UN with a bite!

[Ronn_Bman]

I'll go you one further. The UN force should be the only force. Individual nations will not need their own forces. The drawback is that we're talking about a huge standing army.

[Silver Cheetah]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:
I'll go you one further. The UN force should be the only force. Individual nations will not need their own forces. The drawback is that we're talking about a huge standing army.

---

I agree totally. Getting nations to agree to that would entail a very long diplomatic process, but worth it.

[Ladyzekke]

Quite an interesting thought provoking topic Ron. Would be a neat trick if that kind of thing could be actually created, but human nature has a way of imperfecting things. For instance, what do you imagine would be the next step if said UN "council" disagreed, a hung jury so to speak? Then what?

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ladyzekke:
Quite an interesting thought provoking topic Ron. Would be a neat trick if that kind of thing could be actually created, but human nature has a way of imperfecting things. For instance, what do you imagine would be the next step if said UN "council" disagreed, a hung jury so to speak? Then what?

---

Anarchy. Factions loyal to certain elements would revolt and begin to war amongst themselves.

[Ladyzekke]

DOH!

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ladyzekke:
DOH!

---

That was my realistic responce, but keep in mind, we're talking alternate reality here. The SC would have to be an odd number, so no ties. Also the SC would be positions voted on (in my opinion) by the 'huge' general assembly not preset members.

[Ladyzekke]

Well I guess I'm having a bit of trouble picturing a scenario in my head (fiction of course LOL)

So Ron, make up this "UN", what countries are involved?, how many people per each said country are representatives. In other words, frame it like this (sorry I'm stupid and simple, please indulge?)

UN:
Countries:

U.S. - How many?
England - "" ""
China - "" ""
etc. etc.

Let's form this "group" and picture them realistically first.

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ladyzekke:
Well I guess I'm having a bit of trouble picturing a scenario in my head (fiction of course LOL)

So Ron, make up this "UN", what countries are involved?, how many people per each said country are representatives. In other words, frame it like this (sorry I'm stupid and simple, please indulge?)

UN:
Countries:

U.S. - How many?
England - "" ""
China - "" ""
etc. etc.

Let's form this "group" and picture them realistically first.

---

In the utopian picture, all nations of the world would participate. Troops would be taken based on a percentage of population.

[Ladyzekke]

Ack, all nations of the world eh? Thats one BIG "UN"! Hard to see such a huge amount of different angles able to find an amicable "centerpoint."

Of course, on less controversial issues, it could work perhaps. Like if a certain region experiences drought and famine, the UN would provide for them right? Same for other disasters (tornados, earthquakes and such). But what about other issues like nature-earth related things? Like the Rainforest getting slowly obliterated, and pollution, and such.? I work in a patent law firm, and can confirm that there ARE technologies out there that use different types of energy that are less damaging to our planet, but are having trouble getting patented because of big companies that use traditional energies.

In other words, so MANY issues would have to be dealt with by this imagined "UN". A Great idea, well, in a perfect world I guess, which we do not live upon.

Of course, I believe in GOD, and so consider him the ultimate "UN" as I feel he created us, and knows best how to "handle" us, if that makes sense.

Love this topic Ron, very intriguing

[Ronn_Bman]

The idea does get a bit "large" when you start really considering things on the global level. It the world could come together in this fashion, their would really be no need for different national governments.