UN American intervention

If this is a UN force, it has to be under UN control or else it is an obvious occupation. Last I checked neither Russian nor Chinese citizens are in positions of authority with the UN peacekeeping forces and I doubt Europe would readily sign up their soldiers for this as hesitant as they have been in recent years to enter anything with the remote possibility of conflict.

We can agree to disagree, but I don't see a UN force entering the US anytime soon.

That's the problem. You believe there is something you can call "UN control".

Inferus, Michele has a point here the "Authority" positions for an intervention/peace-keeping/what-ever force is made up of command authority from the volunteer nations not the UN itself as there is no "UN Military" organization. Command of "UN forces" is vested in the military authority of the volunteer nations and usually has oversight by military command authority of one or more Security Council members for the bigger operations since (usually) those operations include forces from one or more Security Council nations.

Having said that I should make it quite clear that no Security Council nation, (and this tends to go down to whoever's volunteering forces but not always) is obligated to put their nations military forces 'under' the command of another nation. Specifically both the US and former USSR, (now Russia) have standing obligations that any UN force that they are a part of WILL be under their overall command. Period. Further no UN forces will be deployed to their nations for any reason without some very specific and quite explicit reasons AND permissions which while 'non-zero' are none the less pretty implausible. Not under UN jurisdiction anyway.

Now fun fact, there HAS been ONE (1) situation where the majority of the worlds military has in fact 'volunteered' to work together, (and surprisingly under US overall command) in the last 30 years and that included both Russian and Chinese forces being volunteered to participate in direct combat operations. (Both were polity declined by the majority of partners in the endeavor but logistical and other support was welcomed) Know what that was?

Operation Desert Shield/Storm :) Or the fight against Saddam Hussein in Kuwait if you prefer. The Chinese volunteered several combat divisions if the US would provide transport while the Russians volunteered ground and air forces. Note it wasn't the US that was the lead in 'polity but firmly' refusing the offer but the Middle Eastern members of the coalition :) But the US argument was pretty firm that the issues with integrating the "higher" elements of the command structure into the Coalition command, (both the Chinese and Russian command authority would have been equivalent to Storming Norman so you can see the issues) would be too difficult by the date the help was volunteered. (Off record neither the Chinese nor Russians were going to explicitly give up their right of command either so there was that as well)

So in essence Desert Shield/Storm was what a "UN" military operation would look like and in fact historically that's been the case when it's deployed AS a military force. Peace Keeping and such are smaller and usually require less command and control to be in place but as the Balkans show this can greatly depend on the situation.

And no matter WHO's coming to visit there are those in the US who will see it as a occupation and invasion force and the US government is well aware of the fact. Even inviting them in for 'humanitarian' reasons won't go over well.

Neither do I, evidently. That's not the point.

It's not. No matter the "why" in the end it's a very sore point of sovereignty that either there has to be no recognized national government AND a majority acceptance within both the General Assembly and the Security Council to go in or the recognized government has to request UN intervention AND pretty much guarantee that any and all sides will RECOGNIZE the neutrality of the UN forces, (which no sane US government is going to be able to guarantee with any certainty) for the UN to commit forces.

Randy
 
LoL, oh wow that's rather hilarious because the historic facts actually show that "Vietnamese and Afghan" farmers have had ZERO impact on resisting US aggression! In fact they were a non-factor in the total conflict. They were targeted and easily defeated by either side it the struggle so taking a 'fact based' and 'scientific' look at the conflicts in question you'll note that the sides consisted of a major military and a well-backed, funded and TRAINED para-military force and in the case of Vietnam was backed up by another regular military force that regularly engaged the major military force in head-to-head conflict... Which they LOST every time.

In the case of Vietnam the US pulled out for political and social reasons, we have yet to do so in either Afghanistan or Iraq and it's looking less and less likely we will be doing so anytime soon. So no, they didn't and in fact can't "win" just by resisting and can't face any organized force in a head-on fight so they don't.

Now why is your suggestion "hilarious"? Quite simply an "occupation" force has to sit and take a LOT of damage from irregular and para-military forces. That's what the US had been doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. That takes strong discipline and VERY clear command and control. An "intervention" force not only has to take that kind of punishment but also will be likely standing between two REGULAR military forces with all that implies for dealing damage and supporting and abetting the a-fore mentioned irregular and para-military forces to the point where the "intervention" force is basically under siege at all times.

Hence the situation we've seen UN forces in in the Balkans in recent years.

Now add in that one or likely both sides in any "US" conflict are going to have access to and the capability to deploy nuclear weapons and finding 'volunteer' nations to stick their di... noses into that buzz-saw is likely much less than zero wouldn't you think?
But then, all these factors didn't help against Grand Fenwick's tactical force, did they? Give Field Marshall Tully Bascomb a force of Afghan and Vietnamese farmers and the entire US military clearly stands no chance of victory, according to the highly accurate historical documents I checked.

His technological superiority, his keen tactical mind, his capacity for unexpected strategic inititative and the particularly effective political system that backs his every move make for a general that cannot reasonably be defeated by the US military. Particularly as Grand Fenwick could probably secure an alliance with Sealand and its historically undefeated navy.

Someone should google Grand Fenwick and check my other posts in this thread to realize a pretty obvious common theme.
 
Last edited:
But then, all these factors didn't help against Grand Fenwick's tactical force, did they? Give Field Marshall Tully Bascomb a force of Afghan and Vietnamese farmers and the entire US military clearly stands no chance of victory, according to the highly accurate historical documents I checked.

His technological superiority, his keen tactical mind, his capacity for unexpected strategic inititative and the particularly effective political system that backs his every move make for a general that cannot reasonably be defeated by the US military. Particularly as Grand Fenwick could probably secure an alliance with Sealand and its historically undefeated navy.

Someone should google Grand Fenwick and check my other posts in this thread to realize a pretty obvious common theme.
Eh? He literally stumbled into capturing the biggest atomic bomb ever designed while WINNING a war he was ordered to LOSE. :)

Randy
 
Top