Vexen Crabtree 2015

vexen

Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Donnie Darko
vexen

For an International Military Force

New page: "For an International Military Force" by Vexen Crabtree (2007)

A permanent international military force with its own international training camps, above the control of any particular government, can bring unprecedented world peace in the same way that fifty years of the European community has ended war between its members: war between countries such as China and Japan will become as unlikely as a new war between France and the UK. It will be paid for by national governments who then need to spend less on defence. Economies of scale then mean that the world as a whole spends less on defence. Uniforce would be answerable to a board of national defence politicians. The funding of Uniforce will be capped so that no particular nation can exert undue influence. An international force cannot be used for unilateral purposes because its men and officers would naturally refuse to perform such a role. National forces can concentrate solely on defence. If all countries concentrated on defence, warmongering would be much less successful because national assets would not be conducive to it. Rogue states would understand for all time that unilateral arms races are over; the international military force could not be matched by individual national armies.

Full text and arguments:

"Uniforce: An International Military Force" by Vexen Crabtree (2007)

  • 1
No country with a top end millertary would ever commit to being part of such. The super powers would mostly stay out. and preasure the smaller countries within the uniforce group in to continual inaction. Nations would also not give up power over the force to a board that did not include them. many would not get involved unless they had a veto. At the very least it would be demanded by most nations that no action be taken uless a huge majority agreed to action. No action would ever be taken even when justified.

Let us look at an exsample of national millertaries pooling thier resorces. Naito is run by the bigygest economic power within the group. When the soverin terrotory of a member of that group was invaded by a country that was possibly a useful political allie to the most powerful member naito contary to the very point of it's exsistance did. Fortunatly we were able to take back the fauklands on our own and the people of port stanly probably had a lucky break that we did.

In short you could not creat a force in this way that would ever react to miss behavior by the countries likely to stay out of it. Further more "Rouge Leaders" could run tyranical governments causing as much suffering to thier people as they like with total certianty that no action would ever be taken.

This may be a worse position than we are already in.

I agree with this argument... it would seem to be the culmination of the tendency for peaceful neighbouring states to consolidate and co-operate. In fact it's really the only safe, stable way for us to continue to live together while owning doomsday devices and modern military technology, given that we as a species are unlikely to become universally pacifist any time soon.

There would certainly be inefficiency and corruption involved in running any organisation on that scale with all the checks and balances that would be required. However, I think the greater overall efficiency and robustness of the system would surely compensate for that. There's also the problem of tyranny and abuse of power.. but as long as its mandate stays relatively limited (but not strangled) and it's subject to enough oversight, then any one element that becomes corrupt can be checked and controlled by the others.

Whether this could be achieved at the moment, especially politically, is another issue! Food for thought, though. It's refreshing to see some clear writing on the issue.

Countries desire for military action often depends upon their individual ties to the regime/country that is the target. Different countries wanted to stay out of Iraq/Afghanistan for different reasons, for example. I can't see individual countries giving up having a veto as to where there troops are sent.

So for any giving instance, you'd probably end up with some countries saying their troops/equipment cannot be used. This would result in the force needing to be larger than necessary and being flexible enough to operate without x number of countries' troops. Structure and training would have to be performed with this in mind.

The command of the force would be another issue. How many countries' votes would it take to initialise an action? Would large/important contributors get more of a say (or those with a greater population.) Would China's 10,000 troops and 1.3 billion people have more of a say than singapore's 150 MPs and 4.4 Million people? Would Taiwan/Israel/Cuba be able to contribute troops?

Where would HQ's, infrastructure, airbases be placed/used from... would the scope of a conflict mean that some of these would be unavailable for use?

I believe that these questions make a EU-wide military force difficult/of limited use, except in the most extreme of circumstances, a worldwide one is probably impractable at this time.


