Amazon.com Widgets

Should the United Nations have its own permanent standing army?

  • Yes the UN should have its own permanent standing army.

    This would be a wonderful idea. The UN could have its own army based on the countries in the UN. Recruits could be voluntary and so if ever a crisis came up it would be easy to deploy troops rather than to have all the allies join together. The UN would function well with its own army.

    Posted by: StripperMor
  • The UN should have an army comprised of soldiers from all member forces.

    The United Nations should have its own permanent standing army. It should be comprised by a percent of troops from each member country. Training could be a result of combined army policies and soldiers would have to fight in their countries' army before joining UN forces. This would allow the UN to have more of a unified approach to things.

    Posted by: TedieDelight
  • Millions die, nothing done.

    Currently, the UN has to wait for countries to prepare their troops; this can take anywhere from 4-6 months. A country that has genocide is losing lives every day. If we have to opportunity to save lives, we should by all means, enact the proposed standing army that could deploy within 48 hours of the Security Council's decision instead of waiting around for 6 months on troops.

  • It would be cost effective.

    In a world where national militaries are a huge consumer of global resources, to step back their roles and instead use a global force to keep peace would free up resources for humanitarian and scientific projects including providing education, food, medicine clothing and shelter for those struck by extreme poverty and also contribute resources to scientific projects for the advancement of humanity as a technological species.

  • Yes, because a multi-national military has proven to be ineffective at quelling needless conflict due to the short-sighted actions of individual nations

    A standing U.N. army completely independent of the directives of individual national actors would give the U.N. the authority to oversee and carry-out military and peacekeeping actions that are necessary, even if they conflict with an individual or a collective of nation-states politics. In other words, a divided planet can not stand and global political union with the authority of a standing army to back it up is the only logical outcome.

  • YES!! Lives saved.

    UNEPS would save millions of lives and billions of dollars.
    The statement was stated by, Dr. Robert C. Johansen 2006. (PhD from Columbia Univ. Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Peace Studies, Notre Dame Univ.)
    He says quote: “Despite the need at times to move quickly to prevent genocide, “ethnic cleansing,” and crimes against humanity, the United Nations has no reliable capacity to move promptly, even if halting a catastrophe could save hundreds of thousands of lives. Genocide in Rwanda illustrates this incapacity, as do the massive killings of innocent people in Cambodia, the former Yugoslavia, East Timor, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, the Sudan, and elsewhere. The time has come to create a permanent UN Emergency Peace Service to ensure that the next preventable humanitarian disaster will not occur. If such a service had been established earlier, it could have prevented many of the atrocities that have killed millions of civilians, wounded millions more, forced tens of millions from their homes, destroyed entire economies, and wasted hundreds of billions of dollars.”

  • Only One Army - the UN Peacekeeping Force

    War is illegal. National armies are illegal. The only army that exists is the UNPF. Its job is to extinguish the violent conflicts of the worlds countries before they get out of hand. All UN nations contribute recruits and a percentage of GDP for resourcing the UNPF.

    Probably a long shot I know but what a world. Free of refugees, starving millions in war torn nations. Of course the UNPF would be a massive force comprising many millions of soldiers and could be deployed in the.ink of an eye like a fire brigade. Furthermore it could provide vast help during nature disasters and other emergencies.

  • Yes, I feel this is a good idea, because this would perpetuate a feeling of unification within the United Nations, as a unit.

    If each member nation of the United Nations were required to recruit and submit members for a unified army to be used solely for the purpose of upholding the ideals of the collective, all nations would have a tangible, vested interest in each decision made by the collective, and they would be less likely to act rashly in the face of turmoil.

    Posted by: CowardlyJoan92
  • In order for the United Nations to back its mandates, I do believe that it should have its own permanent standing army.

    I do think that a standing army is a necessity in order for the United Nations to remain relevant in a war-torn world. As it stands, many countries repeatedly ignore or violate UN mandates, because they do not have any fear of retribution. The creation of a standing army would resolve this issue.

    Posted by: ToughEfrain26
  • I agree the UN should have its own permanent standing army.

    Yes, if the UN had their own permanent standing army, then there could be soldiers from every country that are part of the UN involved in the UN Army. Each country wouldn't have to give up whole sections of their Army to help out the other countries like they do now.

    Posted by: NollBad
  • It's just bad.

