StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Chlodwig wrote:This will probably lead to all kinds of fun when the current generation notices that they can't step into the shoes of their parents simply because those shoes are never emptied....

Been there seen that... twice in Pantheocide alone.

Reminds me of the late declaration of war by the USSR on Japan, though it had already earned itself a spot in that initial round in its own right.

Edward Yee wrote:Reminds me of the late declaration of war by the USSR on Japan, though it had already earned itself a spot in that initial round in its own right.

Well, that was for two reasons:
1) The Russians were hoping to snag occupation zones out of the deal; and
2) FDR gave Stalin concessions at Yalta to attack Japan, thinking we'd need the help. (In all fairness, had the A-bomb not come in on time, we might have needed their help in subduing Japan, not that Stalin was likely to actually pull his weight in the deal...but there's a not-unreasonable question as to how high of a body count the American public would have tolerated, not to mention the fact that FDR would have been reamed if the body count had piled up and it came out that he hadn't tried to get as much foreign help in that fight as possible...)

Simon_Jester wrote:I'm not sure I agree with your take on it. The problem is passages like:

"to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest"

Perhaps I should clarify: Americans think that the "policing" job should be in accordance with a fixed set of principles that are more or less aligned with whatever America thinks is correct. That's why they freak out at the idea that morally corrupt nations have any influence. It's not just that the UN is supposed to be a global police force in their view; it's that it should be a global police force as per Americans' ideas of what a global police force should do, ie- uphold American ideals. If you were to take its charter at face value, it should discourage the use of force except in cases where virtually everyone can agree that it's necessary, not just NATO.

Darth Wong wrote:

Simon_Jester wrote:I'm not sure I agree with your take on it. The problem is passages like:

"to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest"

Perhaps I should clarify: Americans think that the "policing" job should be in accordance with a fixed set of principles that are more or less aligned with whatever America thinks is correct. That's why they freak out at the idea that morally corrupt nations have any influence. It's not just that the UN is supposed to be a global police force in their view; it's that it should be a global police force as per Americans' ideas of what a global police force should do, ie- uphold American ideals. If you were to take its charter at face value, it should discourage the use of force except in cases where virtually everyone can agree that it's necessary, not just NATO.

Which is honestly part of the problem. Not getting into specific cases, the problem with that approach is that you often get two powers out of the "big five" that can easily hamstring eachother (usually Russia or China on one side and the US or UK on the other). This wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't a tendency for one of the big powers' national interests to make them want to block one of the others...it's part of why the UN was more of a talking shop than anything for pretty much the entire Cold War, Korea aside (and the fact that anything actually happened in the UN was Stalin knocking Mao back a notch more than anything...that Soviet boycott of the meeting let Stalin get away with not vetoing the resolution on Korea).

GrayAnderson wrote:Well, it actually was a successor to the Allies: Being in the Allies was a prerequisite to joining in the initial round, and was a reason for at least a few of the "notional" declarations of war on Germany at the end (Turkey leaps to mind), declarations which had nothing to do with an actual commitment to the war and everything to do with being with the "right" guys when the war ended so they could join this new club.

A lot of small previously neutral countries declared war on Germany near the end essentially so they could join the UN. The Republic of Ireland chose not to, which was why the USSR kept it out for several years after the war.

Going back to the original line about something that can be bombed that will send them mad - and if it is in specific reference to pissing off the Americans, what about obliterating the WTC memorial site, you probably cause more casualties by collateral damage than by levelling the statue of liberty, and you get to reopen what is already a very fresh and sensitive wound?

El Moose Monstero wrote:Going back to the original line about something that can be bombed that will send them mad - and if it is in specific reference to pissing off the Americans, what about obliterating the WTC memorial site, you probably cause more casualties by collateral damage than by levelling the statue of liberty, and you get to reopen what is already a very fresh and sensitive wound?

Spoiler .

GrayAnderson wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Perhaps I should clarify: Americans think that the "policing" job should be in accordance with a fixed set of principles that are more or less aligned with whatever America thinks is correct. That's why they freak out at the idea that morally corrupt nations have any influence. It's not just that the UN is supposed to be a global police force in their view; it's that it should be a global police force as per Americans' ideas of what a global police force should do, ie- uphold American ideals. If you were to take its charter at face value, it should discourage the use of force except in cases where virtually everyone can agree that it's necessary, not just NATO.

