RE: Canada in NAC / India in UN

Adrian spake thusly upon matters weighty: 

> I thought that
> 
> a) the UN recruits directly, kind of like the French Foreign Legion
now...
> maintaing it's own standing forces the same way it maintains it's own
navy,

Seems like what I'd imagine. I imagine they have in-system if not 
on-planet holdings (perhaps the dreaded space habitats...) and 
therefore had a tax base, an industrial base, and a base for 
recruitment. But I bet they also offer UN citizenship to people they 
want to recruit (maybe this comes with better benefits like state of 
the art health tech and a good standard of living) from other nations 
- such as elite forces, administrators, and scientists. 
 
> and 
> 
> b) the Indians were part of the ESU
> 
> Even if they weren't, would the UN like to draw the bulk of it's
forces
> from one contributing nation?  And would the Indians like to be the
bulk
> contributor unless they received complementary power at the Security
> Council (or whatever the equivalent is in 2183+)

I think it would be interesting to branch this discussion out on its 
own - WHO is the security council in 2183? Given the UN has 
pseudo-independence, how does that impact the power of the Security 
council?
 
> Certainly now Canada maintains much of it's "integrity" as a major
> contributor to the UN because of it's independance from US (and UK for
that
> matter) foreign  policy.  When Canada becomes just a part of the NAC
> political entity, we would lose that political independance and
thereby our
> status as sort-of-neutral...

True. Which is an interesting point - what did we get in exchange? 
(That is to say, if we made this sacrifice to help the USA, I'm sure 
we'd have been thrown a bone or two by the Crown). 
 
> If the UN draws much of it's general troop strength from the member
> nations, it would inevitably end up with forces from the big power
blocks -
> so I guess it would have to make sure that the forces it sends to a
given
> area are from nations that aren't part of that fight.  Maybe the UN
sticks
> to drawing troops from "neutral" countries - but then there'd be an
awfull
> lot of Swiss and Dutch troops out there - they'd become a power in
their
> own right by virtue of being involved all the time and the bigger
nations
> might resent that.

I imagine in small ops, small units of UN troops (as opposed to 
UN-organized troops) are actually used. In larger conflicts, the UN 
serves as cadre, command and control, and intelligence and special 
ops capability to larger multi-national forces. The Dutch, the Swiss, 
Mercs of various stripes, and the few other neutrals (maybe the IAS) 
probably contribute many forces to this venture. If the operation 
requires enough firepower, a major power would be asked to 
contribute, but only if it was unaligned in the fight (ie in an 
FSE/ESU conflict, the NAC may act as peacekeepers under UN leadership 
or organization). Vs. threats like the KraVak, everyone would be 
expected to take the UN lead in the fight.  

My 0.04 (since I seem to ramble). 

Tom.  
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay		     
Voice: (613) 831-2018 x 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255

 "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot.  C++ makes
 it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
 -Bjarne Stroustrup
**************************************************/