Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should the UN have its own Armed forces ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Should the UN have its own Armed forces ?

    I pretty self explanatory title..

    Would the UN be more effective in enforcing its mandates if it had its own army,navy and airforce that owe allegiance to no other country ?

  • #2
    Yes, a good suggestion, but alas, the UN is not built that way... there will be many legal and governmental hurdles if it wants to do something like that.

    Comment


    • #3
      Whose money will pay for these forces?

      Comment


      • #4
        Righto OOE, lots of hurdles... the world unfortunately isn't an ideal place, so everything that seems ideal need not and most certainly will not happen...

        Comment


        • #5
          The UN ought to be shut down, not given more power.

          Comment


          • #6
            I can just imagine the ranting of all the tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists if that ever came to fruition.

            Im all for a small mercenary force to be run by the UN. I would only be comfortable if it had only a limited amount of heavy weapons and was maybe 2 motorised divisions for regular peacekeeping work and maybe a mech brigade for any heavier intervention.

            Still too small to threaten most countries but strong enough to put out spot fires. Maybe with a couple of squadrons of transports and possibly a squadron of close air support aircraft.

            I would also think it a good idea for a small navy designed to fight piracy, enforce embargos and the like. Made up mostly of OPVs' as well as landing ships.

            It could be paid for out of the dues that every country pays to the UN. Would cost maybe $5-10Billion to setup with maybe a 2-5Billion a year maintenance cost. Not massively expensive with 170 odd countries contributing various amounts to it.

            Problem would be getting agreement from the security council to deploy it as it seems on every major world problem there are powerful supporters on both sides.
            The best part of repentance is the sin

            Comment


            • #7
              That is the idea.. stop depending on the Security council and the stupid 'vetoes' that seem to negate any fruitful UN intervention on anything....Also tackle the 'political message' that countries are wary of if for example US peacekeeping soldiers are stationed in lebanon.. UN is neutral..so noone can complain on "hidden agendas"....having such a presence in maybe Gaza can 1) deter rocket attacks on israel 2) help boost confidence so that Israel can remove the gaza blockade

              As far as recruitment of manpower is concerneed...For a comparitively nominal salary(compared to the developed nations) they can recruit people from developing/under developed countries to serve exclusively under a UN flag..

              Getting military hardware shouldn't be such an issue as they dont need cutting-edge weapony for peacekeeping missions... It probably wouldn't cost much to maintain a 50,000 army and some helos / decent vessels (that are being retired by countries )

              Comment


              • #8
                A more elaborate version of this was covered here
                When our perils are past, shall our gratitude sleep? - George Canning sigpic

                Comment


                • #9
                  A good idea no doubt but like was mentioned above who payrolls it and who controls it?
                  Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Mercenary View Post
                    That is the idea.. stop depending on the Security council and the stupid 'vetoes' that seem to negate any fruitful UN intervention on anything....Also tackle the 'political message' that countries are wary of if for example US peacekeeping soldiers are stationed in lebanon.. UN is neutral..so noone can complain on "hidden agendas"....having such a presence in maybe Gaza can 1) deter rocket attacks on israel 2) help boost confidence so that Israel can remove the gaza blockade

                    As far as recruitment of manpower is concerneed...For a comparitively nominal salary(compared to the developed nations) they can recruit people from developing/under developed countries to serve exclusively under a UN flag..

                    Getting military hardware shouldn't be such an issue as they dont need cutting-edge weapony for peacekeeping missions... It probably wouldn't cost much to maintain a 50,000 army and some helos / decent vessels (that are being retired by countries )
                    You've got to know that it would be "open season" on those people all the time, all over the world.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Mercenary View Post
                      I pretty self explanatory title..

                      Would the UN be more effective in enforcing its mandates if it had its own army,navy and airforce that owe allegiance to no other country ?
                      A lot of problems with this. Where would the troops come from, what country, or countries? What countries would be excluded? Are you going to hire mercenaries? Where is their loyalty? Would they be reliable as peacekeepers, could they be bribed away? Where would you get the equipment?

