should the UN have a standing army?

Answer 1

YES, then the USA would have a rest for a change!

Answer 2

Un Standing Army

Answer 3

Definitely not.

I'm appaled by some of the lack of knowledge in the answers here though.

The UN was formed in the wake of WWII. It's purpose was collective security. Litteraly, the point was to make war impossible by making it too costly for anyone starting one--an aggressor, in theory, would have to confront the combined might of the entire UN membership.

It was originally conceived as a warmaking body, in teh hopes of not having to make war.

Only twice has the UN actually taken action in keeping with this purpose; Korea in 1950 and Iraq in 1991. In both cases, the jobs were left unfinished and the UN itself was part of the obstacle to closing out those conflicts.

The UN should not have a standing Army. The UN is too big and too inclusive for it to ever be effective anyway as anything mroe than what it has evolved into, an international debating society and an ineffective stumbling block to actual action that would improve the lives of oppressed people in the world.

Answer 4

No. The UN is a group of countries, coming together to help keep the world at peace. Each has control of it's own troops. There should never be a separate UN army.

Answer 5

That was the intention at one time. A force which would be available to carry out peace keeping missions under Chapter Six of the UN Charter and peace enforcement missions under Chapter Seven. Language to do exactly that is contained in Article 45 of the Charter. But, that article is within Chapter Six. A chapter concerned with peace keeping only.
There is also a Military Staff Committee mentioned in Article 47 of the Charter. Again, that article is in the chapter dealing with peace keeping.
Shortly after World War Two the U.S. even went so far as to pass the UN Support Act of 1947. It envisioned placing U.S. troops at the disposal of the Security Council as part of that standing force. Unfortunately, the Cold War got in the way. That Military Staff Committee was supposed to be made up of the heads of the general military staffs of the Five Powers who had permanent seats on the Security Council (U.S., Great Britain, USSR, France and China). But, the normal assignments to that committee have been officers below the rank of even brigadier general. And the U.S. never contributed troops to any peace keeping mission until Bosnia, after the USSR ceased to exist. We have participated in every peace enforcement mission, however, from Korea to the Gulf War of 1991 and the dispatch of troops to Somalia in 1992.
I think the Security Council has recognized how unresponsive the member states of the UN have been to the idea of a standing army. Instead, the Council has conceded its role in this matter to the major powers and the major military alliances.

Answer 6

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
should the UN have a standing army?

Answer 7

Where would they be based at ?

What language would they speak?

Really you can say the UN already has a standing Army.

It is called the Army of Bangladesh.

The largest contributor of Soldiers to UN peace keeping missions over the last 30 years.

Of course they contribute so many soldiers, because they are paid $1,000 US per month, for every soldier they contribute to UN peace keeping missions.

And the UN pays for the housing and provisioning of the soldiers while on peace keeping missions.

Answer 8

No, the U.N. is not a country but a civil International Organization representative of many countries,
the UN military missions are by far the smallest part of the UN missions.

Also how do you propose to base a large Military Force in another country and how would you choose which country the force would be permanently based in without there being accusations of favoritism made.

Answer 9

The UN is not a governmental entity, it is a voluntary collaboration of sovereign nations, any one of which can pull out at any time. They never actually do anything militarily, so why would they have a standing army, and what would it be used for?

Answer 10

No, it doesn't need it and who would pay for it? The UN is only as effective as the loyalty of its members. It can not stand without its members and it while it has member support it can raise the troops needed for its actions.

Answer 11

No ask the people of Rwanda what happens when the UN has control over military forces.