5 ms·

This is where an international navy staffed by blue helmets comes in and grabs the vessel, right? Right??

by chx 6y ago

adventured 6y ago
Does the UN still exist?
- EGreg 6y ago
  This is why we should work to transform the UN Peacekepeers into a militarized world police, composed of volunteers from countries all over the world. While simultaneously drawing down and disarming the world’s militaries. UN inspectors would be allowed into any member country, to inspect potential human rights violations, nuclear and chemical weapons development, and large environmental hazards. They need to have teeth to enforce things. The Peacekeepers should be a decentralized organization with only three main rules: 1. Your only job is to defuse existing conflicts and violence, and force warring sides to resort to using courts and diplomacy. 2. Anyone in the organization found breaking the first rule (using force to take sides or escalate a conflict, like Norriega) will be put on trial and executed if found guilty. 3. Any alumnus of the organization breaking the first rule is likewise hunted down, captured and put on trial. The only difference is, if they are not on active duty, they aren’t even empowered to carry out Rule #1 fully but must call on-duty reinforcements. Don’t like it - don’t join the peacekeepers. Every cadet would be trained in these three rules, so no one can take over the peacekeepers and rule the world. And there is a set of rules that all countries can abide by: 4. If there is a sectarian conflict between groups A, B and C in a region, only peacekeepers from countries and backgrounds with no serious stake in who wins can intervene. Others are sanctioned / excluded from that conflict etc. 5. The peacekeepers wear a specific and unmistakable white-themed uniform. Anyone in any country caught impersonating their uniform would constitute a criminal offense, like impersonating a police officer. 6. They all wear body cameras, they present themselves and warn any armed combatants or terrorists to put down their weapons or they will shoot to kill. They are also able to pre-emtively kill in certain situations where they can prove massive harm (eg a bomb) and that a warning could have allowed it to happen. This monopoly on force would probably lead to a net reduction in harm, assuming it can’t be taken over or corrupted.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - kelchm 6y ago
    >> This is why we should work to transform the UN Peacekepeers into a militarized world police, composed of volunteers from countries all over the world. While simultaneously drawing down and disarming the world’s militaries. It’s honestly terrifying to me that anyone thinks that this is a sound idea that would lead to a better world in the long run. If there is anything that human history has proven, it’s that you cannot prevent corruption and that the centralization of power only further incentivizes corruption.
    - bobthepanda 6y ago
      Also, how would one effectively verify that militaries were disarming? History is littered with examples of militaries not actually doing so when they said they would.
  - ajmurmann 6y ago
    While I am likewise enthralled by this general idea, it hinges on rule 2 and 3 being executed in practice. My prediction is that that part would either never happen or deteriorate quickly. Instead we'd get strong internal loyalty above all else, as we are seeing with the police in many countries.
  - skinkestek 6y ago
    Upvoted but disagree strongly. My feeling is it will be corrupted, and the only thing worse than multiple dangerous governments is one single dangerous government. In fact I'd probably rather have every country introduce 2nd amendment rules than accept this.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    I don't get why you're downvoted, I agree with your idea. It's where we should and must move towards anyway, the time of nations squabbling is over if we want to tackle the crises of the future: climate, water access, food access, poverty, droughts, space exploration, and if they're turning out to be real, dealing with non-terran species. The only open question I have - who decides upon engaging? The UN Security Council which should deal with issues is effectively gridlocked as the Russians and Chinese veto everything. The UN General Assembly isn't that much trustworthy either, given how many countries would vote an instant Yes on the question if Israel should be sanctioned. In the end we need some form of "global democracy" with strong protections of individual rights.

This is where an international navy staffed by blue helmets comes in and grabs the vessel, right? Right??

by chx 6y ago

This is where an international navy staffed by blue helmets comes in and grabs the vessel, right? Right??

adventured 6y ago

Does the UN still exist?

EGreg 6y ago
This is why we should work to transform the UN Peacekepeers into a militarized world police, composed of volunteers from countries all over the world. While simultaneously drawing down and disarming the world’s militaries. UN inspectors would be allowed into any member country, to inspect potential human rights violations, nuclear and chemical weapons development, and large environmental hazards. They need to have teeth to enforce things. The Peacekeepers should be a decentralized organization with only three main rules: 1. Your only job is to defuse existing conflicts and violence, and force warring sides to resort to using courts and diplomacy. 2. Anyone in the organization found breaking the first rule (using force to take sides or escalate a conflict, like Norriega) will be put on trial and executed if found guilty. 3. Any alumnus of the organization breaking the first rule is likewise hunted down, captured and put on trial. The only difference is, if they are not on active duty, they aren’t even empowered to carry out Rule #1 fully but must call on-duty reinforcements. Don’t like it - don’t join the peacekeepers. Every cadet would be trained in these three rules, so no one can take over the peacekeepers and rule the world. And there is a set of rules that all countries can abide by: 4. If there is a sectarian conflict between groups A, B and C in a region, only peacekeepers from countries and backgrounds with no serious stake in who wins can intervene. Others are sanctioned / excluded from that conflict etc. 5. The peacekeepers wear a specific and unmistakable white-themed uniform. Anyone in any country caught impersonating their uniform would constitute a criminal offense, like impersonating a police officer. 6. They all wear body cameras, they present themselves and warn any armed combatants or terrorists to put down their weapons or they will shoot to kill. They are also able to pre-emtively kill in certain situations where they can prove massive harm (eg a bomb) and that a warning could have allowed it to happen. This monopoly on force would probably lead to a net reduction in harm, assuming it can’t be taken over or corrupted.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- kelchm 6y ago
  >> This is why we should work to transform the UN Peacekepeers into a militarized world police, composed of volunteers from countries all over the world. While simultaneously drawing down and disarming the world’s militaries. It’s honestly terrifying to me that anyone thinks that this is a sound idea that would lead to a better world in the long run. If there is anything that human history has proven, it’s that you cannot prevent corruption and that the centralization of power only further incentivizes corruption.
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    Also, how would one effectively verify that militaries were disarming? History is littered with examples of militaries not actually doing so when they said they would.
- ajmurmann 6y ago
  While I am likewise enthralled by this general idea, it hinges on rule 2 and 3 being executed in practice. My prediction is that that part would either never happen or deteriorate quickly. Instead we'd get strong internal loyalty above all else, as we are seeing with the police in many countries.
- skinkestek 6y ago
  Upvoted but disagree strongly. My feeling is it will be corrupted, and the only thing worse than multiple dangerous governments is one single dangerous government. In fact I'd probably rather have every country introduce 2nd amendment rules than accept this.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  I don't get why you're downvoted, I agree with your idea. It's where we should and must move towards anyway, the time of nations squabbling is over if we want to tackle the crises of the future: climate, water access, food access, poverty, droughts, space exploration, and if they're turning out to be real, dealing with non-terran species. The only open question I have - who decides upon engaging? The UN Security Council which should deal with issues is effectively gridlocked as the Russians and Chinese veto everything. The UN General Assembly isn't that much trustworthy either, given how many countries would vote an instant Yes on the question if Israel should be sanctioned. In the end we need some form of "global democracy" with strong protections of individual rights.