WI:UN army

I can see no non-ASB scenario where the US and the Soviet Union would form a joint army.
Unfortunately, quite true...USSR kicked itself for years for the tactical mistake it made walking out and allowing the UN to defend So. Korea, a joint military activity (on an equal partner basis) with anyone is not in the books!
 

trajen777

Banned
So with the current, past, and future corruption an army of 300,000 is paid for. Their is actually 50,000. The $$ spent on weapons is diverted to Mont Carlo houses for the UN management. I deal with the UN and really nothing works there
 

ben0628

Banned
Have the communist nations leave the UN while everyone joins NATO, thus making the UN and world's most powerful military alliance the same thing.
 
Have the communist nations leave the UN while everyone joins NATO, thus making the UN and world's most powerful military alliance the same thing.
I can see a UN victory in the Korean War, provided if it's an early one, that can allow something like this.
 
OTL the United Nations was formed during WW2 by WALLIES. The modern, all inclusive UN was formed post-war. The current UN Security Council has 5 permanent members: USA, UK, China, USSR and I forget the fifth, all of whom were on the winning side during WW2.
The above poster was correct in stating that corruption is rampant within the UN. Whenever a third-world nation supplies troops for UN missions, soldiers arrive poorly-equipped and scramble for food while their generals grow fat.
 
I can see no non-ASB scenario where the US and the Soviet Union would form a joint army.

Neither can I- & in fairness I can't see a
senario where ANY great power, whether
capitalist or communist, would allow the
UN to form an effective army. The last thing
any great power wants is a rival.
 

SsgtC

Banned
OTL the United Nations was formed during WW2 by WALLIES. The modern, all inclusive UN was formed post-war. The current UN Security Council has 5 permanent members: USA, UK, China, USSR and I forget the fifth, all of whom were on the winning side during WW2.
The above poster was correct in stating that corruption is rampant within the UN. Whenever a third-world nation supplies troops for UN missions, soldiers arrive poorly-equipped and scramble for food while their generals grow fat.

The fifth is France. And originally, China was represented by the Republic of China, not the PRC. That was switched when the US transferred diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to Beijing. And obviously, the USSR has been replaced with Russia.
 

kernals12

Banned
Neither can I- & in fairness I can't see a
senario where ANY great power, whether
capitalist or communist, would allow the
UN to form an effective army. The last thing
any great power wants is a rival.
Not necessarily, there was great enthusiasm for a powerful UN between WW2 and Korea. Harry Truman said this in 1948: "When Kansas and Colorado fall out over the waters in the Arkansas River, they don't go to war over it, they go to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the matter is settled in a just and honorable way. There is not a difficulty in the whole world that cannot be settled in exactly the same way in a world court."
 
Ironically, even if you could get the member states to agree (which they wouldn't), and then to pay for it (which they wouldn't), there still isn't any provision in international law for an international organization to have a standing army. I think this would be illegal.

(Of course that can be solved with another treaty.)
 
I suppose we will simply have more widespread sexual abuse of civilians by peacekeepers and more money in the budget that just so happens to vanish. Perhaps mass surrender to lightly armed militias in the third world can be staved off if the numbers are large enough. At least there will be more witnesses to atrocities in genocide situations because its always important to have people there for things like that, even if they aren't allowed to engage.
 
I somehow think that would fly in the face of the purpose of the UN. They're intended as a diplomatic, peacekeeping organization. They're not a government, and the only "forces" they have are infact peacekeeping ones. An army would imply that they intend to use it against certain governments, and as other have noted, this would be furiously opposed by both the US and the USSR (if not every other member nation).
 
Korea aside, the only way I can think of to make the UN powerful and have something like a UN army would be if the Cold War gets butterflied away, like say Stalin ends up dead by the time WWII ends and someone more "softer" takes over and liberalizes the USSR. That way, the tensions between the Western and Eastern bloc dissipates just as it was starting to and the cooperation between them instead lays the foundation for a UN with plenty of teeth like a shark.
 
Korea aside, the only way I can think of to make the UN powerful and have something like a UN army would be if the Cold War gets butterflied away, like say Stalin ends up dead by the time WWII ends and someone more "softer" takes over and liberalizes the USSR. That way, the tensions between the Western and Eastern bloc dissipates just as it was starting to and the cooperation between them instead lays the foundation for a UN with plenty of teeth like a shark.
In such a situation, why would the U.S. bother sponsoring an international army when it just do whatever it wanted on its own, i.e., exactly what happened after 1989?
 
In such a situation, why would the U.S. bother sponsoring an international army when it just do whatever it wanted on its own, i.e., exactly what happened after 1989?
My good guess is provide the UN Army with materials and weaponry, thought that might make the UN more of a tool for US interests than anything else; any president that has interests opposite to the UN aren't going to cut it ITTL.
 
Top