Prev: Re: [FH] About the UN again (sorry Beast) Next: Re: [FH] About the UN again (sorry Beast)

Re: [FH] About the UN again (sorry Beast)

From: Derek Fulton <derekfulton@b...>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 12:22:47 +1000
Subject: Re: [FH] About the UN again (sorry Beast)

At 09:59  20/07/01 -0400, Ryan wrote:
>Well, I don't know about you, but the UN multinational force in Korea 
>certainly wasn't ignored. I would envision that typically the UN
>the No Combat in the Core worlds and otherwise stays the hell out of
>nations business unless called in by more than one or two.

Korea was more a clash of ideologies, communists verse the 'free world'
only happened because America was prepared to involve itself in the
fight'. If America hadn't shown any (self-)interest the UN flagged force

would have been at best a non-event, at worst a disaster.

Take East Timor to name one example, the American government virtually 
approved of Indonesia's invasion and annexation of that small country
the 70's) because there were no competing American interests regardless
the fact the invasion was a continuation of Indonesia's previous 
government's policies when that country could have been considered 
'pro-communist'  because it was receiving military support for the

Please note the Australian government of the day and their successors 
followed the American lead, so Australian's really have nothing to feel 
proud about either.

This is the prime difference between the UN of reality and the UN of the

GZG-verse (IMHO) the UN has it's own military and so it is not subject
the same degree to the whims of it's member states.

In order to keep the UNSC free from the interference of other nations,
personal would need to be loyal to the UN <The 'myth' of the NAC officer

stealing the plans for the pulse torpedo springs to mind :) > and they 
and  their dependents would need somewhere safe to live.

>The mandate is nothing outside the Core Worlds. The timeline
>states that. How could they establish power projection bases outside
>core worlds when they aren't supposed to?

The mandate is to maintain peace within the core but that doesn't mean
UNSC stops at the core, once again the survey cruisers are evidence of 
that. Smaller less capable nations could also sign assistance treaties
the UN, just like they would with any other nation state.

Further more as a nation state the UN is perfectly within it's rights to

claim some of the worlds it is surveying for itself. This would allow
UN to collect resources to build and maintain the UNSC, build bases to 
support further exploration of space on humanity's behalf, and have 
somewhere for the UN citizens to live.

>Then why the limit on power?

What limit are you referring to?


Derek Fulton
12 Balaka st.
Rosny, Hobart.
Tasmania,  7018.

Phone; (03) 62459123
Mobile; 0438459123

Prev: Re: [FH] About the UN again (sorry Beast) Next: Re: [FH] About the UN again (sorry Beast)