h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The world is in a mess with human suffering all over the place at the hands of the powerful and major nations are willing to dive in and protect the innocent but only where there is a strategic or economic interest.

So is it time that the UN had a properly funded, multinational and independent military briefed to intervene and support the people of nations that few people outside the areas of conflict cares about?

It could also have a co-ordinated role in disaster relief worldwide, rather than have governments jostling for position in doing just enough to be seen to be doing something / more than their political rivals.

Syria, Nigeria, Palestine, South Sudan, etc.

PP.

Would the wealthy nations pay their United Nations dues if the U.N. supported action in a state that the wealthy nations disapproved of?

If they had all those guns then the money might be more forthcoming.

Given that the UN is about as uncorrupt as FIFA I would be very very wary about giving it guns.

The idea of the UN having a lot of guns makes me afraid, very afraid . On the other hand, given that they can only get money from dues-paying nations, I doubt that the guns they could afford would be up to date or state of the art.

I think we have a plot for "Expendables 7".

I think you are probably right.

"So is it time that the UN had a properly funded, multinational and independent military briefed to intervene and support the people of nations that few people outside the areas of conflict cares about?"

That's a good question and I don't have an answer for it. BUT, I think our most immediate concerns could be addressed by revising the Security Council's veto rules. Specifically by increasing the size of the "veto"-voting nations to at least eight, and requiring at least two veto votes (preferably three) to actually veto anything.

But, alas, I have no say in these matters.

Can't see the US continuing to fund the UN (22%) if they can be over-ruled and forced into something they don't want.

Assuming Germany and/or Japan and/or India are the ones added to the list, America could likely form a voting bloc. Hence, I suspect, why Russia and China are so heavily opposed to the idea.

(But it would be shrewd and pragmatic and undiplomatic of me to point this out. So I'm just going to wiggle my eyebrows suggestively.)


Ironically, in order to reform the Security Council, you effectively need unanimous approval from the Security Council. And that's not likely to happen, so the argument is pretty academic.

The UN is controlled by a committee a committee controllling an army!

Remember the old saying a camel is a horse designed by a committee. All the ingredients for a massive cock up!

Limited power limited scope for error.

And limited effectiveness. The eternal balancing act.

All of these are good points.

Perhaps FIFA should be in charge of arranging football tournaments in war zones and the UN could field a team.

The IOC could be the ultimate arbiter

Ah, the posthumous gold medals. With luck the involvement of the IOC would leave huge areas of unused war-zone facilities behind in those countries that it visited.

full of air force bases with world war 2076 emblazoned on the side next to some lovely corporate sponsorship

[not sure whether to or ]

Don't you mean 666?

I think the world need fewer guns, and armys, not more... If anything over the past few decades, any form of intivention just seems to make matters worse, further down the l line, if not, necessarily, directly at the point/time of conflict. I can't imagine the UN would be any better judge of when, where, and why to intervene in other nations strife and problems, than anyone else... too many bad judgement calls, which can only I guess be even badder when its a comette taking the bad descisions...