World Security Forces

[Gawain of Orkeny]

What happens when theres a dispute and nations who have levied troops to the UN fight eachother? The US will never put its troops under the command of the UN. It sounds great on paper but its no feasable just like communism.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Perhaps it is not feasible at the moment Gawain, but once there is a world government (very far off) it would be helpful.

I don't think they would have a worldwide draft, it would be better to take volunteers.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Rather many then one and yes Sweden would contribute to this amassaing of troops, you doubt swedes can fight or something?

I don't doubt that Swedes can fight (hey you guys were Vikings ) I was wondering if you like having your troops triapsing around fighting wars you might not agree with.

Let's be serious, who elected Kofi Annan? A world police would presuppose a genuine, representative world government. Which seems rather far off, to put it very, very diplomatically.

Yeah. I still wouldn't like it; if US doesn't have veto power, I'll never agree. But then again, that's just me. Mr. Nationalistic Wacko.

Perhaps it is not feasible at the moment Gawain, but once there is a world government (very far off) it would be helpful.

I don't think they would have a worldwide draft, it would be better to take volunteers.

By the time there is a world government, I'll be either dead or in the United States of Mars, a rebellious and power colony.

And the pay would have to be tremendous in the current situation to get anyone to join. Still, not going to happen soon.

[Stefan the Berserker]

There are many reasons for me for it, I'll explain.

1. The UN is powerless. When the World Security Council decides on action, it is usually a Coalition of Nations which executes it. The Country occupied is then apparently under control of this Coalation, not by the UN. This has massive impact.

2. The USA always runt on the Cost for them, since usually they are the Leader of such a Coalation. It would reduce the loss of Blood for them and secondly also reduce the financial impact in favor of chared work.

3. It would be good for the USA's political image in the world, since then the Left-radicals will runt the UN.

4. After my Theory the permanent Members of the World Security Council form the Army and they are able to veto its usage.

5. Real international action requires getting lost natioanl egoism and power fantasies, so internationalised forces are well suited compared to national Amries.

6. The Forces can be drained by reorganisation of two Army Corps and one Airforcedivision which are already existing. Rise of new Forces is not implented.

7. Each permanent member does the same efford, which is although fair.

So to repeat:

Organiation is done by each permanent Member of the World Security Council providing two Corps, one Airforcedivision and boost the finances of it. Organisationform and equipmentstandards for those Units are defined by the Staff.

The Chief of Staff is elected and promoted by the World Security Council, Chief of Command is the Generalsecretary of the UN itself. So there can also be chinese, a russian, german or whatever leadership of the Action instead of the USA.

The Current five permanent members - USA, Russia, France, Britain, PR China - and the new Members, where I did favor - Japan, Germany, Brasil, India, Egypt and the South Africa - create a good mix of militery exeriance to execute operations and the relations to avoid it.

[Adrian II]

5. Real international action requires getting lost natioanl egoism and power fantasies, so internationalised forces are well suited compared to national Amries.

How do you propose to 'rid' nations of their perceived national interest ('egoism') and their political aspirations ('power fantasies')?

[Franconicus]

There are many reasons for me for it, I'll explain.

1. The UN is powerless. When the World Security Council decides on action, it is usually a Coalition of Nations which executes it. The Country occupied is then apparently under control of this Coalation, not by the UN. This has massive impact.

2. The USA always runt on the Cost for them, since usually they are the Leader of such a Coalation. It would reduce the loss of Blood for them and secondly also reduce the financial impact in favor of chared work.

3. It would be good for the USA's political image in the world, since then the Left-radicals will runt the UN.

4. After my Theory the permanent Members of the World Security Council form the Army and they are able to veto its usage.

5. Real international action requires getting lost natioanl egoism and power fantasies, so internationalised forces are well suited compared to national Amries.

6. The Forces can be drained by reorganisation of two Army Corps and one Airforcedivision which are already existing. Rise of new Forces is not implented.

7. Each permanent member does the same efford, which is although fair.

So to repeat:

Organiation is done by each permanent Member of the World Security Council providing two Corps, one Airforcedivision and boost the finances of it. Organisationform and equipmentstandards for those Units are defined by the Staff.

The Chief of Staff is elected and promoted by the World Security Council, Chief of Command is the Generalsecretary of the UN itself. So there can also be chinese, a russian, german or whatever leadership of the Action instead of the USA.

The Current five permanent members - USA, Russia, France, Britain, PR China - and the new Members, where I did favor - Japan, Germany, Brasil, India, Egypt and the South Africa - create a good mix of militery exeriance to execute operations and the relations to avoid it.

I support this ideas. One unique force that represents all nations and serves piece and law would be much better than what we have today. Just a few additions:
While building the international corps you have to reduce the national forces.
You have to reorganise the UN and the Security council to have quick and just decition (every nation must have rights, no vetos ...)

