Should there be a single international armed force?

[armyowalgreens]

Poll question: Should there be a single international armed force?

I guess that the UN should technically be that force or at least something like it.

Such a force would deal with threats that are not necessarily directed at any particular nation or group of people.

I'd like to think of it as primarily an aid force that is more militarily capable and more willing than previously seen international forces.






(Please explain your stance)

[Greyhound]

1. Under the command of whom? n/t

[armyowalgreens]

2. It would have to be made up of officials from each country.

How it would be set up, I don't know. I haven't thought that far into it yet.

[vadawg]

9. hell no, the boondogle that would ensue would be a nightmare

just look at how bad the UN forces are or the African union, also soldiers want to be led by their own people be that tribal, family, ethnic or national. You would have a hard time having troops from professional western armies taking orders from officers from third world third rate militarys. Very quickly you would have all the experienced soldiers begging out as soon as crap happens and the leadership shows itself up as rank amateurs.

[armyowalgreens]

12. You make a very good point.

It may not be possible to assemble such a force.

[vadawg]

18. No chance whatsoever, the only way you could come close would be to have NATO expand its role

and even then you would have the same problems between the contingents as i described earlier..

[guardian]

34. How about these sterling examples of world leadership?

http://www.parade.com/dictators/2009/



1
Kim Jong-il, North Korea
Runs the world’s most repressive regime.
2
Omar Al-Bashir, Sudan
Darfur continues to be a hotbed of violence.
3
Than Shwe, Myanmar
Ordered troops to fire at crowds of protesters.
4
King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia
Most oppressed women in the world.
5
Hu Jintao, China
Controls all media and represses religion.
6
Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe
Unemployment high, food supplies low.
7
Sayyid Ali Khamenei, Iran
Officials carry out public hangings.
8
Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan
Suspended Pakistan’s constitution.
9
Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan
Government engages in torture of its citizens.
10
Isayas Afewerki, Eritrea
No national elections, no constitution.
Dishonorable Mentions

[Ani Yun Wiya]

3. A good basic idea.

If there is to be ANY armed force it SHOULD be international in nature and scope.

A few thoughts on this idea:

1.It should be a voluntary force.
2.It should have 5,000 from each nation. (unless the POP. is very small by comparison)
3.The cost is equally shared among nations.

4. It's sole purpose should only be to prevent, suppress or end war in any nation where it may arise.

To clarify: my definition of war has some amount of each of the following as necessary components:

1. A standing army.
2. Quantities of "WMD" and other "tools of the trade".
3. A "leader" or politician willing to commit others lives to the usual carnage.

I do have other thoughts that may apply to this idea, but they require more time than is available to me at present.

[TexasObserver]

4. No. Unworkable.

[TankLV]

5. There should be NO STANDING ARMIES. Period.

That would solve MOST of the problems in the world...

and there should only be "Peace" Departments, not "defense" or "war"...but "Peace"...

With our technology, we could muster up an army IF needed at a moment's notice - just like for WWI and WWII...

[armyowalgreens]

7. Are you referring to something similar to the Swiss system?

[TankLV]

37. Probably...

[Retired AF Dem]

8. A moments notice?

We were hit at pearl harbor on 7 Dec 41. We didnt really have an half ass offensive army till Nov 42. I like LtCol Herbert, USAR Ret, idea in his book "Soldier" which was written 20-30 years ago. He stated in todays age you dont need a standing army. A large airforce with about a 250,000 man ground force. The idea was we let the Govt's of any country know that if you want war with us, your govt would be the first to die. No more long protracted wars.

[TankLV]

38. Which is a "moments' notice" in real time...

Pretty good response time if you ask me...

Prior to WWII - we were a PEACEFUL country that didn't have a bloated military - we should return to that at a minimum...

With today's nuclear and other high tech weapons - we don't need a large army/manforce.

Your description is in the direction of what I have in mind.

[vadawg]

20. you dont honestly believe that the armies of WW1 and WW2 were formed out of nothing

it took a long time to get the forces up to speed, to redesign equipment, the battlefield is ever evolving especially in a war between nations that lasts over time, you need to look at the training times for just a basic infantry soldier and the time it took to build just one carrier task force..

[TankLV]

39. You neglect to consider today's nuclear arsenal and hi-tech weaponry...

large standing armies are not necessary.

They are necessary only if you intend to INITIATE conflicts...

[stray cat]

32. or law enforcement because people are naturally nice

[rug]

6. I'm waiting for the Federation to get up and running.

[Fla_Democrat]

33. United Earth Directorate

http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/United_Earth_Directorate


But watch out for the Zerg... :evilgrin:

[WVRICK13]

10. NEW WORLD ORDER

I don't think so. Set us up for a world dictator, OMG. I sure hope not.

