Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
OK what do you guys think of this scenario: No nation is allowed to maintain an armed force of it's own. All troops raised within every country in the world are controlled by the UN and used solely for destroying rogue nation's armies, which is any country which refuses the arrangement and raises it's own private force for "self protection."
Armed forces are stationed in each nation but each nation has military from another nation to defend them, sort of like the ancient "hostage" thing kings used to do in medieaval days. For example the only soldiers in Australia are Thai, the only soldiers in Thailand are Danish, etc..
I don't know how to make a poll anymore so I'll just set em up like this and you can cut and paste:
A: That sounds awfully like communism, only WORLD communism which is even worse than regular communism! Every country should be able to defend itself.
B: That's an awesome idea! Robotnik is a genius!
C: Um, I don't think so... It might work in thoery but I can think of a whole bunch of reasons why people'll never agree to it (list whole bunch of reasons...)
I'd be happy to have it. We all know it breeds corruption. At the same time it produces stability and prosperity.
It can't be done, too many people don't like other people. I'm not talking about the common white racist, I'm talking about deep hatred between African tribes, Middle Eastern religious sects (Sunni vs Shi'ite), Japanese-Asian relations.
What Onlainari said, plus the occupieing troops could potentially go rouge and take over said country.
Even though it would be a great idea, humanity just hasn't evolved far enough socially to be so accepting.
If we could get all nations to agree to your idea in the first place, it would seem we would only be a nudge away from discontinuing war anyway. Why not push for the whole ball of wax?
<To make a poll keep scrolling down when you start a new thread and you will see the check option to include a poll with your thread>
C. It's a good concept, but nobody would ever agree to it.
Burn the land and boil the sea. You can't take the sky from me.
Member of the Canadian Clan, eh.
Mech Tau Cadre: 2000 points, needs paint and magnets.
Paladins of Avalon (SW):-1500 points, needs paint.
Thanks, I'll remember that if I ever need to make a poll. As to discontinuing war, that is precisely what this would do, only people would still feel safe because there were still armed dudes in helmets walking aroundOriginally Posted by Joker
I think if you just disbanded all armies people would go nuts, so this is a way of keeping a military while at the same time making it sort of obsolete. Of course you could never actually "disband" the world army as it would need to be eternally there to prevent a return to the good old days. But it would be the only army anyone would ever need.
Any nation that insisted on it's own army in these circumsyances is essentially saying "national pride is more important than peace. We need war just to prove country X can kick country Y's ass if we decide they did someting we don't like."
Oh well. It's a good idea for background for a sci-fi story at least!
C... sort of. Or A, without the communism. Hmm...
I think that the main problem with the idea is that corruption occurs so easily, and within 50 years, either chaos would begin (mass fighting between "protecting" armies and citizens, on the orders of higher ups) or we would have a world dicatatorship.
Corruption makes its way into governments quickly and efficiantly. If we had a world government (which is what this is, basically. If the UN controlled the world army, they have last say in anything, so laws for individual coutries become irrelevant), that would speed the process of corruption, because of the increased incentive.
If anything, I'm of the oppinion that countries should get smaller, since the less power any government has, the less corrupt it will tend to be, and the less power it has relative to total power in the region (If all countries are weaker, then individual countries can keep "rogue" countries in check).
But it would certainly make a fantastic background for a sci-fi book, since you could set it at the time period where someone attempts the world gov military coup... or anything really. Possibilities are endless...
You have just recieved the Amish Computer Virus. Since the Amish don't have computers, it is based on the honor system. So please delete all the files from your computer. Thank you for you cooperation.
Votewar 40k Mk1- 2nd Place
Votewar FB 1- 1st Place
Votewar 40k Mk5- 1st Place
Those three options are hideously limiting, but for sake of argument I'll go with C.
