Should UN have a standing army?

[swatiraohnlu]

A standing army is a permanent military force, entirely under the command of a single authority. This is almost always a national government, although in the past European colonial companies sometimes maintained their own private military forces, as did feudal barons and warlords (for example, in China in the 1920s). At present the UN has no military force of its own to send on peacekeeping or peacemaking missions, instead it has to gather together troops and equipment volunteered by member states on an ad hoc basis for each individual crisis.It is important for the Proposition to define the motion effectively. They need to ensure that their proposal would deliver an army fully under the control of the UN; if individual states could pull troops out of it when they chose to (for example because they disagreed with the objective of a particular mission), then it is not really a UN standing army. Issues to be considered include how large the force would be, what military capabilities it would have (e.g. would it have air and sea power?), how it would be recruited, how it would be funded and where it might be based.

 

[dimpy.handa]

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 war making 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.