Should the UN have its own military?

[David Floyd]

no, go to war with china because they're weaker than they look,

Oh, so now it's a case of the strong picking on the weak? Sorta like the schoolyard bully who takes your lunch money because he can?

and because it would have won us korea.

We (meaning the US) shouldn't have been in Korea to begin with. It was none of our damn business, and 38,000 Americans paid the ultimate price for our meddling.

[Jon Miller]

but they saved 100s of thousands of others from paying the ultimate price

Jon Miller

[Ned]

Originally posted by Frogger

MacArthur appears to be the perfect example of the Peacekeeper commander who reacts to a situation in an appropriate manner without having to get SC approval. Regardless, the UN later endorsed his actions

MacArthur wanted to bomb selected cities and stategic routes in the PR of ****ing China with nuclear weapons (a total of about 2 dozen). Truman, luckily, was not as mindbogglingly insane or megalomaniacal as good old Dugout Doug, and nixed the idea. Such men should be kept as far away from power as possible, not rewarded for their oh-so-dashing style without substance.

FYI, Truman and Eisenhower also suggested they might use nuclear weapons against China. The real fear they all had was that the USSR would directly intervene and begin using its own nukes.

The option of using Nukes in SE Asia was a campaign issue in 1964. After Goldwater lost decisived mainly because he refused to rule their use out, that option has never been seriously discussed again (except as a defensive measure).

I hope this history tells you something about the use of nuclear weapons. It was not unthinkable and insane in 1950-1. But for the Russian threat, we just may have used them.

[GeneralTacticus]

...



...

ok, see, maybe you're fine with the idea that if all of korea became stalinist under kim il sung, but i'm not.

without macarthur, all of korea would be a starving hellhole, part of bush's stupid "axis of evil". without him, all of korea would be bankrupt, its economy frozen. without him, i'd be stuck in a third-rate pos country.

MacArthr oversaw the stopping of the NK into SK, which was good. What he did wrong, however (and this was GROSS mistake) was to advance into NK on his own initiative, completely IGNORING numerous statement from the PRC that if he did so, they would intervene. As a result, they did, and the UN troops were driven back all the way out of NK, and the Chinese only stopped when they overstretched their supply lines.

MTG, et al., I just did a quick search and found that MacArthur was given permission to attack into NK on October 6. The Chinese entered the war drove the UN force back from the Yalu, but in doing so, disguised their strength. MacArthur was unaware of their true strength when he ordered the attack North on Nov. 23.

MacArthur had ALL of the information he needed on Chinese troops strength available to him via his own intelligence sources. He simply didn't believe them. He though the Chinese were too weak to enter the war, and that if they did, the USAf would know about it and slaghter them.

We (meaning the US) shouldn't have been in Korea to begin with. It was none of our damn business, and 38,000 Americans paid the ultimate price for our meddling.

As Jon said, it saved many others from dying as well. Besides, the US should bear some responsibility for the division that led to the war in the first place, for allowing the Soviets to occupy NK.

Not exactly. MacArthur wanted to take the war farther than it needed to be taken, sure, but he certainly didn't act alone. It was not OUR war we were fighting, after all, it was South Koreas. Ultimately, they were the ones calling the shots, and THEY wanted to continue the war as well. MacArthur didn't argue with them, but his presence (well, the US forces presence) allowed the war to be continued for as long as it was.

The US was calling the shots in the Korean War: the South Koreans knew that they could not carry on fighting without US support, and their army wasn't exaclty top-notch anyway. Not to mention the fact that they had little air cover or navy.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned


FYI, Truman and Eisenhower also suggested they might use nuclear weapons against China. The real fear they all had was that the USSR would directly intervene and begin using its own nukes.

The option of using Nukes in SE Asia was a campaign issue in 1964. After Goldwater lost decisived mainly because he refused to rule their use out, that option has never been seriously discussed again (except as a defensive measure).

