12-09-2002 12:18									#1
	Should the UN have its own military? Suffering from ads?

An interesting question came up on another thread, and I think it deserves it own thread.

The commander of UN peacekeepers in Rwanda, Major General Romeo Dallaire, in 1994 says the genocide could have been prevented if he had 5,000 troops.

An international panel of senior military leaders looked at the situation in 1997 and concluded:
"The panel members generally agreed that General Dallaire was right--a force of 5,000 peacekeepers could have interrupted the violence."
"This force, however, would have required significantly different and enhanced capabilities than Dallaire's original peace-keeping contingent--one with more firepower and mobility. "
http://www.georgetown.edu/sfs/progr...iles/rwanda.htm

The UN doesn't have this type of military force.

So should the UN have a standing military force that can respond quickly to emergency, a military organization that is capable of using force to stop genocides and wars?

EDIT: by the way, the other thread discussion got out of hand and Ming stepped in. I'll try to keep this thread civilized and I hope others will.

	12-09-2002 12:31									#2
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Possibly. You would have to solve the problems of who would command it, who would choose who commanded it, when it would be used, and where it would be based.

	12-09-2002 12:50									#3
	Remove this text

No.

The problem is not that the UN member nations don't have the necessary forces available - look at Somalia and UNISOM I, UNITAF and UNISOM II for instance.

The problem is that if you tell UN bureaucrats you want MC-130 Combat Talon and AC-130 Spectre gunships, a battery of four-deuce mortar carriers, a squadron of AH-64 Apache gunships, and a fully mechanized brigade with attached armor to support your light infantry peacekeepers, the UN bureacrats will **** their pants and turn you down flat.

The forces are available from the member nations, but the chicken chokers who authorize the number and composition of forces won't allow the kind of heavy support that is necessary, and they won't allow Rules of Engagement that give their field commanders discretion to react to events in their best judgment consistent with the stated goals of the operation.

	12-09-2002 13:01									#4
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

plus, who would fight for the UN? people who fight in the military fight for their country. The UN is a little abstract for that

	12-09-2002 13:19									#5
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I say no. The size of the UN force would have to vary with the size of the conflict, and conflicts have a way of escalating. To be truly effective, the UN force would have to be as capable as the US military. This is clearly not possible on a “standing” basis.

I think the UN has a very bad practice of not having contingency plans in its peacekeeping operations. When shooting starts and force is needed, the Peacekeeper has to go back to the SC and get both troops and authorization, etc. He may get neither because the guys with the firepower, the permanent members, may not want to get involved in a shooting war for one reason or another.

I was just reading a little about the Korean War. It appears that General MacArthur was acting without orders on a continuous basis early on because of the emergency. He resupplied the Koreans, used airpower and bombed NK airfields North of the 38th parallel – all prior to receiving authorization from Washington. Because he acted, the situation was saved, but barely.

We need guys like MacArthur to command peacekeeping missions. Such a commander would have only a small portion of his force in the peacekeeping operation. However, he would have forces available and the authority to use them should the need arise.

	12-09-2002 13:21									#6
	Should the UN have its own military? Tired of ads?

Yes! And it should crush Israel with it!

	12-09-2002 13:54									#7
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: I was just reading a little about the Korean War. It appears that General MacArthur was acting without orders on a continuous basis early on because of the emergency. He resupplied the Koreans, used airpower and bombed NK airfields North of the 38th parallel – all prior to receiving authorization from Washington. Because he acted, the situation was saved, but barely. We need guys like MacArthur to command peacekeeping missions. Such a commander would have only a small portion of his force in the peacekeeping operation. However, he would have forces available and the authority to use them should the need arise.

Actually MacArthur is the perfect example of who NOT to have on a peace-keeping mission. Because of him, and him almost alone, the war dragged on for another two years, gaining neither side anything and resulting in millions more casualties and the desolation of the Korean peninsular, as well as destroying any possibility of freindly relations between the US and the PRC.

	12-09-2002 15:31									#8
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Kaak plus, who would fight for the UN?

I would...

	12-09-2002 15:51									#9
	Get a bigger avatar today!

leave it to the norwegian

	12-09-2002 16:04									#10
	Re: Should the UN have its own military? Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Heresson Yes! And it should crush Israel with it!

I never thought you're that eager to finish the job your grandparents started.

	12-09-2002 16:15									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kaak plus, who would fight for the UN? people who fight in the military fight for their country. The UN is a little abstract for that

Nonsense. Members of the US military may fight for their country, but that's not what many of them signed up to do; they signed up because the military offered them a variety of advantages, like a paycheck, job training, and money for higher education. (Hell, during the Gulf War American soldiers were actually heard to complain that, "this is not what I joined the army for"!) There's no reason (except the obvious financial one) the UN couldn't set up a volunteer military that worked the same way an the US's. As for running it, I think making its top brass responsible to the security council, rather than the UN as a whole, would go a long way toward clearing bureaucratic clutter.

	12-09-2002 16:30									#12
	Got spare money?

If it could accomplish the sort of thing that was possible in Rwanda, I would be as likely or more to join it than my own country's military.