First things first, it is a nice idea. Unfortunately as most people know, when I say "nice", I mean "stupid". It wouldnt work in anything like a nice,peaceful solution that everyone would like it to. Here in the UK theres already a bitter and heated argument over the amalgamation of various Regiments into one super army to eventually be included in some Eurofarce (woot! Pu|\||\|4g3 r0xX0rz!) **** thing. The Black Watch and other vastly highly respected highland regiments have already gone, and soon others will be too. People dont like the loss of individuality. Everyone will want their own slice of individuality and no popular consensus would ever be achieved, basically leaving the idea barely out of the station.
Secondly, logistics. It really just isnt practical to have soldiers from one nation acting as the guardians of another. You have to move the men and the hardware. If youre doing this from halfway round the world you're soon going to see a nice hole in your funds for the year.
Thirdly, public opinion/xenophobia. People naturally resent other people defending them. They want to do it themselves. If the area is particularly racist for any particular reason sooner or later there's going to be an incident where at least one, or both, parties dont think about the bigger picture and make a mistake that cannot be rectified. Riots around the soldier's bases are going to be met with force by the non-thinking commander, which in my personal experience of officers is around six or seven out of ten.
Part four, corruption. Its inherent in any organisation. I side with TheWamp on this one, I am personally in favour of countries devolving to a coalition of city-states that are responsible for an area around them that is just enough to provide self-sufficiency, with a government based on either meritocracy or something like Ankh Morpork in the discworld books. For one thing, theres a lesser effect of incompetent rule, which would be dealt with in a quick and efficient manner, since the fewer people are in power, the fewer people there are to be corrupt.
I know in theory the city-state (or at least county) government is in effect now in the UK, but people here will back me up when I say that there is very little autonomy, and that local democracy, or at least what passes for it, is stifled by mountains of red tape.
"It fits like clothes made out of wasps!"
Onlainari has some VERY good points on the matter. racial hatred would stop robotniks idea from happening. as Onlainari said, corruption BREEDS in situations like these. whats to stop the thai military in australia from stealing and pillaging (on a small scale, not mass) from homes, this is an example of the corruption onlainari spoke of.
Racial hatred, even if you put the japanese in america, you'll still get arrogant retards saying "you dirty gook, get the hell out of my country" and other racialy inclined insults (NO offense meant to anybody asian).
no offense robotnik, i think its a stupid idea......
None taken, it's not meant to be a deadly serious plan for the human race or anything, more just a light musing on the subject of a world army.
I think one thing all you "racial hatred" guys are missing is that the whole thing is reciprocal. Say my brother is an Australian soldier in Sweden, and he sends me an email saying that people hate him and call him a kangaroo f**ker for no reason, when he is only there maintaining world peace. Wouldn't this make me think twice about having the same attitude towards the Thai soldiers down the road? They are probably just like my brother.
Also these people are professional soldiers of a UN standard, not bandits, and the idea would not be implemented foolishly. For example you wouldn't put the Japanese in charge of China, or the Pakistani's in charge of India, come on! Would an Australian soldier rape and pillage the local populace of Sweden just because he could? If he did, then it is a case for the WORLD ARMY (remember we created that?) to step in and sqaush the puny Australian forces living in a foreign country. It neatly eliminates the whole Vietnam problem. Never again will an army be indistinguishable from the genral populace. But personally I know many Australian soldiers and they would not go crazy and start pillaging against orders. Why would the Thai soldiers do it to us? (they are at present our allies by the way.)
I think most people are bright enough to understand a reciprocal relationship, I mean it's what all human societies are based on. All this idea is suggesting is making defence an international reciprocity the same as trade or anything else. Sure there would be resistance at the start (probably so much resistance as to make it impossible to implement) but if you could implement it I am confident people would get used to the idea very quickly. Soldiers are people doing a job. There's not really that much difference between "Australia breeds cattle so Japan can eat steak, Japan makes TV's so Aussies can watch them" and "Australia guards Denmark so Denmark can guard Thailand so Tahiland can guard Australia." It's like an empire we are all part of, instead of one ruling nation and a bunch of vassal states.