Which is honestly part of the problem. Not getting into specific cases, the problem with that approach is that you often get two powers out of the "big five" that can easily hamstring eachother (usually Russia or China on one side and the US or UK on the other). This wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't a tendency for one of the big powers' national interests to make them want to block one of the others...it's part of why the UN was more of a talking shop than anything for pretty much the entire Cold War, Korea aside (and the fact that anything actually happened in the UN was Stalin knocking Mao back a notch more than anything...that Soviet boycott of the meeting let Stalin get away with not vetoing the resolution on Korea).

This is more or less my concern. On the other hand, you could equally well argue, for example, the US's veto has prevented UN censure of atrocities committed by US-backed governments. It's not a one-sided thing. You don't have to think that the UN should be policing the world in the name of "more or less whatever Americans would like it to do" to think that the UN should be policing the world in the name of something, such as the cause of "not massacring hundreds of thousands of people for horrible reasons."

And the problem with the UN as a police force, assuming that it was ever intended to keep the peace of the world, is that it cannot do so without the consent of all the major countries in the world... who are the ones most likely to expect to profit from acts of aggression. If you'd formed a UN Security Council in 1930 based on the question of "who are the most powerful nations on Earth?" Germany probably wouldn't be a member, but Italy or Japan probably would have. Which would have just about neutered the UN in the runup to the Second World War, making it little or no more effective than the League had been.

That same problem can and does come up again when nations start flexing their muscles today, and it doesn't really matter whether the aggressor speaks English, Russian, or Chinese.

The UN wanted to pass a resolution condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons on Iran during the Iran-Iraq War, but the US - which was very much buddy buddy with Saddam that time - vetoed it and the UK abstained.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:The UN wanted to pass a resolution condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons on Iran during the Iran-Iraq War, but the US - which was very much buddy buddy with Saddam that time - vetoed it and the UK abstained.

See? That's exactly the kind of stuff I'm talking about. The way the Council veto works is a problem with the UN independent of whether the UN is acting in US interests.

When will James Yan make an appearence? And I ask you again; will the natural history museum and the area around it be totalled?

Very nice job on Chapter 53, Stuart.

Judith, I don't suppose its the Judith from the Book of Judith?

New York, if I was Michael I'd target more than just New York.

Stuart wrote:

El Moose Monstero wrote:Going back to the original line about something that can be bombed that will send them mad - and if it is in specific reference to pissing off the Americans, what about obliterating the WTC memorial site, you probably cause more casualties by collateral damage than by leveling the statue of liberty, and you get to reopen what is already a very fresh and sensitive wound?

Spoiler

And we have a winner. Next part coming up later today.

.

i had i feeling thats what Michael's intended target was, but i passed it off as more physical targets are available. sure, its a very emotionally sensitive target, but at the moment theres nothing really there to attack. liberty island would seem like a juicer choice, but it does have the disadvantage of being a fair distance away from everything else. is the impact you have planned just a single point attack, or will it have the energy of a tactical nuke?

Pelranius wrote:Judith, I don't suppose its the Judith from the Book of Judith?

It is; the in-joke is that all the "Saints" lived these good and virtuous lives to gain entry to Heaven and then found themselves domestic slaves when they got there. If they were lucky.

New York, if I was Michael I'd target more than just New York.

Michael-Lan is playing a very careful game; he's high-wire tightrope walking on several different fronts at once.

Simon_Jester wrote:]And all those countries are going to just shrug and walk away from a war that has been declared against all of humanity because the UN isn't running the war effort? That would be an incredibly stupid thing for them to do, so I don't think it's even slightly wrong that Stuart hasn't written it that way.

And Stuart has also noted how extremely fragile the alliance is.

Yamantau-club might be calling the shots on war effort, but without rest of the world agreeing to their ideas they cannot pull it off for long.

Another detail about Stuart is that he has recognized that despite war against all humanity, we humans are still going to be humans. For reference, read that part about how everyone is running their own little nephilim programs instead of trusting one run in the USA. Hell, not even USA trusts that program alone.

Even at wartime, nations look after their own interests.

Those other nations will demand something in return for their participation, specially if they are not invited to Yamantau-club, which is running the war.

So Yamantau nations have to negotiate with them to offer something in return for support for war effort under HEA. That means lots of negotiating. That requires location where you can negotiate with practically whole world. Because doing it bilaterally, as noted, is just not feasible.

Everyone can guess where you can address whole world at once...

I mean, I'm not actually sure what you're saying here. Are you saying the war effort would break down without the UN? That this makes the UN a good target for weakening the war effort? Or are you just saying "well, countries need to talk to each other, and they can talk in the UN?"

