United Nations

[southsider2k5]

This isn't true at all.

 

There has been one instance of conflict between great powers since 1946. Before the UN there was the Russo-Japanese War, World War 1, World War 2 and plenty others. The UN has been extremely effective at preserving world peace, it's actually exceeded any realistic expectations they could've had at it's inception.

 

So if they get credit for preventing all of the wars, do they get credit for all of the genocides they didn't prevent or just flat out ignored?

[Texsox]

Given the two extremes in choices, I selected the good. Having a world forum seems almost like a necessity to me. Although I sometimes wonder if Coke, McDonalds, and Nike are better avenues for dialog between nations.

 

Could it be better? Of course. After all it is a man made creation and man has never created or maintained anything perfectly. Maybe I set my standards for mankind too low, but to point to some corruption, on a global scale, and use it as a reason to throw out the entire entity, seems extreme to me.

[lostfan]

So if they get credit for preventing all of the wars, do they get credit for all of the genocides they didn't prevent or just flat out ignored?

The UN doesn't really have the power to do things like that especially if the non-US member nations aren't willing to do anything about it. The UN really is just a forum for diplomacy, I don't think anyone is or should be under the illusion that they have the same amount of authority that a sovereign government would in its own territory.

[southsider2k5]

The UN doesn't really have the power to do things like that especially if the non-US member nations aren't willing to do anything about it. The UN really is just a forum for diplomacy, I don't think anyone is or should be under the illusion that they have the same amount of authority that a sovereign government would in its own territory.

 

I understand how the UN functions. I just don't think it is fair to be able to give them credit for intervening to stop things, but not to give them credit for when they don't, or won't.

[lostfan]

I understand how the UN functions. I just don't think it is fair to be able to give them credit for intervening to stop things, but not to give them credit for when they don't, or won't.

Agreed, but I think truth be told is that people around the world tend to talk about doing things a lot about genocide and whatnot, but when it comes down to it, their actions show they don't really care, or that they can't really do anything (example: the "Free Tibet" movement). So the UN really only matters to the various world powers.

[Texsox]

I understand how the UN functions. I just don't think it is fair to be able to give them credit for intervening to stop things, but not to give them credit for when they don't, or won't.

 

Given those two choices, I would prefer we give them credit, and blame. Protecting the right to life of those that cannot protect themselves should be job #1 of every nation that can do something, and the UN by extension.

[southsider2k5]

I'll be honest, I won't really classify the UN as either option. I would go more with "Bloated and ineffective bureaucracy". They have some useful things, but nothing that couldn't be duplicated pretty easily and more effectively by some of the international aid companies if they had the budget to do so. I don't see the UN as being worth much on the world political stage, but their humanitarian work is very valuable in general. I really do believe a group like Red Cross/Cressent could do better if they had a fraction of the funding that the UN has.

[Texsox]

I'll be honest, I won't really classify the UN as either option. I would go more with "Bloated and ineffective bureaucracy". They have some useful things, but nothing that couldn't be duplicated pretty easily and more effectively by some of the international aid companies if they had the budget to do so. I don't see the UN as being worth much on the world political stage, but their humanitarian work is very valuable in general. I really do believe a group like Red Cross/Cressent could do better if they had a fraction of the funding that the UN has.

 

Until they become bloated as well. The tough part is keeping to a focus and a mission. Humans always seem to keep adding to things until they become too bloated to work.

[EvilMonkey]

Until they become bloated as well. The tough part is keeping to a focus and a mission. Humans always seem to keep adding to things until they become too bloated to work.

It would be more the 'mission creep' that would do them in instead of the size. The UN tries to do too many things, and act as if they are above all reproach, which is what does them in. Criminals will find the darkness to hide in, and in the closed 'community' of the UN, with no outside oversite, anything can, and usually does, happen.

[DukeNukeEm]

Who really runs the world? It's not the UN, or any one "country".

Anarchy. It's the nature of Int'l Relations.

[DukeNukeEm]

A post by mr genius

You wont let go of mutually assured destruction as being the primary reason for the lack of conflict in the post-war era, because that's pretty much what all your points are reverting back to.

 

Mutually assured destruction relies on the belief that the costs of modern war will never outweigh the benefits, and that great powers will never engage each other because of that fact. Well it is probably true that modern war is never economical, that was not a reason to avoid conflict in the 20th century. World War 1 ravaged Europe, every country on the continent was put into unfathomable debt and went through unprecedented human suffering. They called it the war to end all wars for a reason. So why was World War 2 allowed to occur? Shouldn't the destruction of WW1 been enough to prevent any other conflict especially if mutually assured destruction is actually applicable in international relations?