Uniforce

(Anonymous)
Ahh ... a "one world" miltary force. You need to read the "Left Behind" book series by Tim LaHaye. You are pushing for what was written in that book. Only the "one world" military works for the World Ruler, Anti-Christ ... the leader of the "one world" concept. As you can see, you are pushing for what God has already foretold to us in the Bible. We are marching right toward the end of the world. And see how easily you would be sold on the "idea" already. You are ripe for the coming of the Anti-Christ who, when he first comes on the world scene, "promises" world peace, but his only intention is for the world to "worship" him and, either you will end up doing it voluntarily or by "force." :>:>

Er, now you've confused me...

I could *swear* that it's the Christians who want the second coming to occur, and its us Earthly-bound evil folk that want to stop it? If I am arguing to bring it about, surely you should be sounding more positive, assuming you actually do want the reign of Christ?

Actually, maybe it's you whos confused...

Re: Uniforce

(Anonymous)
Not confused at all. I was simply pointing out that the Bible is God's absolute truth. He tells us what is coming and the end of the story. Also, that you, and those who are "lost" would be easily decieved by the Anti-Christ because everyone wants "peace." Us Chrisitans want peace too; however, we know the only way that happens is when Jesus comes back. For He is the prince of peace. I'm just pointing out that what you are talking about lines up with Bible prophesy. It is you who is confused, but you would not be if you were "born again."

I know you're religious and all, but this isn't the place. This is for discussion of an international military force, not for your paranoid delusions about the end of the world. Some points:

(1) It makes no sense that God would write a book, especially, write one in an obscure ancient language knowing full well it would be translated and mistranslated, and then redefined and reinterpreted out-of-context and in different cultures. What a rubbish method of communication. God, if it wanted people to know things, would simply tell everyone straight into their heads. No errors, no translations required, no obscurity or ambiguuity, and no people getting confused over the meaning.

(2) I have no idea why you're suddenly talking about the Antichrist. If the coming of Christ is good, then, the Antichrist wants to STOP it happening, and will therefore try to stop a one-world government.

(3) The Bible prophesy against one-world governments was directed at the Roman empire. It has been used to predict the end of the world since the founding of the League of Nations, and then the United Nations... it gets very boring (and unbelievable) to hear yet-more predicitons of the end of world after so many previous ones have turned out to be wrong.

A poor use of resources and time

(Anonymous)
Rather than waste time and resources trying to create such a force wouldn't time be better spent on trying to remove the conditions that create conflict? I believe so.

Plus countries like to spend lots on defence, so as to subsidise there own economies.

Kieran, ex-eData minion

Re: A poor use of resources and time

I'm pleased you bring this up...

I do of course completely agree BUT... until such a time when mass education and reasonable governance become the norm,large-scale armed conflicts will continue. Sometimes even, the governments invovled are the ones to blame.

An international force is required to help out in these situations, and as prototypes such as the African Union military force have shown, early intervention can sometimes be completely effective in stopping conflicts from escalating. So on these grounds it is worth having an International Military Force.

But also;

Poverty and Arms Races are two major causes of war. Both are reduced by having an International Military Force. Poverty is reduced because (1) individual countries will learn they don't need to build their own extensive armies and naturally (2) arms races are reduced for the same reason.

Therefore, an International Military Force DOES remove some of the causes of conflict.



(And... hi Kieran, good to hear from you! Simon also emailed me!)

the new world order

(Anonymous)
I assume the one world government idea is practical in one sense, however
the kkk and the cfr work to together with the 33 1/3 degree european
masons who formed the UN want this police force in the support of white supremacy. i believe your support or a U.N. government contradicts you supposed ideal against racism, and out and out bigotry altogether. Also
the conglomeration of power within the hands of a few people on a grand scale would only lead to a despotism which no one could escape the power of without destroying the human race altogether.

Re: the new world order

You're a conspiracy nut!

Re: the new world order

(Anonymous)
You mean to tell me that there is no validity to my ideology whatsoever?
Youv'e got to be kidding me. Karl Marx has checks signed from the rothschild dynasty on display in a museum in europe. They own the british, french, and the "American" federal reserve banks.

A discussion on the economies of scale of international military collaboration can be found on the linked LJ entry (2008).

About me

(Anonymous)
Hi, i see that you here and is very intresting for me. But I don't have many time for asking you. I hope that I see you laters.!

  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account