What I am sayin is that Yamantau club is seriously handicapped without UN running.
They cannot dictate terms to rest of the planet, and they DO need rest of the planet to run their little war.

Yamantau-club cannot run their war while dealing with rest of Earth who decide that since they are not getting anything out of this war, they might just as well not bother helping.

How long USA, Russia and China can run their armies if rest of nations start demanding immediate payments for goods?
Remember how British possessions dwindled in early WW2 when they had to pay for everything they got from USA.

Armies march on logistics, and even with portal technology HEA is way above Yamantau-councils ability to keep running without cooperation of non-Yamantau nations. Even if HEA was only formed of Yamantau-council armies.


Global war requires global scale cooperation. And cooperation is something you have to negotiate for.

Well, the UN does run some things- small things. As a forum it's valuable, but it isn't unique: if everything even remotely tied to the UN vanished tomorrow, people could just send new ambassadors to a new organization and start over.

What would be this new organization? Where would it be located? How quickly you could set up infrastructure?
How are you going to get agreement on how it works?
It would have to be negotiated from scratch if you wanted new organization. Guess how long it would take to make whole world agree on terms for that?

But honestly. New organization is not even needed! Only new location.

You are smart guy Simon, but even you have not grasped what UN really is. It is NOT tied to UN headquarters, blow up the UN HQ and UN will still exist! It is global agreement, destroying the headquarters does not nullify UN charter for one thing.
And find competent ambassadors etc.

Let's be clear, destroying UN HQ would not destroy war effort against Heaven, but it would cause serious issues until things are sorted out. Same way wiping out Pentagon would be short term problem for mentioned war effort. It would cause problems for days or weeks until everything is rerouted and new people appointed to run things. Assuming they get into agreement really fast on where new HQ will be located.

There is no single target which could be wiped out to destroy human war effort in the series, but UN and Pentagon represent targets which can cause major disruption on operations.
But UN HQ is currently only location on the entire planet which can provide infrastructure for global scale decisionmaking.

And that IS essential. Translators, ready infrastructure, diplomats... Replacing them all is going to require considerable amount of effort even at best situation.

So UN HQ is not only high visibility target, but target which has actual impact globally.

Tiwaz wrote:Everyone can guess where you can address whole world at once...

Lots of places; the teleconference has been invented, remember?

Seriously, the UN serves a valuable function, but as a building its headquarters is extremely replaceable. As an institution, it is still replaceable, because people can easily improvise a way to fill its main useful role. The UN is a forum for international discussion. It is neither the forum nor the only forum.

International discussion will remain necessary during this war, because allies always need to talk to each other. This is so obvious I'm not sure why you feel the need to mention it. But the UN as such, as a specific institution, is not necessary in this war. It can be replaced by something else that does the same job just as well, in a fairly short period of time.

Armies march on logistics, and even with portal technology HEA is way above Yamantau-councils ability to keep running without cooperation of non-Yamantau nations. Even if HEA was only formed of Yamantau-council armies.

Yes. You do not need to lecture people about this. It is obvious and simple. However, while cooperation is necessary, cooperation can be achieved in many ways, and the UN is only one of those ways.

What would be this new organization? Where would it be located? How quickly you could set up infrastructure? How are you going to get agreement on how it works? It would have to be negotiated from scratch if you wanted new organization. Guess how long it would take to make whole world agree on terms for that?

Weeks to months, under the circumstances. Up until that time, it would have to be up to regional alliances to keep things together.

Remember that this is a wartime alliance. People are much less likely to bicker over the shape of the negotiating table while they are being shot at. There is a strong general consensus among humanity in the story that the war actually needs to be fought. By itself this does not make the need for negotiation go away (both Britain and the US agreed that Britain should receive Lend-Lease equipment; obviously they still had to talk about how much would be sent, and on what schedule). But it makes people far, far more willing to bypass the normal circumstances to get the negotiation process to go quickly- conferences take as long as they must, not as long as the diplomats can argue back and forth over who gets to be the first to announce the wonderful deal they're planning to sign.

You are smart guy Simon, but even you have not grasped what UN really is. It is NOT tied to UN headquarters, blow up the UN HQ and UN will still exist! It is global agreement, destroying the headquarters does not nullify UN charter for one thing.

You do realize that I said "if everything even remotely tied to the UN vanished tomorrow" for a reason, right? That's a hypothetical example, deliberately more extreme than anything that could actually be caused by the destruction of a single building.

