No UN

tom · Mar 25, 2004

The founding of the UN in 1945 does not occur, say because of strained relations between US and USSR, or butterflies, or whatever.
How goes the world?

Melvin Loh · Mar 26, 2004

The world goes to hell without the UN

A far more dangerous world for sure, maybe a major superpower does break out, monstrous nuclear exchanges by both sides, and the end of civilisation as we know it ?...

Raymann · Mar 26, 2004

Little difference, seriously what has UN done to REALLY affect history. From a military standpoint, nothing really that would not have been done anyway. As for negotiations and treaties and such, at least until the end of the Cold War everything important was between the USA and the USSR. Post Cold War, one side has been blocking almost everything another wanted to do especially in the SC. Iraq was hardly the first time a group of countries ignored the UN and it won't be the last.

Personally I believe that this world would be better without the UN. I'd raze that building and turn it into a parking lot for Downtown NYC (we'll put all our SUV's there). Anyway, I believe that most countries would be allied with other larger countries for protection and that major negotiations would be held simply among different nations multi-laterally. I believe that like the G8/9 is now, you would have organizations like that related to peace, etc.

The only downside I see I can possibly think ya'll see (I don't think it is one) is a situation kind of like the Cold War where most major wars are averted but smaller proxy wars are common. I don't see it as a problem because looking back since the end of the Cold War, the frequency of conflicts and wars have increased dramatically. Hell, America has been in more engagements during the last 14 years then in the previous 30.

As for the upside, America won't have to pay a quarter of the UN's budget, we won't have to deal with small, crackpot regimes who by the blessings of the UN are in change of human rights, and we def won't have to worry about France blocking what we want to do. Some of ya'll would argue that we need that restraint but I believe that the UN is actually stopping things from getting done, maybe now how its done but the fact is military action is the most 'persuasive' diplomatic tool we have and just countries willing to use that tool are held back by the UN which is just a paper tiger.

Melvin, I'll PM you later.

Adam Parsons · Mar 26, 2004

Isn't the UN in charge of a lot of 'human welfare' organizations, lending impoverished countries money, giving them food and medicine and so such? Without a strong international body, these countries will have to go to the major nations, where help is not always forthcoming.

Also, without the UN, there would be a greater tendency for rising non-western countries like China to be shut out of international affairs unless they MAKE themselves heard, resulting in more unpleasantness.

Also, the UN has tried to reduce the amount of countries trying to obtain nukes, and the sizes of arsenals. To be honest, I (and probably much of the planet) would prefer an international group to deal with this rather than one major power smaking others around constantly (not that a little smacking isn't needed sometimes).

DuQuense · Mar 26, 2004

Alot of those organazations are operating under Leaque charters, There are a few that claim they are therefor not bound by the UN.

david3565 · Mar 27, 2004

Alasdair Czyrnyj said:
Isn't the UN in charge of a lot of 'human welfare' organizations, lending impoverished countries money, giving them food and medicine and so such? Without a strong international body, these countries will have to go to the major nations, where help is not always forthcoming.

Also, without the UN, there would be a greater tendency for rising non-western countries like China to be shut out of international affairs unless they MAKE themselves heard, resulting in more unpleasantness.

Also, the UN has tried to reduce the amount of countries trying to obtain nukes, and the sizes of arsenals. To be honest, I (and probably much of the planet) would prefer an international group to deal with this rather than one major power smaking others around constantly (not that a little smacking isn't needed sometimes).

The vast majority of aid organizations are priavte non-profit groups. And the U.N. hasn't reduced nuclear arms in any meaningful way. Look at all the nations post-Cold War that have or are trying to manufacture nukes.

On a side note, I don't mind an international body, if it's unbiased. The problem is that that U.N. is a rampantly corrupt organization trying to push dangerous policies down everyone's throat.

north_star · Mar 27, 2004

Raymann said:
...America won't have to pay a quarter of the UN's budget, we won't have to deal with small, crackpot regimes who by the blessings of the UN are in change of human rights, and we def won't have to worry about France blocking what we want to do. Some of ya'll would argue that we need that restraint but I believe that the UN is actually stopping things from getting done, maybe now how its done but the fact is military action is the most 'persuasive' diplomatic tool we have and just countries willing to use that tool are held back by the UN which is just a paper tiger.

/QUOTE]

ooh. good statement.

Redbeard · Mar 27, 2004

It will definately be a better world as the fatal illusion of a world government taking care of us all is much less prominent.

Millions of people who in OTL suffered and died while the UN talked, talked and "let sanctions work" will now live happily and get a chance to make the decision on which side to fight: for democracy and market economy or anything opposing that combination.

Loads of corrupt and well-fed officials and their cousins will have to find decent work or be less well-fed.

Apart from a few nutty professors nobody are in doubt that in the real international world only one thing counts in the end - your own strength and will to use it!

Aid etc. is taken care of by private organisations or governments directly responsible to their donators or voters.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

NB And no I don't believe "No UN" will mean us getting closer to a nuclear war or anything like it, on the contrary. Superpowers would still be watching each other while anxiously respecting the "balance of terror", but that balance never had anything to do with UN anyway.

david3565 · Mar 27, 2004

Redbeard said:
It will definately be a better world as the fatal illusion of a world government taking care of us all is much less prominent.

Millions of people who in OTL suffered and died while the UN talked, talked and "let sanctions work" will now live happily and get a chance to make the decision on which side to fight: for democracy and market economy or anything opposing that combination.

Loads of corrupt and well-fed officials and their cousins will have to find decent work or be less well-fed.

Apart from a few nutty professors nobody are in doubt that in the real international world only one thing counts in the end - your own strength and will to use it!

Aid etc. is taken care of by private organisations or governments directly responsible to their donators or voters.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

NB And no I don't believe "No UN" will mean us getting closer to a nuclear war or anything like it, on the contrary. Superpowers would still be watching each other while anxiously respecting the "balance of terror", but that balance never had anything to do with UN anyway.

I agree with most of what you say, but I wouldn't mind a NATO-type defensive cooperative with some clear measures in it's charter to end despotic regimes and human rights abuses. And yes, I wouldn't mind it being American-lead. The major European powers are too wrapped up in colonialist aspirations and quasi-socialist fascism to be effective leaders.

Redbeard · Mar 27, 2004

david3565 said:
I agree with most of what you say, but I wouldn't mind a NATO-type defensive cooperative with some clear measures in it's charter to end despotic regimes and human rights abuses. And yes, I wouldn't mind it being American-lead. The major European powers are too wrapped up in colonialist aspirations and quasi-socialist fascism to be effective leaders.

I'm in on that, uniting forces for a common goal and against common enemies has always a superior way to survive.

And although I'm not an American, never have been and never will be I quite prefer the US leadership too. I actually think that US superpowering is the most altrusitic the world has ever seen (yes I mean that!), and anyway the sharpest weapon in the US inventory never has been military hardware, but things like chewing gum, nylons, Elvis, CocaCola, freedom and Holywood...

No dictator has ever found an effective defence and the current anti-american activities can mainly be seen as the last desperate cramps of a dying enemy.

Anyway it's a swell way to conquer an Empire. The weapons are so effective that no resistance is really possible - or wanted. Instead people stand up and cry: "hey over here, come and conquer me too! and from the other corner: "no conquer me again!".

So let the message go to Bin Laden and all the other 3M's (mad medieval men): "Watch out, we have your children and grand children!"

Regards

Steffen Red(whiteandblue)beard