[PATH]

Could the United Nations in toto militarily take on the United States and win? Should that unlikely event play out which side would win and why?

[Delmar]

I don't think the UN could take on a toilet brush and win. The only times I can recall where the UN did anything other than flap their gums is when the US led the way. And, after 200 or so resolutions, the problem they would have been squawking about would be so far in the past they wouldn't know what it was for anyway. Who would they send? The French???

[Col. Mustard]

The Chinese, with the assistance of the British Navy, transport several million soldiers to Canada, where they accumulate at various points along the border. President Hillary Clinton does nothing, citing no authority to interfere with Canada's immigration policy. When they attack, they are met by approximately 70 million Americans with guns.

We win.

Hey, I never said it was a plausible scenario... :rolleyes:

[cratz2]

I don't think the United Nations would be able to mount a successful surprise attach against the United States. I can't imagine all the Armed Forces would shot on armed or unarmed United States citizens. That is who they are sworn to uphold, not the United Nations. At least last I heard.

There was an interesting article in one of the gun rags a few years ago. As I recall, a doctoral candidate was writing a thesis on just such a subject and one of the bits of research he did was to ask approximately 400 Marines if they would fire on an unarmed but resisting United States citizen on the order of a non-America UN commander. More than 50 % said no way, no how.

Best case, if the UN wanted to take over the US would be to stage a mock war against Mexico with heavy numbers of troops in the United States then attack from within. I'd still be willing to bet that many Presidents would be skeptical of the UN deploying that many troops. Usually we make up the overwhelming majority, don't we?

[Frohickey]

US vs UN... in a stand-up fight, were we fight against the UN, I think we would win.

We did need the help of the UN during Somalia though, but that was because little Willie Clinton tied the hands of our military... no armor and no AC-130. :fire:

[hammer4nc]

Interesting musings about conflicts involving the UN and member nations...another thread talked about the int'l criminal court ruling against USA, in death penalty cases with Mexican nationals.

The ONLY thing stopping the UN from dictating any number of things to member nations, is that they don't presently have an independent taxing authority. They depend on "dues" paid by members states for funding, which can be witheld, (Reagan, I think), if they get too far afield of perceived national policies.

World taxes have been proposed to fund the UN(http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020320-167972.htm).
Thankfully, the proposals went nowhere. UN does well to stick to famine relief, and vaccination programs, arguably, the things they do best.

Give them independent taxing authority, and about 10 years to develop a standing army, and the question posed by this thread may not be purely rhetorical.

[10-Ring]

Since the UN bases all its decisions on a consensus opinion, they'd never get past an initial vote :uhoh:

[Phyphor]

Especially given how most nations would probably have to 'change their shorts' after being asked to attack the US, even with backup....