Let's be clear, destroying UN HQ would not destroy war effort against Heaven, but it would cause serious issues until things are sorted out.

So... you agree with me; you just wanted to lecture me on how silly I was. Right.

Simon_Jester wrote:Lots of places; the teleconference has been invented, remember?

Good luck running it with couple hundred people at once.

And who gets to choose WHEN teleconference is held? USA demanding that it is during their office hours starts with quite little goodwill from people from opposite end of the world.

Seriously, the UN serves a valuable function, but as a building its headquarters is extremely replaceable. As an institution, it is still replaceable, because people can easily improvise a way to fill its main useful role. The UN is a forum for international discussion. It is neither the forum nor the only forum.

Name other existing global scale forums with as much active members as UN.

International discussion will remain necessary during this war, because allies always need to talk to each other. This is so obvious I'm not sure why you feel the need to mention it. But the UN as such, as a specific institution, is not necessary in this war. It can be replaced by something else that does the same job just as well, in a fairly short period of time.

Politicians call the shots for armies, not opposite way around. You guys often forget the political aspect of the issue when it is more important than military aspect. After all, USA had it's ass handed back to it in Vietnam greatly because of political reasons.

Months is fairly short period? And UN replacement again requires everyone to agree to it's terms. Making such agreement would not be quick unless it is made as very short term solution and kept very open.

Yes. You do not need to lecture people about this. It is obvious and simple. However, while cooperation is necessary, cooperation can be achieved in many ways, and the UN is only one of those ways.

Name as efficient method which has equally wide reception.
And without need to drag Putin out of bed at midnight so Obama can talk to him during lunch.

Remember that this is a wartime alliance. People are much less likely to bicker over the shape of the negotiating table while they are being shot at. There is a strong general consensus among humanity in the story that the war actually needs to be fought. By itself this does not make the need for negotiation go away (both Britain and the US agreed that Britain should receive Lend-Lease equipment; obviously they still had to talk about how much would be sent, and on what schedule). But it makes people far, far more willing to bypass the normal circumstances to get the negotiation process to go quickly- conferences take as long as they must, not as long as the diplomats can argue back and forth over who gets to be the first to announce the wonderful deal they're planning to sign.

You forget something, there is no ALLIANCE outside Yamantau-club. They are firmly keeping others out.

Guess what it means to those kept outside?
Well, it really does not give huge incentive not to bicker. After all, they are expected to foot the bill but not have the vote.

That is one thing which USA royally fucked up with Iraq. What incentive their allies have to stay there to help them if they are not making any profit from it?

To get where it is now, Y-club has had to make lots of deals with nations all over.
And to get further, they have to make more.

Less efficient this process is, less effective the HEA will be in operation.

And my point has been that UN is not just symbolic target. It has great practical impact as well.

Tiwaz wrote:Good luck running it with couple hundred people at once.
And who gets to choose WHEN teleconference is held? USA demanding that it is during their office hours starts with quite little goodwill from people from opposite end of the world.

It's a starting point, especially for regional meetings where the time zone difference is manageable. Or, hell, just fly ambassadors to a random office building somewhere in the world and have them start hashing things out.

It's not optimal. It's not perfect. But it would be foolish to expect a hasty jury-rigged solution to a wartime problem to be optimal or perfect. There will be problems with language barriers, time zones, and so on. But these are not huge invincible barriers. They're problems, things that intelligent competent people who actually want to get things done can and will overcome given time.

Having to do all this will, of course, be a problem. But it's a problem people can work to solve fairly quickly, without an undue expense in resources or labor.

Politicians call the shots for armies, not opposite way around. You guys often forget the political aspect of the issue when it is more important than military aspect. After all, USA had it's ass handed back to it in Vietnam greatly because of political reasons.

Umm... what?

Look, I think you're missing something here. Politicians tend to behave very differently when threatened than they do when not threatened. In Vietnam, the war was optional for everyone outside Vietnam. That made a huge difference. Look at a different war, one where all the combatants were in serious danger, and you see a different picture. Think about all the international summits and conferences the Allies had during the Second World War. It wasn't easy, and it wasn't cheap, but it was necessary, just as much so as tanks and guns.

And they did it, because they knew quite well that they needed to. So no, I am not forgetting the political aspect; I'm saying that you seem to have an abstract notion of "this is how politics works" that doesn't change when the facts on the ground change. That's a bad model of politics, because one of the great marks of a successful politician is their flexibility.

Months is fairly short period? And UN replacement again requires everyone to agree to it's terms. Making such agreement would not be quick unless it is made as very short term solution and kept very open.

