I thought that
a) the UN recruits directly, kind of like the French Foreign Legion
now...
maintaing it's own standing forces the same way it maintains it's own navy,
and
b) the Indians were part of the ESU
Even if they weren't, would the UN like to draw the bulk of it's forces from
one contributing nation? And would the Indians like to be the bulk contributor
unless they received complementary power at the Security
Council (or whatever the equivalent is in 2183+)
Certainly now Canada maintains much of it's "integrity" as a major contributor
to the UN because of it's independance from US (and UK for that matter)
foreign policy. When Canada becomes just a part of the NAC political entity,
we would lose that political independance and thereby our
status as sort-of-neutral...
If the UN draws much of it's general troop strength from the member nations,
it would inevitably end up with forces from the big power
blocks -
so I guess it would have to make sure that the forces it sends to a given area
are from nations that aren't part of that fight. Maybe the UN sticks
to drawing troops from "neutral" countries - but then there'd be an
awfull
lot of Swiss and Dutch troops out there - they'd become a power in their
own right by virtue of being involved all the time and the bigger nations
might resent that.
Anyway - just a brief thought or two,
Adrian
> (But if Canadians are in the NAC, who's doing all those UN
Adrian spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> I thought that
Seems like what I'd imagine. I imagine they have in-system if not
on-planet holdings (perhaps the dreaded space habitats...) and
therefore had a tax base, an industrial base, and a base for recruitment. But
I bet they also offer UN citizenship to people they want to recruit (maybe
this comes with better benefits like state of the art health tech and a good
standard of living) from other nations
- such as elite forces, administrators, and scientists.
> and
I think it would be interesting to branch this discussion out on its
own - WHO is the security council in 2183? Given the UN has
pseudo-independence, how does that impact the power of the Security
council?
> Certainly now Canada maintains much of it's "integrity" as a major
True. Which is an interesting point - what did we get in exchange?
(That is to say, if we made this sacrifice to help the USA, I'm sure we'd have
been thrown a bone or two by the Crown).
> If the UN draws much of it's general troop strength from the member
I imagine in small ops, small units of UN troops (as opposed to
UN-organized troops) are actually used. In larger conflicts, the UN
serves as cadre, command and control, and intelligence and special
ops capability to larger multi-national forces. The Dutch, the Swiss,
Mercs of various stripes, and the few other neutrals (maybe the IAS) probably
contribute many forces to this venture. If the operation requires enough
firepower, a major power would be asked to contribute, but only if it was
unaligned in the fight (ie in an
FSE/ESU conflict, the NAC may act as peacekeepers under UN leadership
or organization). Vs. threats like the KraVak, everyone would be expected to
take the UN lead in the fight.
My 0.04 (since I seem to ramble).
Tom.
/************************************************