why the UNITED NATIONS? (for global super-agency)

[David Johnston]

Re: why the UNITED NATIONS? (for global super-agency)

 

Also, attaching a multilateral, multinational force to the UN makes a heck of a lot more sense than, say... Bob's Bait and Tackle.

 

Seriously, despite the largely uninformed whining about the UN on various internet forums, it's still around and is still used by everybody for precisely the reason that no-one has been able to define a working alternative.

 

Simple question - if, for ideological reasons you *don't* want UNTIL attached to the UN - who *would* be responsible for it?

 

cheers, Mark

 

The original suggestion was Interpol. Of course since UNTIL's primary function is to go all GI Joe on Viper (Cobra in drag) and not to engage in criminal investigation, I don't believe Interpol is all that suitable. The standard fictional version of Interpol exists as a plot device to create plainclothes detectives with international jurisdiction. While no such detectives exist in reality just as no international army like UNTIL exists, their fictional uses are considerable.

 

Something to bear in mind is that just because UNTIL operates under UN auspices doesn't mean it necessarily has to be answerable to or administrated by the U.N. The F.B.I. is technically part of the U.S. Department of Justice, but is funded and has its leadership appointed entirely separate of the Secretary. It is safe to postulate that UNTIL answers only to the classical nuclear powers, the United States, Russia, France, Britain and maybe China, and that between them, they have kept UNTIL's purview restricted to fighting VIPER and supervillain rampages when and only when the nation at risk from them requests assistance. The existence of UNTIL makes me wonder though, are India and Pakistan nuclear powers in their world? Or would UNTIL have nipped that in the bud?

 

Alternatively you could come up with an imaginary international agency to sponsor your extranational army, but such an agency would necessarily have to displace the United Nations and hence would be indistinguishable from a reorganised United Nations at best if it had the kind of jurisdictional breadth UNTIL has. Although I have a certain fondness for the idea of a specifically NATO intelligence and military service such a service would not explain who takes villains into custody when they run amok in Senegal.

[OddHat]

Re: why the UNITED NATIONS? (for global super-agency)

 

Put them under McDonalds, and have all the equipment be red and white with a golden M.

 

Every nation loves McDonalds!

 

Except France, and even there they keep going.

[Markdoc]

Re: why the UNITED NATIONS? (for global super-agency)

 

The original suggestion was Interpol..

 

Well that makes a certain amount of sense - the other possibility is to actually *base* it on Interpol and make it independant. Interpol has a structure modelled on the UN and liases very closely with the UN (one of it's six offices is at UN headquarter) but at the same time, it's an independant organisation. You could do the same with UNTIL I guess.

 

But then you'd either have to find a new name, or make up a new acronym

 

cheers, Mark

[David Johnston]

Re: why the UNITED NATIONS? (for global super-agency)

 

Atlas would make a pretty good name for a multinational military/espionage force designed to combat global threats. Of course it was already used for a supervillain agency in Champions. But frankly I think such an agency would seek and get U.N. sanction the same way W.H.O. does, even though it's administratively mostly autonomous. If it didn't, then the organisation would run into all kinds of hassles because of its lack of formal jurisdiction.

Interpol can operate as it does precisely because it doesn't make arrest or exert authority.

[tylermcdowell]

Re: why the UNITED NATIONS? (for global super-agency)

 

I have wondered how many people have looked into what the real life UN actually does, it's policies, resources, procedures, and objectives are.

 

The reason I say this is that long ago I read an interview of a science fiction author, who I do not remember. What stuck with me was his explaination of how create the world that the characters exist in. In short, if something is altered from real life as we know or entirely created from imagination, the author should have a reason for it that is plausible and well thought out. Even if it is not entirely revealed to the reader.

 

From what I have read of Official Champions history, it seems that it and real life have followed the same paths other than the superhero elements. The same major events have taken place with similar results. The world, the politics, and the human motivations in the real world are all much the same in the Champions universe. This is important to give new players a framework to base the game world on.

 

The major flaw with the UN/UNTIL is that there has never been an attempt to explain the glaring departures from the realty of what the UN is and what it would have to be in order to support an organization the size and scope of UNTIL. Amoung these are:

 

1. The UN is a diplomatic/humanitarian organization with no real power of enforcement.

 

2. The UN budget is far below what is required to train, equip, and maintain UNTIL.

 

3. Given the organization of the UN and the petty political bickering between the world governments, UNTIL would be neutered everytime it attempts to do the job it was given as the various sides fight to protect their own interests.

 

Even in comic books, these questions have never been addressed when a organization or supergroup are a part of the UN. The possible exception being the ThunderAgents. The result being the plot line is dropped or the comic book is canceled. It just doesn't feel right. This is seen even here with people agreeing a multi-national force a great idea but having problems with it being part of the UN.