	12-09-2002 16:47									#13
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I'm not gonna risk my life just to prevent some massacre in Bum**** Africa, and I won't ask anyone else to, either.

	12-09-2002 16:50									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

That's because you're an *******.

I guess you wouldn't risk your life to save a drowning man either, now would you.

	12-09-2002 16:51									#15
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd I'm not gonna risk my life just to prevent some massacre in Bum**** Africa, and I won't ask anyone else to, either.

why don't you buy a hut in alaska miles from anybody and then nobody can inpinge on your rights

	12-09-2002 16:56									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: I guess you wouldn't risk your life to save a drowning man either, now would you.

Let's be honest here. I'd certainly try to help, but if it comes down to him drowning and me surviving, or me drowning and him surviving, well, I'm certainly not gonna die. And I don't think I'm anywhere close to alone in this, I'm just more honest about it than most.

quote: why don't you buy a hut in alaska miles from anybody and then nobody can inpinge on your rights

Unless of course I happen to be sitting on an oil deposit and the government comes in and claims eminent domain

	12-09-2002 17:00									#17
	Put an end to popups!

I thought you were a Christian, sweetie.

	12-09-2002 17:06									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

How about an army of mercenaries, similar to the French FL?

	12-09-2002 17:09									#19
	Tired of ads?

How about an army of mercenaries that isn't paid, but is instead forced to live off plunder, similar to the IDF?

	12-09-2002 17:13									#20
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

yeah, that would be even better. Btw, have I already posted that pic of me holding that ancient plate one of my friends has stolen in Jenin? some cool stuff over there .

	12-09-2002 17:17									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

if the UN had a military, they'd end up being US/British troops anyway, wouldn't they?

	12-09-2002 17:21									#22
	Full PM-box? Change here!

the most important question i suppose is who would pay for it..

	12-09-2002 17:24									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Getting troops would be ok, paying for their equipment would me much more difficult.

I can't see the UN buying a Navy which is what it would need to transport the troops safely or an airforce to protectthem once they are there, or heavy armour to enable them to achieve something.

	12-09-2002 17:44									#24
	Re: Re: Should the UN have its own military? Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Eli I never thought you're that eager to finish the job your grandparents started.

Which my grandparents?
The ones whose entire village was murdered by Germans (all men), or those that were Armenian (or Jewish pretending Armenian to hide from Germans)?
You're being idiotic, Eli, as usually.

	12-09-2002 17:56									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by GeneralTacticus Actually MacArthur is the perfect example of who NOT to have on a peace-keeping mission. Because of him, and him almost alone, the war dragged on for another two years, gaining neither side anything and resulting in millions more casualties and the desolation of the Korean peninsular, as well as destroying any possibility of freindly relations between the US and the PRC.

GT, Care to elaborate?

	12-09-2002 18:00									#26
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Should the UN have its own military?

Yes. It needs a rapid reaction force that could intervene before wrangling governments can get their forces mobilized, and intervene in "unpopular" areas where nations like the US won't intervene anyhow because they see no national interest at stake (like Rwanda).

Many people would volunteer to serve, it is a just cause.

However, I suggest basing it in the Sinai. It's a desolate area with good transport links (Suez canal) and conveniently close to major trouble spots in Africa and the Middle East.

	12-09-2002 18:03									#27
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by UberKruX if the UN had a military, they'd end up being US/British troops anyway, wouldn't they?

That's why I have a half a mind to get the rest of members kicked out.

The US and British forces do all the work while the rest b!tch about it.... oh wait, sounds like home.

	12-09-2002 19:44									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by C0ckney the most important question i suppose is who would pay for it..

I think I have a simple answer for that, although whether it works in practice might be complicated.

How about a tax on weapons sold by developed nations (including Russia) to other nations. The tax revenue could then be used to finance the UN force. I figure the military force would end up about a penny for every dollar collected. The bureaucrats would take the rest. Making sure the military force got all the money would be the difficult part.

	12-09-2002 19:50									#29
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by GeneralTacticus Possibly. You would have to solve the problems of who would command it, who would choose who commanded it, when it would be used, and where it would be based.

Presumably commanders could be picked the same way they are now.

The difficult question is when to use the force.

Let's say Quebec seperates from Canada and a civil war breaks out. If a UN army goes in and creates peace, what happens next?

Still, while there may be difficulties and challenges in creaing a UN army, if we don't do it, then how do we prevent another Rwanda. Do we just sit back and say sh!t happens while thousands of people get killed.

	12-09-2002 19:51									#30
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai I think I have a simple answer for that, although whether it works in practice might be complicated. How about a tax on weapons sold by developed nations (including Russia) to other nations. The tax revenue could then be used to finance the UN force. I figure the military force would end up about a penny for every dollar collected. The bureaucrats would take the rest. Making sure the military force got all the money would be the difficult part.

The UN cannot levy taxes. The charter would have to be amended and I don't think the US or Russia would like that idea. We sell plenty of weapons as well. Mind you, they aren't top of the line stuff, but we do sell a good deal of weapons to friendly countries.