But I also see that the US would not accept any supperior force. What would happen if the UN decides to act against the US?

[Papewaio]

While building the international corps you have to reduce the national forces.
You have to reorganise the UN and the Security council to have quick and just decition (every nation must have rights, no vetos ...)

What nation is going to contribute 4 divisions of troops and not have the right to veto?

It is insane to give someone else that amount of power particularly given the current UN has so many non-democracies. A straight vote by the dictators would have the UNs 44 divisions dividing up the democracies amongst the dictators using the democracies own armies...

[Franconicus]

What nation is going to contribute 4 divisions of troops and not have the right to veto?

It is insane to give someone else that amount of power particularly given the current UN has so many non-democracies. A straight vote by the dictators would have the UNs 44 divisions dividing up the democracies amongst the dictators using the democracies own armies...

Papewaio,
what about Florida. Was an independing state, now gives soldiers for the US armiy without having any veto. Same in Germany (Bavaria was a state until 1871), I hope parts of Europe are coming to that.

[Nelson]

What would happen if the UN decides to act against the US?

Well, for starters, the UN would need to move its headquarters...

[sharrukin]

Well, for starters, the UN would need to move its headquarters...

Not with 44 divisions they wouldn't! The Americans can field perhaps 18 divisions and another 8-12 from the National Guard? The enormous power of 44 modern divisions would put a lot of interest in who exactly controlled them.

[Xiahou]

What happens when theres a dispute and nations who have levied troops to the UN fight eachother? The US will never put its troops under the command of the UN. It sounds great on paper but its no feasable just like communism.

Well, I don't even think it sounds good on paper. An emphatic no from me. Besides, as you say, it'll never happen- the US would never allow it and I have doubts that the other nations could muster the numbers they're supposed to pony up.


Oh and... all your base are belong to us.

[Devastatin Dave]

No "World Security Force".... I prefer my UN just a balless and worthless as it is now...

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

seeing as so many people seem to want to consider the possibility of this huge multi-national army taking on the US:
1. So what about numbers if you're armed with 1950s Russian tanks and have a hard time co-ordinating actions because you have at least dozens of languages to be working in. The super army would be trounced by the US military.
2. Where's the airpower?
3. Where's the support and logistics?
4. This proposed Uber-army would not be "modern" without the US: look at how tiny (and generally ineffective) other non-US "modern" armies are.
5. The UN has its ways of using armed force and the US tends to get given (out of all the western powers anyways) the biggest tasks whilst wearing the UN's blue helmet. Remeber the idiocy that went down in the Balkans? Remember who had to be called in to help when the EU couldn't deal with it?
Exactly. The UN is like the league of nations but it has access to military force, it just so happens that the most effective military force it has is borrowed from the US.

[Franconicus]

[QUOTE=Xiahou]Besides, as you say, it'll never happen- the US would never allow it QUOTE]
Just an idea: Why not form the UN without the US?

[sharrukin]

[QUOTE=Franconicus]

Besides, as you say, it'll never happen- the US would never allow it QUOTE]
Just an idea: Why not form the UN without the US?

Because the UN would then cease to exist within 5 years!

[Xiahou]

Just an idea: Why not form the UN without the US?

Because the UN would then cease to exist within 5 years!

I agree- it's a fabulous idea.

[Stefan the Berserker]

Because the UN would then cease to exist within 5 years!

That is stupid Nationalism. The USA are powerful, but not so powerful that the majority of Nations would change its policies by their example. Nor could the USA effectively start actions against the UN.

[sharrukin]

That is stupid Nationalism. The USA are powerful, but not so powerful that the majority of Nations would change its policies by their example. Nor could the USA effectively start actions against the UN.

No they would just stop paying the bills as would most of their allies. The UN would dwindle into the same kind of Irrelevancy that the League of Nations did.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

The UN would dwindle into the same kind of Irrelevancy that the League of Nations did.

Mmmmmm.

Oh and... all your base are belong to us.

[Stefan the Berserker]

No they would just stop paying the bills as would most of their allies. The UN would dwindle into the same kind of Irrelevancy that the League of Nations did.

Yeah, I know these NeoConservative argumentation lines. Pretty Fantasy of the USA as the world's dominat Nation and Protector.

However, it is just fantasy. In Case of the Soviet Union whoose "Allies" were in fact puppets, they would have surely all followed when Russia left the UN. But in Case the USA did that, only very few would follow them while the rest remains in it and turns hostile to the USA for that action.

The USA is in position of power since the outcome of WW2 made them the Leader of the Allies, with a seperation between the NATO-States its power was lost.

Also you should recall who so loudly proclaimed the fail of the UN and his favor of its dissolution: Richard Perle.

Seems Perle failed first.