Do we need a world army/police force? Watch

Lady Comstock
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
This army/police force would be tasked with upholding laws laid down by the UN.

It would be the most powerful, advanced army in the world. This means that there would no longer be superpowers, in military terms, and such an army would be able to crush the likes of ISIS in an instant. It also wouldn't be subject to the same constraints as national armies (i.e. subject to populism) and would just be tasked with upholding international law.

Countries would refrain from breaking international law purely on the basis of the existence of this army. If they did, then the army would be powerful enough to enter the country and arrest its leaders responsible.

Thoughts?
0
reply
ChickenMadness
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
Like a third Reich sort of thing
2
reply
Lady Comstock
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#3
(Original post by ChickenMadness)
Like a third Reich sort of thing
Except that international law is progressive and not based on Jew-hatred.
0
reply
ChickenMadness
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
(Original post by Lady Comstock)
realy dnt get this lol.

see so many post on tsr where ppl are trying to spk posh. wots the point lol? it dnt make u look cleverer if u spk like the queen lol. & it dnt make u a better person then me ok? so many ppl think spking posh makes them win the argment. it dnt lol.
(Original post by Lady Comstock)
Except that international law is progressive and not based on Jew-hatred.
Why you speakin so posh tho?
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
Who's paying for it?
Who's in charge of it?
Who's deciding what those laws are in the first place?
Who's saying there'll be no superpower?

Never going to happen*







*correction, will only happen when there's a common enemy for all of mankind, but will soon disband amongst squabbles shortly afterwards.
0
reply
Lady Comstock
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by ChickenMadness)
Why you speakin so posh tho?
You're confusing me with another user. There's clearly a dot ('.') in the name of the other user.
0
reply
Lady Comstock
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by Drewski)
Who's paying for it?
Every country would be required to contribute.

Who's in charge of it?
A commission from member states.

Who's deciding what those laws are in the first place?
They are already in place. See Geneva Convention et al.

Who's saying there'll be no superpower?
No superpower that will match such an army.

Never going to happen*
Shame.

*correction, will only happen when there's a common enemy for all of mankind, but will soon disband amongst squabbles shortly afterwards.
Aliens?
0
reply
ChickenMadness
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by Lady Comstock)
You're confusing me with another user. There's clearly a dot ('.') in the name of the other user.
Is there? I can't see a dot lol
0
reply
al_94
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
They already have NATO and that's too much for me
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
no. absolutely not. for so many reasons it isn't even funny. a world government will *never* function democratically, or accountably, first of all. the evidence? the current global institutions *already* are unaccountable as hell. and still, international organisations have never provably aided peace or prevented war. you'll never stop nations acting with their own rationally-calculated self interests in mind. and the only way you will ever achieve co-operation will be through ensuring that states' interests are satisfied in the process. also, a global government for that reason will be very unstable and may even make matters of peace and war worse - and hence, will be purely a temporary vanity project of the states involved

yes - I'm saying "states involved", as opposed to "every state" - because, hell, imagine a world government mixed with liberal democracies on the one hand, and hardcore dictatorship sharia countries on the other - it will just pollute the waters of democracy for the west and damage our of interests. our interests do not deserve to be compromised just because countries around the world have it worse than us - we got to where we are (the UK) by ourselves and mostly by peaceful means and gradual reformation - if we can do it, then the other nations without ways to manage wars and human rights issues can as well. they just need time. also, perhaps the most important reason against this utopian liberal vision of a world government - why do we in the west care about the affairs of other nations/continents if they don't affect us? the rationale of state should be purely inwards-looking, and states which are extroverted in tangled alliances will never function safely or successfully in the long term, both for themselves and their people, and also for the interests of the nations they act with.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by Lady Comstock)
Every country would be required to contribute.



A commission from member states.



They are already in place. See Geneva Convention et al.



No superpower that will match such an army.



Shame.



Aliens?
But not every country can contribute evenly, so all countries will want different levels of influence.

Immediately then, the system is flawed.
0
reply
Snagprophet
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
I'd imagine any more united global military will be an extension of the existing UN Peacekeepers.
0
reply
pjm600
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
So like UN Peacekeepers, but where they're allowed to shoot first?
0
reply
Lady Comstock
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by pjm600)
So like UN Peacekeepers, but where they're allowed to shoot first?
Shoot first, ask questions later.
0
reply
pjm600
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by Lady Comstock)
Shoot first, ask questions later.
So like American Peacekeepers?

#edgy
0
reply
futbol
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
We already do. They're called the United States of America.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by Lady Comstock)
This army/police force would be tasked with upholding laws laid down by the UN.

It would be the most powerful, advanced army in the world. This means that there would no longer be superpowers, in military terms, and such an army would be able to crush the likes of ISIS in an instant. It also wouldn't be subject to the same constraints as national armies (i.e. subject to populism) and would just be tasked with upholding international law.

Countries would refrain from breaking international law purely on the basis of the existence of this army. If they did, then the army would be powerful enough to enter the country and arrest its leaders responsible.

Thoughts?
Yes, i certainly agree that the world needs policing. Hell, i believe certain parts need occupying for their own good.

I could not support a UN effort though. 37% of UN members are not free and fair democracies and many would contribute little. The better solution is to have a more active NATO where members pull their weight. Each country as an obligation for membership should provide a carrier (2 actually, one stocked with planes and the other helicopters) , a destroyer and a frigate along with 10,000 troops and these would be used by NATO rather than individual countries.

The more likely scenario is that some kind of joint Euro-zone military forms and we get increased working together of the US, Europe and China once they decide they wish to engage in this type of thing.

At any rate, this won't happen for decades.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you tempted to change your firm university choice on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (160)
17.66%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (78)
8.61%
No I am happy with my course choice (540)
59.6%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (128)
14.13%

Watched Threads

View All