 

I have no problem with UNTIL or the UN. I just feel that if it is going to be "official" the background and reasoning needs to be better than what it currently is.

 

My final thought is, if you want a UN UNTIL and you can make it work, great. If you do not, do the research and make up something you like better. It's a game. No one's version is right or wrong. It is supposed to be fun.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: why the UNITED NATIONS? (for global super-agency)

 

tylermcdowell, you present a logical and eloquent case. I just want to mention that the sourcebook UNTIL: Defenders Of Freedom goes into a fair bit of detail on the progression of historical events (mostly supers-related) in the Champions Universe which differed from those in the real world, which create a more logical rationale for UNTIL to exist as it does.

[Doug McCrae]

Re: why the UNITED NATIONS? (for global super-agency)

 

I regard internationalism as a more Bronze and Iron Age concept than Silver Age. The Justice League of America dropping the 'of America' in 1987 is highly significant in my opinion. There's also StormWatch which was a UN team. The Silver Age X-Men were all Americans, they only became a group of foreigners in the Bronze Age.

 

While it's right to point to UN organisations like THUNDER Agents and UNCLE, UNTIL was based on SHIELD and SHIELD was US-controlled at its inception in 1965. I'm not sure at what point the UN took over but I would guess it was a Bronze Age development.

 

Steve Long's UNTIL is very much a Bronze/Iron Age UNTIL, though maybe less appropriate for the post 9/11, post Iraq era.

 

It seems to me that hatred of the UN in the American psyche is a very recent development. In the 90s, I remember racist militia groups having bizarre conspiracy theories about the UN being a plot to install a world government and steal all their guns, which speaks toward it being the view of a tiny minority.

[Vestnik]

Re: why the UNITED NATIONS? (for global super-agency)

 

It seems to me that hatred of the UN in the American psyche is a very recent development. In the 90s, I remember racist militia groups having bizarre conspiracy theories about the UN being a plot to install a world government and steal all their guns, which speaks toward it being the view of a tiny minority.

 

I think that there is a subset of Americans who like to think of themselves as bullied by and victims of the outside world (which they actually don't know much about). Since the collapse of the USSR there has been no single country that actually poses a threat to the United States. Therefore they need to come up with a bogeyman, which is the UN.

[Shaft]

Re: why the UNITED NATIONS? (for global super-agency)

 

Before the two World Wars, no one could have conceived of an alliance as big as the Allies. They were responding to a threat posed by the Axis.

 

After the Second World Wars, the Allies formed the basis for NATO, which was a response to the threat perceived by the USSR.

 

In a Supers game, threats to the entire planet can emerge, whether those threats come from the outside (alien invaders) or within (villains on the scale of Dr Destroyer, Takofanes, Raven, Viper, etc...). If they do, it is in all of the nations' interest to band together and provide some means of collective defense.

 

There might be bickering and friction within (just as the Allies and NATO members often disagreed), but there is nothing like an honest to goodness threat to get everyone to act (if not agree) and take a course of action.

 

The UN happens to be the most global organization that exists when global threats begin emerging in the 60s. As such, makes sense to use it as the core for a global military organization and have its responsibilities get expanded. It may be learning along the way as a whole and make a lot of mistakes, but as long as it has more successes than failures, it can keep expanding. It can have a lot of inefficencies and departments within it might be at odds, but the same can be said about any multinational corporation that grows beyond.

 

Interpol, on the other hand is more accurately a police database that shares information over national borders. It's an invaluable intelligence asset, but it is effectively a digital collection of "Wanted" posters with the admin staff to collect, analyze and post data. It doesn't even have arrest powers. However, there is no reason that a GM could manipulate history to make Interpol the favoured international military agency, but I think most people would think that the UN has a better resume in consideration for this role.

 

It's also possible that in a world that has UNTIL in it, they may have integrated Interpol into it and given them arrest powers. This effectively gives the UN a global police investigation agency that is separate from the military functions. Cops and Soldiers have different functions and the two functions should be kept seperate.

[Trebuchet]

Re: why the UNITED NATIONS? (for global super-agency)

 

I think that there is a subset of Americans who like to think of themselves as bullied by and victims of the outside world (which they actually don't know much about). Since the collapse of the USSR there has been no single country that actually poses a threat to the United States. Therefore they need to come up with a bogeyman' date=' which is the UN.[/quote']That argument would make sense only if many Americans (perhaps most) didn't already distrust the United Nations long before the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[tylermcdowell]

Re: why the UNITED NATIONS? (for global super-agency)

 

tylermcdowell' date=' you present a logical and eloquent case. I just want to mention that the sourcebook [i']UNTIL: Defenders Of Freedom[/i] goes into a fair bit of detail on the progression of historical events (mostly supers-related) in the Champions Universe which differed from those in the real world, which create a more logical rationale for UNTIL to exist as it does.

