I was wondering if you know how you are sent to become a UN soldier, I've been trying to figure it out. I just wondered if you swore and oath to defend your country that doesnt mean the UN and their operations can you be held accountable for refusing to fight for them

It might be a bit more complicated than this, but here goes:

If your nation is part of the UN, and the UN is performing an operation (just like the countless ones they got on the go already), and your unit is chosen to go into the field under a UN flag, that would be the way to become a UN Soldier.

UN member Nations provide the Military Forces for UN operations. In a UN operation you deploy as a member of your Countries Military as part of a UN Multi National Force.

You are not serving as a UN solider but as a member of your countries military so your oath to your country is still valid. And refusal to follow orders still punishable under your Militaries Laws and Codes.

Originally Posted by 03USMC

UN member Nations provide the Military Forces for UN operations. In a UN operation you deploy as a member of your Countries Military as part of a UN Multi National Force.

You are not serving as a UN solider but as a member of your countries military so your oath to your country is still valid. And refusal to follow orders still punishable under your Militaries Laws and Codes.

I thought the oath is defend your country. How is being part of some UN operation part of that?

That's only part of the oath. At least for the US military. In The Oath of Service you swear to protect The Constitution, to defend the nation from all threats foreign and domestic and to obey all lawful orders of the President and your superiors - in that order. So if the President orders your unit to participate in a UN action you will obey that order and follow all lawful commands from your superiors in that operation. Now do you understand?

Originally Posted by Charge 7

That's only part of the oath. At least for the US military. In The Oath of Service you swear to protect The Constitution, to defend the nation from all threats foreign and domestic and to obey all lawful orders of the President and your superiors - in that order. So if the President orders your unit to participate in a UN action you will obey that order and follow all lawful commands from your superiors in that operation. Now do you understand?

I understand, but what do you guys think of the UN?

Originally Posted by Renegade

I understand, but what do you guys think of the UN?

Been awhile since we had a nice UN bashing session, hasn't it?

Um, to reinterate my view, the UN is totally useless for everything but Humanitarian Aid and Peacekeeping (only when there is nothing going on anymore anyways.)

But along the topic, I'm curious about something. Is there any particular advantage for you/me/anyone signing up for UN service as opposed to regular military service for one's country? Only thing I can think of: Lower likelihood of being deployed to an active combat zone.

You don't "sign up" for UN service. If your unit is deployed for UN service then that's how you participate and in no other way. You only serve your military. If your unit has been given a task by the President and thereby the DoD you do it. The President agrees to UN cooperation - you don't. You obey his directive within your own chain of command. No servicemember takes direct orders from the UN.

As for how I feel about the UN, well it's lost alot of its thunder over the years that's for sure. It still has its uses though. Less and less as a peacekeeping agency unfortunately. Now it is mostly a forum for international discussion and that's still a good thing to have around. The UN needs to have more bite than the bark its been showing of late though for it to have any kind of respect as a means to peace.

Unless "Permanent UNSC Seats" is redefined, the push for additional nations to be added will likely pull out whatever teeth the UN has left. To be specific, I'm talking about the veto powers. Its enough trouble with 5 autokill vetos possible. What does it look like with 10? 14? More?

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

Unless "Permanent UNSC Seats" is redefined, the push for additional nations to be added will likely pull out whatever teeth the UN has left. To be specific, I'm talking about the veto powers. Its enough trouble with 5 autokill vetos possible. What does it look like with 10? 14? More?

I am not entirely sure how to solve the veto issues, several options have been put forward from leaving the number of veto nations as it is but increasing the number of nations on the PSC thus allowing power blocks to form there to removing the veto option altogether and simply going for the "democratic" two thirds majority option.

Personally I think both options will lead to a case of paralysis by analysis, to be frank I think it was a nifty idea created in idealistic frame of mind that has out lived its usefulness. The only way to make the UN useful again as a "diplomatic/military" tool is to make its decisions binding and I doubt any nations will go for that.