I hope this history tells you something about the use of nuclear weapons. It was not unthinkable and insane in 1950-1. But for the Russian threat, we just may have used them.

Wrongo, dearie. Truman

a) broadly hinted that he might to give the Chinese something to think about

b) thought about it for about thirty seconds in private before rejecting the idea. The Roosians had the bomb by this point...

MacArthur wanted to do it. If he'd had the authority, he would have done it as soon as he encountered PRC forces crossing into Korea, and he might well have started a nuclear war with Russia.

He should have known that the PRC would rise to defend NK once he'd driven far enough north to threaten its existence, he should have known that invading pell-mell as he did would leave him wide open to a counterattack in force, etc. He didn't, and the UN forces were driven all the way back to Pusan because of it.

It was the story of his military career: Don't prepare sufficiently, get wooped, blame it on someone else (while running as far away as possible), then come back later with men and equipment to replace that which you'd thrown away and plod your way to victory.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by C0ckney
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).

You're right that there would be initial opposition and concerns, but like all things, the idea could be sold. At the moment there is no political will to change things, despite Rwanda.

However, it could be argued the world community is moving slowly towards the concept of standing UN force. There have been greater use of peacekeeping and peacemaking since the end of the Cold War.

A relatively small UN Force would not be a threat to developed nations with modern armies, or nations with large armies.

The idea could be sold to third world nations as a method for preventing destabilizing conflict. The Rwanda genocide affected its neighbors, as has the conflicts in Liberia and Sierra Leone. The wars in Southeast Asia during the 70s were not confined to one country.

The biggest reason a UN force would not be a threat is because the global community rarely acts as a unified voice. If a UN force did exist, it would probably not be used very often simply because of the difficulty in reaching an agreement among so many nations.

[David Floyd]

but they saved 100s of thousands of others from paying the ultimate price

So? That doesn't justify forcing hundreds of thousands of Americans to go to Korea against their will - ie the draft - and being directly responsible for the deaths of 38,000 of them.
I'm sorry people would have died if we weren't there. But you know what? Life's a *****, it tends to be unpleasant.

[C0ckney]

tingkai, yeah i'm sure 3rd world nations would support it, mostly because they wouldn't be footing the bill

it's not the fact that a UN force would be a military threat, but that it would in many people's eyes be an erosion of sovereignty, handing over direct control of their men and material to the UN for good. that and of course who will pay for it all would be the two main sticking points, and you're right, there is no political will to do this and i can't see anything changing in the regard for the foreseeable future.

[KrazyHorse]

Why would they be handing over men? Let UN recruit for themselves. Let UN buy equipment. Give them a budget.

If countries want a vote on the activities of said UN force, they'll kick in their fair share. If US wants to opt out, they can...but then they're out of the loop.

[David Floyd]

Not as long as the US is on the SC, it isn't out of the loop

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Frogger
If US wants to opt out, they can...but then they're out of the loop.

I fail to see how you can say that any of the permanent SC members are out of the loop considering the fact that they would be the ones to authorize this boondoggle.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
boondoggle.

Cool word

[C0ckney]

yeah but kh, were are you going to find experienced and competent officers/commanders.

anyway even if they could get a force together from scratch, who would pay for it, what incentive would there be for western countries to contribute to a force from which they wouldn't benefit.

[KrazyHorse]

Dino:

That's why SC has to go...or at least the permanent placement+vetos do.

even if they could get a force together from scratch, who would pay for it

We've alredy discussed this: whoever doesn't want to be laughed at

what incentive would there be for western countries to contribute to a force from which they wouldn't benefit

See above. How much do we benefit from giving free food to starving Africans? Why does it happen anyway? Because deep down, beneath all the crap, beats a heart...even if it's three sizes too small.

[C0ckney]

not being laughed at didn't sway the US too much over the world court. they just said "shan't", kinda like they (and probably much of the west) would to this idea.

there is a world of difference between providing food aid and giving the UN direct control over an army.