 

Yes, I have the book and read it. UNTIL to me has never made much sense and I had hoped that the DoF would help. Unfortunately it did not and the more I read, I was torn between laughing myself silly or being deeply disappointed. A moon base, space station, two space shuttles, a small army of troops, equipment and no real mention of how is all gets paid for.

 

The explanation of the Tribunal Treaty does not seem well thought out or sensible. Given that politician and diplomats are reasonably intelligent, they would be aware that the USA, USSR, or China would not be willing to allow UNTIL to operate in their territories. Each would consider it an attempt by the others to gain a political advantage.

 

Also keep in mind that the UN ambassadors are appointed by the governments of the members and take their orders from those governments. It would be political suicide for a US President to have the US vote on the Security Council be yes even if they knew that the US Senate would never agree to treaty. Keep in mind that the Senate can block treaties from being ratified. It would be seen as weak and foolish. There is also the problems of US sovereignty and how international law would be applied. It would leave to many openings for a opponent to use against any politician that was publicly for UNTIL.

 

The idea that the US would not allow UNTIL to operate inside it’s borders but from the goodness of it’s heart would pay the lion’s share of the expense of UNTIL pushes the concept further over the edge.

 

It quickly becomes very messy and falls apart.

[tylermcdowell]

Re: why the UNITED NATIONS? (for global super-agency)

 

I think that there is a subset of Americans who like to think of themselves as bullied by and victims of the outside world (which they actually don't know much about). Since the collapse of the USSR there has been no single country that actually poses a threat to the United States. Therefore they need to come up with a bogeyman' date=' which is the UN.[/quote']

 

You are correct that many American's do not know much about the world beyond the local starbucks. Such is the state of education in the US.

 

I do not believe that the UN is a bogeyman. Rather it is more a private club for diplomats that issues resolutions that are at best ignored and worse actively made fun of. It in reality does very little to help keep the world safe and peaceful. Yes, I am aware of all the humanitarian work done in the name of the UN. I wonder what the UN does compares to what is done by the charities and religious organizations of the world.

[The Weapon]

Re: why the UNITED NATIONS? (for global super-agency)

 

UNTIL follows in its comic book (and genre film) predecessors.

 

UNCLE

UNIT

THUNDER

 

All of which had UN sanction (as one might guess from their name). Which befits something that comes from liberal idealistic 1960s roots.

 

I believe that UNIT is a TV predecessor. Or are you talking about something other than the Dr. Who institution that didn't seem to have a single non-british soldier?

[assault]

Re: why the UNITED NATIONS? (for global super-agency)

 

the Dr. Who institution that didn't seem to have a single non-british soldier?

 

Actually, UNIT is quite a good model, in the way it is supposedly composed of troops from each specific host nation's military. That gets around a lot of the improbability. There would still be problems in cases where nations don't actually have their own militaries, but...

 

In any case, I don't use the canonical 5E version of UNTIL. Mine is more based on the 1st edition "back of the book" version. My version is actually rather small - the raid on Dr Destroyer's island would have pretty much involved all its resources, or else actually used conventional military forces.

 

Martinez, the "Paraguayan freedom fighter", first made his name opposing a supervillainous takeover of Paraguay, and, well, blah blah blah.

 

The whole thing basically ended up under UN control because it was essentially originally a bunch of freelancers, who weren't prepared to work under national authority. The actual UNTIL Tribunal was the body that drew the short straw of trying to administer them.

 

Think Challengers of the Unknown, post-WWII Blackhawks and so on.

[Vondy]

Re: why the UNITED NATIONS? (for global super-agency)

 

Yes, yes they do.

 

 

Why is it I often feel I'm the only (het) man on the planet who isn't attracted to Angelina Jolie?

[Lord Liaden]

Re: why the UNITED NATIONS? (for global super-agency)

 

Why is it I often feel I'm the only (het) man on the planet who isn't attracted to Angelina Jolie?

 

Take comfort, man, you have at least one comrade. The big-lip big-boob combo always seems rather overwhelming to me.

[Teflon Billy]

Re: why the UNITED NATIONS? (for global super-agency)

 

Take comfort' date=' man, you have at least one comrade. The big-lip big-boob combo always seems rather overwhelming to me. [/quote']Well, the professionally installed big-lip big-boob combo.

 

The all natural kind is much more ascetically pleasing IMO.

 

Which naturally means the Mrs. Pitt, isn't on that list;)

 

TB

[Lemurion]

Re: why the UNITED NATIONS? (for global super-agency)

 

People use the UN for two reasons:

 

One: it's the obvious choice-- there really aren't any other global political/diplomatic organizations to use as an alternative.

 

Two: as has been said before-- it fits with the genre.

