....of the security council (by majority voting) is not met within the deadline, the offending country is promply nuked to dust along with all within?
2007-01-30 13:55:28 · 22 answers · asked by K. Marx iii 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I only propose it as been mentioned, I wanna be the UN PRESIDENT.
2007-01-30 14:36:04 · update #1
Good Idea. There will be no messing about then.
2007-02-02 06:59:21 · answer #1 · answered by k Marx ii 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Wow. Are you actually serious? What you suggest sounds like a recipe for disaster. There is no way that all nuclear weapons should be put under a single jurisdiction, as how could there be the brake on possible nuclear war without the threat of mutually assured destruction? All that would happen is that a single nation or organisation - be that the US, Iran, China, France, the UK, some multinational or other, or anyone else - would somehow secure control of the UN and all weapons. This nation or organisation would then be able to strike out with relative impunity.
As for the UN stifling US military action (as complained about in previous answers), frankly given the belligerent nature of US foreign policy I'm genuinely concerned that the UN doesn't have a lot more help from the international community!
2007-01-30 14:25:50 · answer #2 · answered by Batho 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I'm sorry that's a rather bad idea, The UN is turning into the League of Nations all over again, it does have a lot more feasibility then the previous attempt but they really can't figure out what they do, I mean if they allowed to be stopped in international nuclear inspections for no good reason... I don't know if I want to trust them...
2007-01-30 14:05:29 · answer #3 · answered by Andrew L 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are out of your mind!!!!!!!!! Why put them under UN control??? So they can be sold to the highest bidder? Very foolish. The USA cannot ever trust the UN. The UN always undermines the US and is a constant source of hindrance for us. The UN's main mission is to tear America down, while forcing us to pay the bill for the rest of the world. Given the fact that the security council is comprised of mainly Anti-American countries, we can't allow them to have control over our arsenal turned over to a corrupt organization.
My vote is for the United States to resign from the UN, and move it out of my beloved country. Send it to France or the Hague.
And the UN Doesn't have a President...it has a Secretary General. Why do you make such suggestions without a grasp of fact or reality?
2007-01-30 13:59:36 · answer #4 · answered by FRANKFUSS 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Sounds like you've read the Left Behind book series. That's pretty much how it goes. The anti-christ becomes head of the UN, and then convinces all nations to turn over their arms (nuclear and otherwise) to the UN. He re-names the UN the "global community" and then wages war on nations that don't follow his orders using their own weapons against them. Of course Great Britain and the US get nuked first...
How do I feel about one power having absolute power? Well, as they say; "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Bad idea...
2007-01-30 14:07:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
You must realise that U.N. is like saying E.U. as there is very little difference in the outcome. The E.U. have wrecked our English way of life to the point where its going to be very difficult , if at all possible to recover. You are now suggesting the same corrupt mafia minded criminals take over our entire defence system. I would not trust any of them to run a whist drive at the local pensioners club. You must be very young to even think of that suggestion, as for posting it , well it shows what little experience or research you have done. I am sorry but If I were you I would think twice before you post your next question.
2007-01-30 15:33:01 · answer #6 · answered by wisernow 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You would give the power of nukes to one of the most corrupt organisation that has ever existed. The oil for food scandal cost more money then any government or private scandal in history. UN troops are notorious for their incompetence's and their taste for little girls.
Who would you propose would wrestle the nukes away from the UK, USA and China?
I do not see that as the solution to world peace.
2007-01-30 15:14:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Let's see. Then if the UN decides to nuke someone they basically have no response. I'll pass. Why not let the nuclear powers target the nuclear upstarts with ICBM's and if a suitcase bomb goes off. We launch and blow them away, without a security council meeting.
2007-01-30 14:01:56 · answer #8 · answered by Roadkill 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This may not be the worst idea I have ever heard, but it certainly come close. The UN is hopelessly corrupt. I wouldn't trust them with a pea shooter much less all the worlds nukes.
2007-01-30 14:01:14 · answer #9 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Avoiding this question, I pose a new question: why does any country need nuclear weapons? However, I know I'd be lying to myself if that was the current attitude towards nuclear weapons.
A hip-hip-horray for World Peace!
Now answering your question, why do you feel any ONE country should control ALL nuclear weapons? A little extreme, don't you think?
2007-01-30 15:11:22 · answer #10 · answered by kimusic19 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
the present nuclear weapons holder countries don`t want that others try to get it. but the reality is that more and more countries will be able to get it. UN has nothing to do but used as a condom for top 5 nations. so our future is very bright "BOOM".
2007-01-30 14:31:52 · answer #11 · answered by Difi 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