Should the UN have its own military?

[KrazyHorse]

I don't recall his being fired over the use of nuclear weapons.

He wasn't, neddie. Work on your reading comprehension.

Had the UN commanders at Rawanda or Sebrenicia had MacArthurs balls and access to reinforcements

Yeah. That's good.

I fail to see how MaxArthur's access to reinforcements reflects positively on his skill as a commander

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Rwanda was a failure of UN bureacracy, not an argument for a UN military force.

So what could have been done at the time? Dallaire says a Canadian-sized mechanized brigade group could have stopped the violence. But the only countries capable of moving in such a force quickly right now are the US and Russia (I don't think any other nation has the long-distance airlift capacity).

[Q Classic]

I fail to see how MaxArthur's access to reinforcements reflects positively on his skill as a commander

two words: Incheon Landing.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by C0ckney
i can see tingkai's idea being rejected by at least 5 permanent members of the security council

the other major problem is not so much finding troops, but the fact that the officers and commanders could only come from a handful of countries, plus the equipment would also have to come from those few countries, sounds like a complete non starter to me.

The ban on landmines seemed crazy when it first proposed. People thought there was no way anyone would support it.

I suspect that when the first peacekeeping operation was proposed, people said it would never get off the ground because there would be problems finding troops, officers, commanders, equipment.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Q Cubed


two words: Incheon Landing.

? Please explain further (not about Inchon landing, but how this relates).

[Q Classic]

I fail to see how MaxArthur's access to reinforcements reflects positively on his skill as a commander

The Incheon Landing utilized mostly reinforcements to build a force strong enough and capable enough to surprise the North Korean Army by stabbing it right in the back of their lines.

Without access to reinforcements, MacArthur would not have been able to mount such an offensive. And under the sustained attacks of the NKVA, with Chinese support, the Pusan Perimeter would have eventually broken, resulting in a defeat for a free south korea.

[KrazyHorse]

Yes...but how does having access to reinforcements show that he's a more skilled commander than not having reinforcements?

It's like saying that a man with both arms free is stronger than one who's been handcuffed. While it may be true because of circumstance, it tells you nothing of the innate abilities of either.

[Tingkai]

The bureaucratic problem could be solved by granting the UN force commander a mandate to carry out operations for a set period of time. During that time, the commander would have complete control of the force within the parameters set down by the mandate. The UN politicians could be given the power to recall the commander, but only by a general assembly vote.

A mandate system would be attractive to the bureaucrats because they would be able to essentially wash their hands of any problems.

The bureaucrats would muck things up when the UN Force is at home, but that happens in every military.

At the beginning, the UN force would need competant commanders with extensive experience in commanding large-size forces. That would mean commanders from the developed world.

In the long-run, a UN force would have to have its own training programs, staff schools, etc.

A UN force would have to be fairly low-tech. There's no way any developed country would train potential enemies in high-tech warfare. This is particularly true of the US which has a massive head start in high-tech command, control and communications.

Additional support could be obtained when needed.

A low-tech force would still be effective because most of the world's troublespots are countries with low-tech militaries.

A UN force would need infantry, APCs, artillery, armour that could be airlifted, and support units.

There would be no need for a navy since the UN force would be moved into a country next door to the trouble spot.

Fighter support would probably be required, but again it wouldn't have to be top of the line because the UN force would not be designed to take on large modern militaries.

A lot of countries would volunteer to base the UN Force would because it add money to the local economy.

[Q Classic]

planning the incheon landing was quite a feat, primarily because of the distraction of having a hot battlefront less than 60 miles from his headquarters. it's not like pusan was safe with the pusan perimeter...

ah, well. i suppose it's not really a true marker of his skills. but i still think he deserves hero status, no matter how imperfect he may be.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Tingkai


The ban on landmines seemed crazy when it first proposed. People thought there was no way anyone would support it.

apples and oranges there really..

I suspect that when the first peacekeeping operation was proposed, people said it would never get off the ground because there would be problems finding troops, officers, commanders, equipment.

well the thing is, peacekeeping missions have countries loaning men, equipment etc. to the UN to get a specific job done in a certain place. a UN 'army' would mean that the UN would have these troops forever to go and do whatever the UN wants. most nations won't be very comfortable giving this much control over armed forces to the UN, especially the US (world court anyone).

[connorkimbro]

planning the incheon landing was quite a feat, primarily because of the distraction of having a hot battlefront less than 60 miles from his headquarters. it's not like pusan was safe with the pusan perimeter...

Actually, the success at Inchon was largely due to the efforts of Navy Commander Eugene Franklin Clark. He conducted a preliminary intelligence gathering mission in the pusan harbor area, without which the inchon landing would not have been possible. I'd suggest the book The Secrets of Inchon: The Untold Story of the Most Daring Covert Mission of the Korean War for any of you truely interested in the subject. It's a fascenating read.

[David Floyd]

no, i like macarthur and his style of "peacekeeping". if anything, i'm peeved that truman didn't regain his balls after nuking japan-- he should have let macarthur do the same to the legions of mao troops in china.

That's pretty sick. Go to war with China just because we can? Why?

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by David Floyd


That's pretty sick. Go to war with China just because we can? Why?

you just said it, because we can.

[David Floyd]

OK, well, I guess we don't really need cities like Honolulu, LA, Seattle, San Francisco, San Diego, Portland, and Phoenix anyway

[Q Classic]

That's pretty sick. Go to war with China just because we can? Why?

no, go to war with china because they're weaker than they look, and because it would have won us korea.

of course, back then, we didn't know china was really weaker than it looked, so...