                      The UN is structured the way it is structured for a reason, it represents the international system as it is, not as it should be. The UN needs the cooperation of nation-states because nation-states are the most important unit in the system. A rouge UN would make insecure states feel more insecure, it would make great powers uneasy. Actually I think it would make great power wars more likely.

                      So no, the UN would not be more effective, this is a bad idea.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        In wonderland it would be a good idea.

                        But its akin to apply the EU scheme on the whole world.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          ****A good idea no doubt but like was mentioned above who payrolls it and who controls it?

                          In my opinion it should be payrolled by the UN member countries based on the size of their economy. Ideally this force should take direct orders from the the UN secretary general


                          **You've got to know that it would be "open season" on those people all the time, all over the world.

                          How'd it be any different from the current situation... won't people take shots at the UN peacekeepers if they can even now ?


                          A lot of problems with this. Where would the troops come from, what country, or countries? What countries would be excluded? Are you going to hire mercenaries? Where is their loyalty? Would they be reliable as peacekeepers, could they be bribed away? Where would you get the equipment?

                          The UN is structured the way it is structured for a reason, it represents the international system as it is, not as it should be. The UN needs the cooperation of nation-states because nation-states are the most important unit in the system. A rouge UN would make insecure states feel more insecure, it would make great powers uneasy. Actually I think it would make great power wars more likely.

                          *****
                          yup..they'd be mercenaries by definition.. but aren't the gorkhas mercenaries too in the various armies in the world... are they loyal ? (I'm yet to hear anything that would suggest otherwise) - can they bribed ? (can't anyone be bribed..even regular troops ?)... would they be reliable peacekeepers ? ( well... there should be boot camp...and training that regular trooops go through..would it be too hard for the UN to set one up.).. I think I've already answered on the equipment.. second hand or first-hand depending on how much money UN can get from its members..... maybe even helos and vessels and army equipment that countries like the US retires can be good enough for use for any other decent army

                          Such a UN in my point of view will bring a more balanced view on the UN..currently the vast majority of the countries probably blv that UN is nothing but a puppet of the veto holders in the security council(true to a big extent)..nothing gets done because some country objects... In my opinion the UN should do away with the veto and the new peacekeeping force must be available ot be deployed anywhere based on a consensus(a fair weigh-in of the opinions of all the members rather than everyone expressing their view and one of the big powers slamming a veto to make it look like a farce)

                          But i'd like views on if other countries would actually find the peacekeepers a military threat ?

                          On a positive note : the new force would be politically neutral and be perceived as such as they don't belong to any 'country'.... more chances of brokering peace during their presence...can even help on the WoT front by ensuring for example Iraqi troops can cope with the insurgents after the last US/NATO soldier leaves ..

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mercenary View Post
                            In my opinion it should be payrolled by the UN member countries based on the size of their economy. Ideally this force should take direct orders from the the UN secretary general
                            Secretaries General are not selected for their military ability (or their intelligence, as far as I can tell). Putting such a person in charge of a military unit, then using them to try to occupy foreign soil, is not what I think of as a recipe for success.

                            Originally posted by Mercenary View Post
                            **You've got to know that it would be "open season" on those people all the time, all over the world.

                            How'd it be any different from the current situation... won't people take shots at the UN peacekeepers if they can even now ?
                            For the most part, no. Its usually pretty easy work.

                            But even when they are shot at now, it is because they are an opposition force, or foreign occupiers, which is no different than the situation any other kind of unit may find themselves in.

                            I meant that if the UN actually had its own troops, they would be targets simply because they are UN troops, not because of any local issues. They would be targeted regardless of the local situation.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Mercenary View Post
                              I pretty self explanatory title..

                              Would the UN be more effective in enforcing its mandates if it had its own army,navy and airforce that owe allegiance to no other country ?
                              1. What will be the mission objective of such a force?

                              2. How will it be any different than the current UN force?

                              3. Whose interest does this force serve?
                              "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X