 

World War 2 started because of war debts not being forgiven between the United States and European nations, in particular France. Part of this was due to the lack of any forum for France to make it's case as the United States backed out of the League of Nations. After the US refused to ignore the war debts of France, France cranked up pressure on the Germans for reparations and it led to a global economic collapse that was completely unprecedented. Germany nor France could appeal to the United States for relief due to the absence of the US at the League of Nations. International Relations 101: When modern countries are reduced to nothing and are ignored in the international system the likelihood of irrational behavior by that country increases exponentially. America was naughty, isolationist and selfish... so we got Hitler in our stocking for Christmas.

 

There is a common misconception that globalization is inevitable when in fact it's a product of policy decisions being made by individual nations to stimulate economic growth. For instance you can't be against the UN and for MNC's, that's a glaring contradiction. You're only concerned with the economic aspect of globalization under a ridiculous notion that economics and diplomacy are two separate arenas of the international system. You might have been able to make the argument you are trying to make in 1922, but World War 2 proved everything you are saying completely wrong. Isolationism doesn't work anymore, the last time we were dumb enough to try it we caused the worst economic collapse and deadliest war in human history.

[Soxbadger]

Mutually assured destruction relies on the belief that the costs of modern war will never outweigh the benefits, and that great powers will never engage each other because of that fact.

 

I like your tenacity, but that is not what MAD was.

 

MAD was the idea that if either the USA or USSR attacked, that because they had such large nuclear arsenals they could ensure the destruction of all of the people in the attacking country.

 

WWI and WWII are irrelevant as prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki the atomic weapon had never been used.

 

Shouldn't the destruction of WW1 been enough to prevent any other conflict especially if mutually assured destruction is actually applicable in international relations?

 

No because after World War I countries went to defense systems like the Maginot Line, they did not start a nuclear arms race where 2 countries could single handedly annihilate the world.

 

If you want to see more on this subject I suggest the movie: "War Games" with Matthew Broderick.

 

Historically speaking there is no comparison to MAD as no country outside of the USSR or USA have ever been capable of completely wiping another country off the face of the map in hours.

 

"I have become death, the destroyer of worlds."

 

Nuclear weapons have entirely changed world warfare, that is why post WWII is devoid of major wars.

 

Its not because some league of extraordinary gentlemen sit around a table and act like they care about the world (if they did that there wouldnt be permanent security council members who can effectively veto everything, ie USA/USSR were above the law). Its because the USA and USSR could basically destroy the world.

 

Look at the Cuban missile crisis, was it the UN that stopped USSR from setting up nukes in Cuba?

 

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1962-cuba-un1.html

 

Best line right here:

 

The Government of the Soviet Union has authorized Tass to state, further, that the Soviet Union does not need to transfer to any other country, such as Cuba, its existing means for. the repelling of aggression arid the delivering of a retaliatory blow. The explosive force of our nuclear resources is so great, and the Soviet Union has such powerful rockets for the delivery of these nuclear charges, that there is no need to seek places for their installation anywhere outside the borders of the Soviet Union.

 

Why would USSR put nukes in Cuba, USSR already has enough nukes to kill you all if you attack first!

 

What a great argument from the Soviets.

[lostfan]

Stevenson's presentation before the Security Council where he pwned the Soviet ambassador was a major propaganda victory for the US, although that was mostly cosmetic... the main factor in that (from the U.S. side) was first of all the indisputable evidence that the missiles were there from intelligence gathering, and then Kennedy's leadership. They made their case before the UN so the world saw who was right and wrong though.

[kapkomet]

World War 2 started because of war debts not being forgiven between the United States and European nations, in particular France. Part of this was due to the lack of any forum for France to make it's case as the United States backed out of the League of Nations. After the US refused to ignore the war debts of France, France cranked up pressure on the Germans for reparations and it led to a global economic collapse that was completely unprecedented. Germany nor France could appeal to the United States for relief due to the absence of the US at the League of Nations. International Relations 101: When modern countries are reduced to nothing and are ignored in the international system the likelihood of irrational behavior by that country increases exponentially. America was naughty, isolationist and selfish... so we got Hitler in our stocking for Christmas.

World War II was going to start regardless of what you say here - the war was accelarated only in part (I say a small part) because of this.

 

I know that you're trying to tie in the fact that the US nationalism (isolationism) was the main reason for the war and subsequent economic collapse of Europe, but that's not exactly what happened, if I recall my history correct. The League of Nations wasn't for the types of "greviences" you're listing, at least (again) if I remember right. And I might not.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

You wont let go of mutually assured destruction as being the primary reason for the lack of conflict in the post-war era, because that's pretty much what all your points are reverting back to.

