Could the UN disband after the end of the Cold War?

Title says it all. Could the UN decide that America overbearing its duties and becoming the world's policeman be a bad idea with maybe some serious US style gridlock in the UN. After frustration, several nations decide to withdraw in protest that eventually leads to the dissolution of the UN? Is it as ASB as I first thought?

Edit: If this looks a little empty, it's because I pre-emptively clicked to enter it on accident.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, not happening, the UN is a tool used by the Security Council to promote their interests, not the other way around, and then there's the issue of somehow making the US's NATO allies side against it to cause this type of situation.
 
Title says it all. Could the UN decide that America overbearing its duties and becoming the world's policeman be a bad idea with maybe some serious US style gridlock in the UN. After frustration, several nations decide to withdraw in protest that eventually leads to the dissolution of the UN? Is it as ASB as I first thought?

Edit: If this looks a little empty, it's because I pre-emptively clicked to enter it on accident.

IMHO I would like to have seen that or at the very least dramaticaly revamped.
 
Title says it all. Could the UN decide that America overbearing its duties and becoming the world's policeman be a bad idea with maybe some serious US style gridlock in the UN. After frustration, several nations decide to withdraw in protest that eventually leads to the dissolution of the UN? Is it as ASB as I first thought?

Edit: If this looks a little empty, it's because I pre-emptively clicked to enter it on accident.

No. The UN is an enormous honeypot for tranzis and Third World diplomats. Who'd want to derail the gravy train?
 
Well, given the amount of funding the US gives to the UN compared to the other donors, if the US and Japan stopped funding the UN after the Cold War (for whatever reason), it is quite unlikely that the UN will be able to afford peacekeeping missions or healthcare/education programs (which is where most of their work that actually matters lies, peacekeeping just gets more headlines), which may push the UN towards irrelevancy and eventual disbandment.
 
That's what I thought when I read that too..


But... really? Transgender Nazi's? is that a really necessary label to give Transgendered people? :rolleyes:

I'm not labelling anybody, "Transgender Nazis" are people who are both transgender and Nazis. ;)
 
<le sigh>

This is the sort of thing that's simple. Due to the UN serving a broad array of interests, not all of them reducible to the chain email your uncle sent you, there are many interests it serves by continuing. Some are virtuous, some are highly profitable. But none of them are any specific cabal deliberately plotting the downfall of any one particular flavor of bland suburbia.

In the case of the UN post-Cold War, you have the fact that its a lever for the non-Aligned Movement. Maybe not the best or most specific lever, but its a lever they can use occasionally, and use to be bigger than anyone member. While this should not need be said, all of those Strange People Who Live Somewhere Else think of themselves as the stars of their own stories, and not the bit players in yours. The UN can serve their interests; they will support it. It can serve the interests of many people in the larger powers; it even serves commercial interests who rail about it in public. They will all support it as well. It may, shockingly, even have affects which support you! You don't think so? Malaria prevention, for one, has broad transnational affects, Mr. Florida at the top of the thread.

The too long; didn't read? The UN will be plotting to Take Yer Guns and Turn Yer Children Gay for a good long while yet. Bon chance.
 
This is the sort of thing that's simple. Due to the UN serving a broad array of interests, not all of them reducible to the chain email your uncle sent you, there are many interests it serves by continuing. Some are virtuous, some are highly profitable. But none of them are any specific cabal deliberately plotting the downfall of any one particular flavor of bland suburbia.

In the case of the UN post-Cold War, you have the fact that its a lever for the non-Aligned Movement. Maybe not the best or most specific lever, but its a lever they can use occasionally, and use to be bigger than anyone member. While this should not need be said, all of those Strange People Who Live Somewhere Else think of themselves as the stars of their own stories, and not the bit players in yours. The UN can serve their interests; they will support it. It can serve the interests of many people in the larger powers; it even serves commercial interests who rail about it in public. They will all support it as well. It may, shockingly, even have affects which support you! You don't think so? Malaria prevention, for one, has broad transnational affects, Mr. Florida at the top of the thread.

The too long; didn't read? The UN will be plotting to Take Yer Guns and Turn Yer Children Gay for a good long while yet. Bon chance.

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about me, none of which are true in any form... It was a simple question I got after seeing a loading screen from Fallout 3... I was just wondering if it could have happened anytime in real life...

FO3_loading_capitalpost2.jpg
 
People's political sympathies are really getting the better of them here.

To answer objectively, the basic premise is flawed. The UN isn't a treaty organization. Membership doesn't carry specific obligations (i.e. NATO, the European Union), nor is it restricted to a historico-cultural clique (i.e. the Commonwealth, OIF). At least superficially, it serves as a non-partisan, international mouthpiece - you don't "withdraw" from it as means of making a political statement. Nor, for that very reason, is there any significant risk of the whole project collapsing if a few nations decide to go ahead and step out, provided the vacating states aren't Security Council members or other heavyweights.

IOW, this is ASB on both a technical and theoretical level.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Well, given the amount of funding the US gives to the UN compared to the other donors, if the US and Japan stopped funding the UN after the Cold War (for whatever reason), it is quite unlikely that the UN will be able to afford peacekeeping missions or healthcare/education programs (which is where most of their work that actually matters lies, peacekeeping just gets more headlines), which may push the UN towards irrelevancy and eventual disbandment.

don't the US government owe the UN a lot of money for backdues?
 
At the OP, I was using Florida as an example, but most of my ire was for the people talking about the dreaded tranzis; or the wastefulness of an organization the US is in fact in arrears to, while often demanding the obedience of. I wasn't that clear, and I may have made some unfounded assumptions, and for that I apologize.
 
don't the US government owe the UN a lot of money for backdues?

I don't think so. There was an issue with the US not paying it's full assessed contribution (dues) in the late '90s. In December 2000, UN revised its scale of assessments. As part of that revision, the maximum amount that any member can be assessed for the regular budget was reduced from 25% to 22%.

The top 6 contributors to the 2013 UN budget were:
United States - 22.000% of UN budget
Japan - 10.833%
Germany - 7.141%
France - 5.593%
United Kingdom - 5.179%
China - 5.148%

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations#Funding
 
Top