World Security Forces

**Stefan the Berserker** · 05-21-2005, 16:31

Since Iraqwar the Discussion on the UN and Worldsecurity Council has started over and over. However the UN has a Legislative, it has no Executive.

As for Executive the UN usually asks the permanent Members of the Worldsecurity Council and their allies for Troops.

I think that the could instead rise "World Security Forces", an Army for the United Nations.

Organised that Way:

Every permant Member of the World Security Council has to rise two Corps (two Divisions) and one Airforcedivision who are intergated into WSF. Those Forces are beeing armed and organised by standards defined by the High Command of WSF, so they are equal in Combat status and commanding. Besides every permanent member goes with a financial donation to the Forces.

Result was, when the Worldsecurity council becomes enlarged as having 11 permanent Members, that the WSF would have a 44 Divisions strong Army 11 Divisions strong Airforce.

With that WSF the World Security Council could decide on real international intervention, not always calling the Number of the World Police.

As these Forces can be drained from existant ones by reorganisation, it is also not really costly.

**Alexander the Pretty Good** · 05-21-2005, 16:45

As much as I dislike the UN, and similar organizations, to be honest I would prefer them to remain useless than actually arm them.

And if you think things like the International Court of Justice or whatever they call it are unpopular in America, it would be nothing in comparison.

I don't see anyone else raising these troops if the US doesn't.

**Uesugi Kenshin** · 05-21-2005, 17:24

It would make sense to arm the UN. This would also allow them to actually enforce their authority when member states do something illegal. This would hopefully force the US and other strong countries to listen to the UN and actually heed their directions.

I also like the way you have it set up, but I doubt that the US would support this.

**Lazul** · 05-21-2005, 18:54

well Ill rather have an international army doing buisness in my country then another country(UK, USA) if things go wrong here.

good idea

**Alexander the Pretty Good** · 05-21-2005, 19:44

Lazul - would Sweden contribute to this amassing of troops?

And what if members of the Security Council veto any actions by this global police force? What if members didn't want to contribute?

And are you saying you would prefer to be invaded by many countries as opposed to sone or two? I'm not sure what you are saying.

Uesugi Kenshin - what if you disagree with what the UN declares "illegal"? What if this organization progresses so far as to have a global draft, and your number gets called? I bet you wouldn't be so hot for it then. But, hey, the UN needs troops to force the US to comply with their rules, so Uncle Kofi needs you.

And no one (NO ONE, not just the US) would agree to have whole divisions of their armed forces comandeered by an organization out of their control.

**sharrukin** · 05-21-2005, 19:49

''Only a superpower like the United States could have pulled off a coup like this,'' an Asian diplomat told IPS.

The unanimous 15-0 vote, he said, was obtained through considerable political and diplomatic pressure. The lobbying, he added, was not done at the United Nations, but in various capitals.

Besides its five veto-wielding permanent members - the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia - the Security Council also consists of 10 non-permanent, rotating members who hold office for two years.

France, China and Russia, in almost a single voice, said they decided to back the resolution, because of assurances by the United States, that it would return to the Security Council before launching a military attack on Iraq. The resolution, they argued, does not provide the United States with the automatic use of military force.

But the 10 non-permanent members - Cameroon, Guinea, Mauritius, Bulgaria, Colombia, Mexico, Singapore, Norway, Ireland and Syria - voted under heavy diplomatic and economic pressure from the United States.

Nine votes and no vetoes were the minimum needed to adopt the resolution.

We would now be involved in Iraq with 44 divisions from around the world instead of the Americans needing to provide the troops. Well it's sounds like a good deal for them!

**Lazul** · 05-22-2005, 01:57

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Lazul - would Sweden contribute to this amassing of troops?

And what if members of the Security Council veto any actions by this global police force? What if members didn't want to contribute?

And are you saying you would prefer to be invaded by many countries as opposed to sone or two? I'm not sure what you are saying.

Uesugi Kenshin - what if you disagree with what the UN declares "illegal"? What if this organization progresses so far as to have a global draft, and your number gets called? I bet you wouldn't be so hot for it then. But, hey, the UN needs troops to force the US to comply with their rules, so Uncle Kofi needs you.

And no one (NO ONE, not just the US) would agree to have whole divisions of their armed forces comandeered by an organization out of their control.

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

**Steppe Merc** · 05-22-2005, 02:11

Where would these soldiers come from? And heck, let's all spend more money on ways to kill each other, why don't we? Let's create more ways to start wars, and more reasons to!

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 05-22-2005, 02:15

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** · 05-22-2005, 02:29

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** · 05-22-2005, 03:15

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** · 05-22-2005, 22:42

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.

**Xiahou** · 05-23-2005, 23:43

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 05-23-2005, 23:53

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

**Taffy_is_a_Taff** · 05-24-2005, 00:12

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** · 05-24-2005, 07:06

[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** · 05-24-2005, 07:40

[QUOTE=Franconicus]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

**Papewaio** · 05-23-2005, 02:46

Originally Posted by Stefan the Berserker

Result was, when the Worldsecurity council becomes enlarged as having 11 permanent Members, that the WSF would have a 44 Divisions strong Army 11 Divisions strong Airforce.

With that WSF the World Security Council could decide on real international intervention, not always calling the Number of the World Police.

Would the force be comprised of only democracies?

Would there still be veto powers in the council?

All this would do is having all the non 11 permanent members on their knees begging to the Cartel-11 not to attack them with a rubber stamp UN authorised invasion.

Either suck up or get blown up.