    Who would lead? Maybe the person is another Hitler or Stalin. They could seem all peachy keen but turn out to be a giant murderer psychopath. After all, history does repeat itself. They could also get power-obsessed and turn into a maniac.

  • No, the UN should not have its own permanent standing army because it would infringe on someone's sovereignty.

    The United Nations is a diplomatic forum, not a world government. If it had its own permanent standing army, it would somehow eventually violate a nation's sovereign borders. Right now, when the UN has to go in somewhere, it has to be with the support of member nations by committing troops.

    Posted by: FlakyHerb64
  • The United Nations shouldn't have an army.

    I don't think the United Nations should have an army. That would be the next step in a one world government. The UN was not created to be the policeman of the world. It was created so that nations of the world could get together and solve problems. I think it has outlived it's usefulness.

    Posted by: GaudyTory37
  • The United Nations should not have its own standing army.

    First, if the United Nations had its own standing army, the cost would be too great. The US is already the primary monetary contributor. This would probably force the United States to be the largest contributor of soldiers and equipment. Second, this would make the United Nations a genuine single entity with power over the entire world, taking power away from smaller nations. This type of control runs a very high risk of taking rights away from weaker countries.

    Posted by: TaborBeat
  • I believe the UN should not have a standing army; such a force would divide the loyalties of it members and undermine the mission of the United Nations.

    If the United Nations had its own standing army, it would be able to act unilaterally. Asking for resolutions would become a matter of protocol rather than necessity. Additionally, the UN forces are typically peace keeping in nature; there is little reason for a peace keeping agency to have an army. Furthermore, who would join this standing army? If an American joined the UN army, and then acted against the interests of the country, wouldn't that be borderline treasonous? Furthermore, if the UN and the US were to oppose each other, which side would the American UN soldier take? It seems best to allow citizens to represent their own countries rather than international organizations.

    Posted by: MeatyClarence70
  • The UN would not be able to afford an army of the size they would need to be.

    In an effort to keep the peace the United Nations army would have to be much bigger then it currently is since they would need to be present all around the world. There current budget is much too small to supply a military of that size so where would the money come from? The US military budget in 2012 alone was around $671 billion. That is only 1 out of the 196 countries in the world.

  • A standing army would not solve any of the problems of the current peacekeepers.

    Many people argue the devastating Rwandan genocide as a reason for creating a standing army; however, the main reason Rwanda was such a failure was that the Security Council withdrew troops instead of reinforcing them. (Source: International Day of Reflection on the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda, UN.) A standing army would not have changed this; in fact, it would only present further problems. According to the UN, "A standing reserve sounds logical, but it would be immensely costly to have a force of several thousand people on permanent standby. It would require training, accommodating, feeding, etc. and then might not even be used." In addition, allowing UN total control over peacekeeping is extremely risky, and failures would be harmful to the US, involving it inadvertently in issues not important to it. A standing force is simply not the right solution to the current problem, and would only exacerbate it.

  • Not what it was intended for.

    I'm not going to write a book about this topic, simply put I don't believe that the UN was intended to have that type of power, or the men who instituted it would have already implemented a standing army. The UN is a peace keeping organization dependent upon its members to commit troops, voluntarily.

  • No, it goes against what the UN stands for.

    The UN is an organization meant to increase human rights and promote peace. Yes, war is often used as a means to find that peace, but having a standing army would increase the UN's power too much. Currently, the UN must act based on the willingness of its members to supply troups. With its own army, the UN would be able to make the decision with less thought overall.

  • No, the United Nations should not have its own standing army, because it would be more dysfunctional than NATO.

    The fact that the United Nations deals with all nations makes it too wishy-washy to conduct an army. It would not be an effective army. When armies are sent in to a country, they need to have a clear objective. Without a clear objective, the army does more harm than good. There are too many opinions in the United Nations for it to be a well-functioning organization.

    Posted by: ScrawnyNormand46

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Anonymous says2013-03-23T09:45:44.180
If the UN had an army, I would join. I'm an Australian, and I would not join the Australian army, because I don't feel it is a useful institution (albeit a necessary one).
Anonymous says2013-03-27T00:44:16.060
I would join. I feel that service to the UN would be deeply meaningful, given the mission the UN has is non-nationalistic and entirely based on concepts of justice, fairness, and protection of the innocent and of human liberty and dignity.
Anonymous says2013-08-29T01:23:34.687
Noooo!!! This would be like giving Palpatine his own army... And look what happened.