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.
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.
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
'Cause you give me something / That makes me scared, alright / This could be nothing / But I'm willing to give it a try / Please give me something
'Cause someday I might call you from my heart
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.
So...If it has little power, basically it's just for show? How pointless! We don't need that.
(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.Originally Posted by Kofi Annan
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).
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.
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.