 

Mutually assured destruction relies on the belief that the costs of modern war will never outweigh the benefits, and that great powers will never engage each other because of that fact. Well it is probably true that modern war is never economical, that was not a reason to avoid conflict in the 20th century. World War 1 ravaged Europe, every country on the continent was put into unfathomable debt and went through unprecedented human suffering. They called it the war to end all wars for a reason. So why was World War 2 allowed to occur? Shouldn't the destruction of WW1 been enough to prevent any other conflict especially if mutually assured destruction is actually applicable in international relations?

 

World War 2 started because of war debts not being forgiven between the United States and European nations, in particular France. Part of this was due to the lack of any forum for France to make it's case as the United States backed out of the League of Nations. After the US refused to ignore the war debts of France, France cranked up pressure on the Germans for reparations and it led to a global economic collapse that was completely unprecedented. Germany nor France could appeal to the United States for relief due to the absence of the US at the League of Nations. International Relations 101: When modern countries are reduced to nothing and are ignored in the international system the likelihood of irrational behavior by that country increases exponentially. America was naughty, isolationist and selfish... so we got Hitler in our stocking for Christmas.

 

There is a common misconception that globalization is inevitable when in fact it's a product of policy decisions being made by individual nations to stimulate economic growth. For instance you can't be against the UN and for MNC's, that's a glaring contradiction. You're only concerned with the economic aspect of globalization under a ridiculous notion that economics and diplomacy are two separate arenas of the international system. You might have been able to make the argument you are trying to make in 1922, but World War 2 proved everything you are saying completely wrong. Isolationism doesn't work anymore, the last time we were dumb enough to try it we caused the worst economic collapse and deadliest war in human history.

The bolded above is an incredible stretch. You point to one factor, and not even one of the biggest ones, not to mention something multiple layers indirect as the cause of WWII. It also indicates you believe that the US started WWII?

 

And you need to be careful with posts like yours earlier, saying that people should read a book. The forum is full of some very well-read and well-informed people. And frankly, looking at the 2A thread, I saw a bunch of people making much more well read arguments than you provided. But you see, its all subjective, isn't it? Just don't make the assumption that people who disagree with you are ignorant, which is what you implied. Please take more care with your posts.

 

[lostfan]

He is not that far off about the debt as a big factor though. Germany really kind of got shafted after WWI and everyone wanted to make them pay. IIRC (and I might not be) Wilson tried to talk them out of that and they weren't having it.

[DukeNukeEm]

I like your tenacity, but that is not what MAD was.

 

MAD was the idea that if either the USA or USSR attacked, that because they had such large nuclear arsenals they could ensure the destruction of all of the people in the attacking country.

 

WWI and WWII are irrelevant as prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki the atomic weapon had never been used.

The principles are identical, it's just a mushroom cloud is more dramatic. Conventional warfare can be equally devastating to the world as nuclear war, nukes were not used in World War 1 but it still caused the Great Depression. Even World War 2 had no consequences as far-reaching a global economic collapse, with or without the atomic bombs.

 

No because after World War I countries went to defense systems like the Maginot Line, they did not start a nuclear arms race where 2 countries could single handedly annihilate the world.

The Maginot Line is actually a terrific metaphor for the way states interacted in the interwar period. Globalization was still very young and while countries were very eager to reap the benefits of a global economy they had reservations about sacrificing domestic gain for global welfare. Consequently after World War 1 when debt was piled onto every country involved except the United States countries became very withdrawn and discriminating when it came to trade partners. The Maginot Line is probably the least important of the barriers that I'm referring to, think tariffs that made it difficult for European countries to trade with the United States to help repay their debt.

 

If you want to see more on this subject I suggest the movie: "War Games" with Matthew Broderick.

I dont use Hollywood to formulate thoughts on this topic. My major is international relations, I play on going to Grad school for it.

 

Historically speaking there is no comparison to MAD as no country outside of the USSR or USA have ever been capable of completely wiping another country off the face of the map in hours.

But the US and USSR never had any reason to wipe each other the map, and the institutions like the UNSC ensured that regional conflicts like Afghanistan, Vietnam and Korea would not escalate into a global war between superpowers.

 

Nuclear weapons have entirely changed world warfare, that is why post WWII is devoid of major wars.

 

Its not because some league of extraordinary gentlemen sit around a table and act like they care about the world (if they did that there wouldnt be permanent security council members who can effectively veto everything, ie USA/USSR were above the law). Its because the USA and USSR could basically destroy the world.

There was a war between great powers since WW2: China and the United States in Korea. McArthur went crazy and wanted to invade China and Truman had to fire him...