[armyowalgreens]

11. LOL

:tinfoilhat:

[old mark]

13. NO!!!!!

The military is already too interfered with by the politicians in every country - when you need them, you should let them do their stuff and not have congressmen trying to dictate how to fight wars.
Train them as much as possible, give them the best possible equipment, let them do their job when it is necessary.

mark

[armyowalgreens]

14. What should we do about situations like the '94 Rwandan Genocide?

[vadawg]

21. question is, would you be willing to put your life on the line to stop the genocide

because thats what you would be doing, should we go back to the old days of were a politician states that he wants to destroy something or stop something then call for volunteers to carry it out, otherwise what you are asking is that soldiers pupt their lives on the line to fulfill a mission that they mayby dont agree with. Thats the nature of the game you sign, you go..

[armyowalgreens]

I would personally be willing. I cannot represent others though.

But I think such an international force would have to be voluntary.

I would most certainly volunteer.

[vadawg]

23. okay i hate to call you out on this, you do know that there is genocides happening right now

so in jest im saying its easy to say this online but if you really believed this you would be humping a weapon in dafur or some other hellhole,

[armyowalgreens]

25. Well I really have no clue how to get to these places let alone figure out a way to help people...

That is the problem. I cannot just join the ranks of the UN forces.

I'd much rather pick up a gun and protect innocent people against genocide than fight to protect oil fields.

[vadawg]

26. not wanting to get at you, but if it really mattered that much to a person

they would find a way, you dont need to be in the UN to fight there are plenty of tribal groups and others who at tthis time are fighting.

[armyowalgreens]

27. Volunteering with aid organizations has been the only viable option that I have known about...

And it's a lot harder to find people who simply need grunt workers. I don't yet have a degree (which is basically a requirement for the Peace Corp.)


But I already plan on applying to the peace corp. next year so that I can get the process going long before I graduate.


I really don't know about these "tribal groups" that you are talking about.

[vadawg]

29. basically the tribal groups are the familys, villages, tribes etc etc

who are fighting the people trying to kill them, but as usual it probuably wont be clear cut who the good guys and the bad guys are.

[vadawg]

16. yup the politicians should define the mission, what needs to be done

then get the hell out of the way and let the military do it, you got to delegate and trust the people you are sending to put their lives on the line to do the job you are asking, if not then you need to find others to do it or you dont start the task in the first place. Theres nothing worse than a politician interfering in a mission just for his or her own political gain..

[MrModerate]

15. Human culture is not mature enough for such a sytem to work . . .

The force would just become one of many, and cause an arms race. By the time we *are* mature enough, we won't need standing armies any more.

[Braulio]

17. No way

It would allow a worldwide dictatorship to emerge in time. The key to human freedom is to decentralize government and power, exactly the opposite of what you propose.

[armyowalgreens]

19. Why is this the opposite of decentralization?

If each country gets an equal say, how is this not naturally decentralized?

The point of decentralization is to put power back in the hands of the people. I think that this does just that.

The question really should be whether or not it is feasible to build such a force.

[vadawg]

22. wont work, why would i want to put my life at risk for a cause i dont agree with

sanctioned by politicians that i didnt vote for and who are from 190 odd different countries, i think humans are to tribal and family based in order for this to work...

[The2ndWheel]

28. "a single international armed force"

That's centralization.

[Jeramy]

24. An international armed forces..

You mean like this one?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacekeeping>

And a threat not directed at any particular nation or group of people, means what exactly?

I vote not just no, but hell no. A force like this would be so bogged down by bureaucracy and inside squabbles that nothing would ever get done. Kinda like the UN peacekeeping forces.

And LOL at whoever suggested that every country pays the same amount. Even in the UN it doesn't work like that. The US currently pays for 22% of the UNs funding. Almost as much as the next two top contributors combined.

[The2ndWheel]

30. More of a will there be question

Should makes no difference. Will there be the ability to put something like this together is a better question. If the ability is there, it'll be tried.

For now though, that job is left to the US military, and left to be paid for by the US taxpayer. We fell into that role thanks to being the last power left from the 20th century. Plus, while we live in a more global world, we still live with a few hundred regional governments acting in their own interests, privatizing the profits and socializing the costs. That's why no government or larger body can stop the US Government from doing whatever it wants, whenever it wants, wherever it wants.

[stray cat]

31. If so - you are extremely trusting of authority and utterly naive

[bigwillq]

35. No (nt)

[MH1]

36. Other - not "single" as in replacing all national forces

which is how I read the question.

I disagree with the comment above about no standing armies at all. Of course nations should have their own standing armies, for many reasons. But I do think there should be an armed international force that is employed within a narrow set of situations. It worked ok in Bosnia didn't it? And in a few other places. However there are serious issues with the way the current UN blue hat force is run. Those issues need to be fixed for the international force to have any credibility. And it absolutely should not be used in any situation where the circumstances doom it to failure from the start.