than one nation. Can they all join the UN?

No. You may only have one nation in the UN at any given time. To enforce this, UN member nations must supply an e-mail address

Yes, it is against the rules but Archaic isn't saying that. Plus, they're not a UN member.

FREE yourself from the BONDS of the UN !!!

the problem is that well the group of people who disagree with the UN are sperated most groups aren't any bigger than 5-7 member nations and this is a big problem.

the problem is that well the group of people who disagree with the UN are sperated most groups aren't any bigger than 5-7 member nations and this is a big problem.

Excellent point. That is why a large anti-UN PACT must be formed encompassing multiple countries and alliances. The only barrier is communication. A country or countries that can surpass that barrier, who can effectively alert all the nations over the course of a two or three days for the final coup de grace, will bridge that divide. It is not easy. But it is possible.

the problem is that well the group of people who disagree with the UN are sperated most groups aren't any bigger than 5-7 member nations and this is a big problem.

Excellent point. That is why a large anti-UN PACT must be formed encompassing multiple countries and alliances. The only barrier is communication. A country or countries that can surpass that barrier, who can effectively alert all the nations over the course of a two or three days for the final coup de grace, will bridge that divide. It is not easy. But it is possible.
agreed ill put you on my dosier if you need anything tell me i will tell my group *sualts (i don't need to be in you're group to be willing help you) (the words of a wise diplomat) by the way i am not the leader of my group.

the problem is that well the group of people who disagree with the UN are sperated most groups aren't any bigger than 5-7 member nations and this is a big problem.

Excellent point. That is why a large anti-UN PACT must be formed encompassing multiple countries and alliances. The only barrier is communication. A country or countries that can surpass that barrier, who can effectively alert all the nations over the course of a two or three days for the final coup de grace, will bridge that divide. It is not easy. But it is possible.
agreed ill put you on my dosier if you need anything tell me i will tell my group *sualts (i don't need to be in you're group to be willing help you) (the words of a wise diplomat) by the way i am not the leader of my group.

Excellent then!