EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
2214

That the United Nations should have a standing military force

(PRO)
0 points
(CON)
WINNER!
0 points
S.H.S.H. (PRO)

I stand in firm affirmation for the resolution which states:That the United Nations should have a standing military force, for the following three reasons:

  

1. The world needs a non-unilateral force in the military

  

2. American opportunity

  

3. The possibility to aid or prevent future war

  

  

  

First of all, the world needs a non-unilateral military force. In the case that this should exist we have the ability to stand against or for world conflicts as necessary. “I know not what weapons world war three will be fought with, but I know that world war four will be fought with sticks and stones” – Albert Einstein. We have to analyze this quote in order for this debate to go anywhere, so with that I set these parameters. Unless my opposition is able to conclude that a world war is inevitable and we can’t prevent it, then their arguments cannot stand. With Einstein bringing this incredible revelation to our attention we need to pay close attention. This force for good would enable us to stand against the horrors of war and determine not who wins, but who is left, for this is what war does, and this force would enable more to live.

Second of all, this resolution presents American opportunity. We lead the world in military spending, where we spend more than the next twenty six nations combined, twenty five of whom are allies. In order to exercise American influence over the world we need to have more leadership, and this resolution would allow for that. We would be leading the charge into this resolution which would not only benefit our social stance, but our economies and the safety of our communities.  This debate must stress that America needs opportunity. With overwhelming debts and rates of unemployed, this resolution offer jobs and action, and with this action comes scientific advancement, which in turn results in a scientific movement to advance America individually, economically, and influentially.

Third of all and in connection to my first contention, we would have the ability to be a force for good. We could aid our allies and if France goes to war and has twenty five nations guaranteed to be backing them, the war would be slowed or stopped, because no nation is able to take on that much force. As it applies to our allies in offense, it would also apply in defense. No nation with a desire to live would wage war on our large powers, giving us the opportunity to better develop agriculture and our political influence, allowing the world as a whole to develop in future decades of peace. Many historians are of the belief that the Second World War could have ended before it got so massive if there had been more rallying action. Imagine if you will that the entire United Nations is rallying against Hitler and his oppression. Imagine essentially, a title wave going to drown a puddle.  Unfortunately the casualties of war are immensely catastrophic and many nations bear the scars of these tragedies.  We have an opportunity to rally and prepare for oncoming tides; because, as Mark Twain believed, “History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” We may not expect genocide, but with the crisis in the Ukraine and the conflict in the Middle East, we need to be prepared.


Return To Top | Posted:
2014-12-18 01:59:08
| Speak Round
adminadmin (CON)
I'd like to thank my opponent for opening their case.

Prevent War
This is what point 1 boils down to. Einstein did not say a UN force could stop all wars, and even if he did, being brilliant at physics does not make you brilliant at politics. Appeals to authority aside, this is all my opponent said to justify the contention.

The UN currently already has peacekeepers available that it can and does deploy. The difference is that under the status quo the UN gets military resources for a specific reason. This means there is no personal army available at the whim of the UN, for no reason. When nations like Rwanda routinely serve on the security council and have abused it in the past to prevent international interference while they commit genocide, it's easy to see how a private army available to the security council could also be abused. Pro must defend a UN army even when the UN has no reason to keep one.

There are other pragmatic problems. What if soldiers of the army have mixed loyalties, or have to keep peace while their own country goes to war? Could the international recruitment mechanism be abused for people smuggling? Who would train them, and would that create potential for more conflict? Who'd sell the UN arms, and would that nation not have a vested interest in being able to disable them?

A much better model for creating peace is not through more arms. Military intervention does not create conditions for long-lasting peace because people don't like guns being pointed around, be that by peacekeepers or invading forces. It tends to threaten stability generally.

American Opportunity
There are 192 UN member states that are NOT the USA. The considerations of the many must trump those of the few, Americans in this case.

If America is looking to offload its debts on to all the other countries of the world, and still expect to fulfill American goals, I see no reason why other nations ought to support that. A far better idea is simply for America to change their foreign policy and stop policing the world. If anything this motion sells Americans a false mindset that got them into this situation in the first place.

Win Wars
My opponent's third point is incompatible with his first and second. Even so, the UN exists specifically to prevent exactly this. It's not an extension of the American government that they can use to deploy troops (or get treaties, or anything else for that matter) whenever and wherever they feel like it. It's a set of assemblies for international co-operation. The point where the UN fights wars (as opposed to keeping peace) is the point where the UN is no longer about co-operation.

One cannot also assume that America, say, will always be the "good guys" in every conflict. Diplomacy is never that simple. There's also no reason why a "Hitler" could not rise to power in America, or any democracy (or, for that matter, within the UN itself).

Finally, this resolution does not necessarily mean more troops or more military resources. It simply means that the UN has a standing military force. That might mean less people enlist in the US army, say, and they join the UN forces instead. The world has scarce resources, and armies are no exceptions.

World Government = Bad
Giving the UN any ability to enforce its decisions with an army at the helm upon any nation it pleases effectively turns the UN into a global government. None of the assemblies are elected and they each tend to be controlled by a smaller number of nations. It undermines every government in the world's sovereign right to self determination and is, if anything, just another point of division.

If the UN is not powerful enough to form a world government to enforce their will, they will not be able to prevent war either. There's only really one case where mutually-assured-destruction theory worked - the cold war - and there both nations had huge nuclear arsenals. If this is not held by the UN, then arms will simply not keep peace.

The resolution is negated.

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-12-18 03:17:56
| Speak Round
Cross-Examination
admin: If the UN has a standing army, do you think nations would be just as likely to send peacekeepers as under the status quo, or would they expect the UN to just send their own forces?
S.H.: They would send peace keepers in order to maintain diplomacy over all-out violence.
admin: Given this, why would the UN require a standing army to keep peace?

Return To Top | Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
adminadmin
You don't need to ask, it's totally optional :)
Posted 2014-12-18 12:22:56
S.H.S.H.
Sorry, do I need to ask a question, i assume so, but thought I should check
Posted 2014-12-18 06:02:04
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

There are no judgements yet on this debate.

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 2 rounds
  • 4000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • Uses cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Unrated debate
  • Time to post: 2 days
  • Time to vote: 1 month
  • Time to prepare: 12 hours
This is a random challenge. See the general rules for random challenges at http://www.edeb8.com/resources/General+rules+for+random+debates+%28version+2%29