Doobara_Dimagh

Allright, the UN is a bit like a world parliament with almost no power. It has a general assembly of all the member states and a security council (upper house) of powerful nuclear states, of which five are permanent and ten are lected for two-year rotating terms. Problem is, the UN may have a peacekeeping force but the world's nukes and most mother military equipment are owned and operated by individual nation-states. now, if all military equipment was centralized under the UN, including nukes, then the various nation-states of our planet would not have the capability to wage war amongst each other, and the world's military equipment would be used for more important purposes (for example nukes could be used to destroy near-earth asteroids). and no, an international police force consisting of a sole superpower doesn't cut it either. (besides, it messed up its last "cleanup operation" in the middle east...cause the world police cheif is thirsty for OIL for his suv...)

__________________
There is no spoon, Neo.

Arrianna

The UN has one more similarity to a gov that you failed to mention, rampant corruption. If I was going to entrust all the weapons of the world to one gov it would not be them.

__________________

l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l Thanks to Kaos for the awesome sig!

Legend

Take the US for example we already have a bunch of people in poverty and/or uninformed about politics screwing the middle class over, so blow that up tens times and you get disaster

__________________
LEGEND IS: UP TO SOMETHING, GOOD FOR NOTHING.

Delerium

Simply put it would never work and if one did come to power it wouldnt last long, there would eventually be a revolution to overthrow it.

Dark.

So...If it has little power, basically it's just for show? How pointless! We don't need that.

__________________

Sib

(I guess I'll stand up for the UN then)

Putting aside everything the UN currently is, and taking into consideration the ideals that created it... the United Nations could have been something really special.

If anyone can remember that topic I made ages ago about US being the new Romean Empire of the world, which I think kind of drifted onto the topic of a one world order... I made it clear that the only real way that would happen was if mankind could unite aginst a common enemy (like alien invaders or something).

It was set up after World War 2 in an attempt to ensure a lasting peace in the world, and to promote military action if, when and where it was truely needed. It has failed in doing this. We live in an age now where countries can simply bypass the UN and go to war when they feel it suits their needs (Iraq is the most recent example).
But I really do believe in the ideals of the UN, and that it's a good thing that countries can come together under a flag of truce and discuss matters of global imporatnce. Remember that the war in Iraq would not have happened, and countless live would have been saved if the will of the UN had been heeded (so the UN isn't completely incompotent in making the right desisions, as the case for war in Iraq was proven to be flase in the end).

Curruption is a problem, but this is of no fault of the UN. Human failings usually bring down the really good ideas people have. The good news is that the UN already due to start reforming itself, as nobody knows more about the failings of the UN than the UN itself.

I don't yet know exactly what reforms he's talking about, as I haven't read the reports posted on the UNs website. I'll read them and post back.

But one thing I do want to say is that I think the UN should at least be given the power it needs to enforce international law. The UN court at the moment is a joke... which actually kind of saddens me (though again, the US and Bush was the spanner in the works here).

__________________

KnightofNi

I believe the UN has lost what power it has, though I believe it still gives the member nations a forum to speak their opinions on global policiy, the UN is basically worthless. To have all of our weapons and such under one government such as the UN is folly as that would lead to even more corruption than there already is, now not only do members have the ability to manipulate the UN but now it automatically arm themselves with weapons, also how would you decide who gets what weapons when a conflict does break out, especially if its with another member of the UN, does the US. get the nukes and France get the stones and sling shots simply because we are bigger and better. It sounds nice, but like alot of ideas in today's society and like alot of people, nobody ever really thinks things through.

__________________

Clan orders: Wear the signature of defeat with pride.

Doobara_Dimagh

The weapons would be off limits to individual countries.

Like I said, the weapons would be for things like defending ourselves from alien invaders (fat chance but even under such circumstances we'd have relative sticks and stones), and more importantly defending ourselves from near-earh asteroids.

__________________
There is no spoon, Neo.

Sib

Weapons of today are so powerful I think it's dangerous to leave them in the hands of anyone really, let it be a world leader or not.

The only things preventing us from blowing ourselves into the past are politics and fear. For this reason I think that a single world government is partly needed, and should perhaps be given partial control over the more destructive weapons in mankinds arsenal. Say each nuclear equiped country gave half of each launch code to the UN, and kept the other half for itself... could at least be a good preventative measure in making sure our more destructive abilities are kept on a leash, and that the nuclear option remains the last option.

__________________

Arrianna

You're forgetting that absolute power corrupts absolutely. You put that much power in one group of hands and then what is to prevent them from keeping their power no matter what. When no one else has weapons how do you dissagree if they don't want you to?

__________________

l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l Thanks to Kaos for the awesome sig!

Sib

By that logic, how is the president of the USA or Russia having full control over massive nuclear arsenals the safer option? Need I remind you that it's these two offices that almost brought the world to an effective end during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

All i'm saying is that the use of nuclear weapons should have heavier restrictions in principle. If that means handing partial power (not full power, they could not use the weapons by their will alone) to an organisation like the UN, it would at least slow down the launch process and obtain a kind of validation for their eventual use from world governments.

Such a relationship between existing government and a central hub would remove the need for other countries to develop their own weapons. Not to mention, such a hub could act as a vitial go between should there ever be another stand off between two nuclear powers. Curruption works in the best interest of the currupt, and nobody wants to die. Besides, if such a central hub were to exist, and was transparent enough for close observation... I really don't see why it would be a bad thing.

__________________