 

[DukeNukeEm]

World War 2 started for a lot of reasons. Probably #1 is the global balance of power was shifting. The formation of the German Confederation in the 1800's and German victory in the Franco-Prussian war which brought about this massive swing in the balance of power in Europe. In Asia Japan had beaten Russia in a war around the turn of the century but was still treated much like a 2nd class country.

 

Lots of things contributed to what made the conflict so large, and most of it is the economic sanctions in the interwar period. Germany resorted to a man they didn't fully understand in Hitler and Japan was forced into acquiring resources through force in the Pacific because of trade impediments. A global economic collapse led to a global war, I hardly see that as a stretch.

Edited January 20, 2009 by DukeNukeEm

[lostfan]

I dont use Hollywood to formulate thoughts on this topic. My major is international relations, I play on going to Grad school for it.

lol, god you're arrogant, you put me to shame in that category.

[DukeNukeEm]

lol, god you're arrogant, you put me to shame in that category.

I think it's pretty absurd to suggest I watch a Matthew Broderick movie to learn more about this. Maybe if I wanted to learn something new about dog racing I could watch a dog racing movie... but I mean come on it's pretty bogus to expect Hollywood to teach anything worthwhile on politics.

 

A great film for those looking to understand that big election thing everyone is talking about!

Edited January 20, 2009 by DukeNukeEm

[Soxbadger]

There was a war between great powers since WW2: China and the United States in Korea. McArthur went crazy and wanted to invade China and Truman had to fire him...

 

You really need to check your ego at the door. I understand that youre a freshman in college and you think you know everything, but you have to realize that there are people on this board who already have graduate degrees.

 

China's first nuclear test was 1964 and did not develop H-Bomb until 1967.

 

Korean war (as Im sure you will learn in a very expensive graduate school) ended prior to 1960.

 

How could China threaten MAD without nuclear weapons?

 

The principles are identical, it's just a mushroom cloud is more dramatic. Conventional warfare can be equally devastating to the world as nuclear war, nukes were not used in World War 1 but it still caused the Great Depression. Even World War 2 had no consequences as far-reaching a global economic collapse, with or without the atomic bombs.

 

No the they are not identical.

 

In the scenario of MAD you are talking about entire countries being destroyed in hours. The death tolls would have been in the hundreds of millions instantly.

 

Do you not see the difference of USSR and USA having thousands of nuclear war heads, compared to China not having any?

 

(Edit)

 

Oh the movie comment was more about your ego than the fact you should learn from a movie.

 

You think people are impressed that youre going to get a degree in international relations and are going to grad school. Its cool and all but you really dont need to say it in every other post, or insinuate people need to read books. There are plenty of people on here with impressive resumes.

Edited January 20, 2009 by Soxbadger

[bmags]

do not knock on swing vote. Ban him.

[DukeNukeEm]

You really need to check your ego at the door. I understand that youre a freshman in college and you think you know everything, but you have to realize that there are people on this board who already have graduate degrees.

 

China's first nuclear test was 1964 and did not develop H-Bomb until 1967.

 

Korean war (as Im sure you will learn in a very expensive graduate school) ended prior to 1960.

 

How could China threaten MAD without nuclear weapons?

But I'm totally not a freshman! WIN!

 

Unlike former colonies (Korea, Vietnam) or countries so poor there's barely a currency (Afghanistan) China was definitely worth the Soviets getting really angry about. A war between the US and China could easily have escalated into a nuclear war. Before you mention that little island south of Florida, the Cuban Missile Crisis got bad because the United States didn't know the Soviets had warheads on the island and we way overestimated our leverage.

No the they are not identical.

 

In the scenario of MAD you are talking about entire countries being destroyed in hours. The death tolls would have been in the hundreds of millions instantly.

 

Do you not see the difference of USSR and USA having thousands of nuclear war heads, compared to China not having any?

The same way states are reluctant to get into convention wars (typically) they are scared to launch ICBM's at each other. Reasonable countries dont like war in general regardless of whether nukes are involved.

[lostfan]

[DukeNukeEm]

Oh the movie comment was more about your ego than the fact you should learn from a movie.

 

You think people are impressed that youre going to get a degree in international relations and are going to grad school. Its cool and all but you really dont need to say it in every other post, or insinuate people need to read books. There are plenty of people on here with impressive resumes.

Honestly not trying to make an issue of it, but it's f***ing insulting to say I should watch a Hollywood movie to learn something. Call me arrogant or one of those pesky "know it all college kids" but there are certain things I really dont like. I mean really, dont correct somebody with wrong information after a quick glimpse of the Wikipedia page on the UN.

Edited January 20, 2009 by DukeNukeEm