[Vondy]

Re: why the UNITED NATIONS? (for global super-agency)

 

I think that there is a subset of Americans who like to think of themselves as bullied by and victims of the outside world (which they actually don't know much about). Since the collapse of the USSR there has been no single country that actually poses a threat to the United States. Therefore they need to come up with a bogeyman' date=' which is the UN.[/quote']

 

What absolute, ethnocentric arrogance! "Americans are ignoramouses" is not only an unworthy argument coming from someone who clearly thinks of themselves as informed, but amounts to populist rubbish. Americans are no more ignorant than anyone else on the planet; and are a heck of a lot better informed than many. In fact, as an American expat who has travelled and lived abroad, I've found most people have some very weird ideas about America and Americans - ideas that are shockingly ignorant! I live in a country that has people from all over the globe in a melting pot far more intense than any other country on the planet. We have Americans, Anglos, Russians, South Americans, Euro-types, North Africans, Orientals, and Asians all crammed into a very small strip of dirt; and all living in the same communities or rubbing shoulders in the shuk. And as a student of people, and a man who has travelled a great deal, I declare shenanigans. People are people, and I garuntee you that you will find a disheartening amount of ignorance about what goes on outside the individuals four cubits of earth wherever you go. Even in Russia and Europe. Ethnocentrism is easy. You need to get out more.

[Vestnik]

Re: why the UNITED NATIONS? (for global super-agency)

 

What absolute' date=' ethnocentric arrogance! "Americans are ignoramouses" is not only an unworthy argument coming from someone who clearly thinks of themselves as informed, but amounts to populist rubbish. Americans are no more ignorant than anyone else on the planet; and are a heck of a lot better informed than many. In fact, as an American who has travelled abroad, I've found most people have some very weird ideas about America and Americans - that are [i']shockingly ignorant[/i]! I live in a country that has people from all over the globe in a melting pot far more intense than any other country on the planet. We have Americans, Anglos, Russians, South Americans, Euro-types, North Africans, Orientals, and Asians all crammed into a very small strip of dirt. And as a student of people, and a man who has travelled a great deal, I declare shenanigans. You need to get out more.

 

Von D-MAN, I said A SUBSET OF AMERICANS, not ALL AMERICANS or even MOST AMERICANS.

 

I don't live in the United States you know.

[Vondy]

Re: why the UNITED NATIONS? (for global super-agency)

 

As for the UN:

 

It might make more sense if, instead of a massive agency with jurisdictional carte blanche, they just had a super-team and brigade sized support group with the traditional genre resources, that answered to the UN Peacekeeping Command. That would mean the team had to have an official request before operating in a country, or a Security Council vote, before being ordered to do so. It would fit the real world UN model better, in the event you wanted a more realistic paradigm.

[Vondy]

Re: why the UNITED NATIONS? (for global super-agency)

 

Von D-MAN, I said A SUBSET OF AMERICANS, not ALL AMERICANS or even MOST AMERICANS.

 

I don't live in the United States you know.

 

Fair enough, and neither do I.

 

At the same time, many Americans who are critical of the United Nations have rational, meaningful criticisms to make; criticisms that tend to be conveniently and summarily dismissed by a subset of russians and europeans who use the very argument you advanced as a straw man.

[Vestnik]

Re: why the UNITED NATIONS? (for global super-agency)

 

Fair enough, and neither do I.

 

At the same time, many Americans who are critical of the United Nations have rational, meaningful criticisms to make; criticisms that tend to be conveniently and summarily dismissed by a subset of russians and europeans who use the very argument you advanced as a straw man.

 

Oh, sure.

[Fedifensor]

Re: why the UNITED NATIONS? (for global super-agency)

 

It seems to me that hatred of the UN in the American psyche is a very recent development. In the 90s' date=' I remember racist militia groups having bizarre conspiracy theories about the UN being a plot to install a world government and steal all their guns, which speaks toward it being the view of a tiny minority.[/quote']

 

Actually, one of my favorite authors, Daniel Keys Moran, has at the centerpoint of his futuristic setting the UN doing just that (in 2015, if I remember correctly). The main plot thread of the books occurs in 2060 and later, with the UN run by the French. It takes place in Occupied America, which was one of only two nations to resist the UN takeover (the other was Japan, which got nuked AGAIN). The books are out of print (Emerald Eyes and The Long Run), but I highly recommend them. The first book focuses on telepaths, while the second is a bit more cyberpunk (and the better of the two).

 

Edit: Emerald Eyes was published in 1987, The Long Run was published in 1989. There's a website for him at http://www.kithrup.com/dkm/

[lemming]

Re: why the UNITED NATIONS? (for global super-agency)

 

Before the two World Wars, no one could have conceived of an alliance as big as the Allies. They were responding to a threat posed by the Axis.

League of Nations perhaps? Just not executed very well and nations that wanted to just ignored it.