I’ve been putting thoughts together about this, Dartz.
My idea was that the two Chinese wars are simply the catalyst. As I put in the January synopsis (recently modified), when China attacks, everyone assumes that the U.N. is going to be busy dealing with them, so, everyone with a grudge decides “hey, now is the perfect time to even the score.” So, within a matter of days, or weeks at the most, the rest of the world is struggling with some level of war.
An idea I’d had about how the U.N. stays relevant, and “in control” is that, during this time of global war, their embassies are distribution points for food and medical aid. Injured, or non-combatant, supers would continue to man the embassies and aid local, civil authorities during their emergencies. In areas that become totally cut-off from their local authorities, the U.N./IST takes over immediate authority on a temporary basis, and governs the area—and, in many cases, does it better than the legitimate government in the area.
This would put the areas in a quandary when control is re-established: the U.N. did this better and more fairly than their official government—and their government is “hostile” toward the U.N. Civil unrest and disobedience will paralyze numerous, on-the-fence countries until their governments make amends to the U.N.
In other countries, where the U.N. has to take direct control of the country, the U.N. decides to administer them directly. This proves effective and efficient during the rebuilding effort. As the U.N. can directly monitor the use of their funds and resources, these countries recover the quickest. Amidst complaints of the U.N. trying to become a one-world-government, the evidence of their efficiency becomes apparent.
However, at the end of the day, the U.N., as it exists in the IST universe, will not survive the war. What comes out of the war, will be stronger and more capable. But, it will still be called “The United Nations.”
If we want the U.N. to survive, the idea of having the war be the reality quake, which gets “undone” by the selfless sacrifice of a select team of supers seems the most expedient. Of course, this only works as long as everyone remembers the war. Even those who were killed in it.
This way, everyone can see how horrible the world would be when not following the U.N.’s ideals. After watching millions (if not billions) of people die in a horribly overwrought war, most of the world will be willing to step back from the brink and come back to the negotiation table. A table owned by the U.N.
My idea was that the two Chinese wars are simply the catalyst. As I put in the January synopsis (recently modified), when China attacks, everyone assumes that the U.N. is going to be busy dealing with them, so, everyone with a grudge decides “hey, now is the perfect time to even the score.” So, within a matter of days, or weeks at the most, the rest of the world is struggling with some level of war.
An idea I’d had about how the U.N. stays relevant, and “in control” is that, during this time of global war, their embassies are distribution points for food and medical aid. Injured, or non-combatant, supers would continue to man the embassies and aid local, civil authorities during their emergencies. In areas that become totally cut-off from their local authorities, the U.N./IST takes over immediate authority on a temporary basis, and governs the area—and, in many cases, does it better than the legitimate government in the area.
This would put the areas in a quandary when control is re-established: the U.N. did this better and more fairly than their official government—and their government is “hostile” toward the U.N. Civil unrest and disobedience will paralyze numerous, on-the-fence countries until their governments make amends to the U.N.
In other countries, where the U.N. has to take direct control of the country, the U.N. decides to administer them directly. This proves effective and efficient during the rebuilding effort. As the U.N. can directly monitor the use of their funds and resources, these countries recover the quickest. Amidst complaints of the U.N. trying to become a one-world-government, the evidence of their efficiency becomes apparent.
However, at the end of the day, the U.N., as it exists in the IST universe, will not survive the war. What comes out of the war, will be stronger and more capable. But, it will still be called “The United Nations.”
If we want the U.N. to survive, the idea of having the war be the reality quake, which gets “undone” by the selfless sacrifice of a select team of supers seems the most expedient. Of course, this only works as long as everyone remembers the war. Even those who were killed in it.
This way, everyone can see how horrible the world would be when not following the U.N.’s ideals. After watching millions (if not billions) of people die in a horribly overwrought war, most of the world will be willing to step back from the brink and come back to the negotiation table. A table owned by the U.N.