Why shouldn't it be? The reason international coordination is essential in this scenario is because of the need to keep wartime logistics running. Honestly, why not simply assemble an international body dedicated to this purpose and this alone, and worry about precisely what its policy on preserving World Heritage sites is after the shooting is over?

It would be a very short term solution, but it would be a solution.

You forget something, there is no ALLIANCE outside Yamantau-club. They are firmly keeping others out.

I really think you're misreading the story. Everyone got the Message; everyone is threatened. Uriel and the supercharged weather attacks hurt Yamantau members and non-members alike. The Yamantau club happen to be the center of the war effort's coordination, but they are not the only people involved in the war and they are not the only people with something to lose if the war is lost.

You forget something, there is no ALLIANCE outside Yamantau-club. They are firmly keeping others out.

Guess what it means to those kept outside?
Well, it really does not give huge incentive not to bicker. After all, they are expected to foot the bill but not have the vote.

What bill? The nations on the Yamantau Council, by and large, represent both the bulk of the military forces using in the anti-Heaven and -Hell efforts, as well as the majority of the world's economic might. They are footing the bill.

To get where it is now, Y-club has had to make lots of deals with nations all over.
And to get further, they have to make more.

Not really. As I mentioned above, most of the other nations have a relatively small role in the whole Salvation War effort. And there are other ways to make deals than in the UN.

My personal belief (I don't know if this is how it will end up in the story universe) is that the UN is probably going to be effectively defunct after the Salvation War settles down into some type of peaceful equilibriam. You almost always see new organizations and new alliances rising out of major wars (think of the Congress of Vienna, the League of Nations, the UN itself), and the Salvation War is no exception.

Simon_Jester wrote:Umm... what?

Look, I think you're missing something here. Politicians tend to behave very differently when threatened than they do when not threatened. In Vietnam, the war was optional for everyone outside Vietnam. That made a huge difference. Look at a different war, one where all the combatants were in serious danger, and you see a different picture. Think about all the international summits and conferences the Allies had during the Second World War. It wasn't easy, and it wasn't cheap, but it was necessary, just as much so as tanks and guns.

Really, so why are politicians acting extremely politicianlike in the story? Hmm?
Running separate nephilim research instead of pooling everything to common good...

And they did it, because they knew quite well that they needed to. So no, I am not forgetting the political aspect; I'm saying that you seem to have an abstract notion of "this is how politics works" that doesn't change when the facts on the ground change. That's a bad model of politics, because one of the great marks of a successful politician is their flexibility.

Yes, flexibility in looking after their interests.

I really think you're misreading the story. Everyone got the Message; everyone is threatened. Uriel and the supercharged weather attacks hurt Yamantau members and non-members alike. The Yamantau club happen to be the center of the war effort's coordination, but they are not the only people involved in the war and they are not the only people with something to lose if the war is lost.

Yes, everyone got the message. But only handful of people are called to the club which is center of war effort coordination.
If everyone is equally involved, everyone must have equal say.

This is not so, thus there is no reason for those kept out from the decisionmaking to play by their rules if they are not compensated well enough.

War will not be lost, but that is because Yamantau-club knows they have to give a lot to maintain the support of the rest of the world.

It is much like a strike. Goal of the strike is not to cause the company to go bankrupt, but to make them agree to terms demanded.
If company is prepared to go bankrupt, then it does. But usually they try to negotiate and offer something in exchange for continued cooperation.

Guardsman Bass wrote: What bill? The nations on the Yamantau Council, by and large, represent both the bulk of the military forces using in the anti-Heaven and -Hell efforts, as well as the majority of the world's economic might. They are footing the bill.

Germany, I recall, is not in Yamantau. But their tank division participated in battles.

Furthermore, while Yamantau has bulk of military and industrial might, they cannot turn their industrial might into war economy without support of other nations.

How long do you think USA for example could keep their tanks running if oil producers demanded payment for every barrel of fuel?

That is part of footing the bill.

Not really. As I mentioned above, most of the other nations have a relatively small role in the whole Salvation War effort. And there are other ways to make deals than in the UN.

Name one that is equally effective and covers as much nations at same time.

Yes, everyone got the message. But only handful of people are called to the club which is center of war effort coordination.
If everyone is equally involved, everyone must have equal say.

Not everyone is equally involved. Look at the share of the fighting that was done by the American and Russian forces, for example.

This is not so, thus there is no reason for those kept out from the decisionmaking to play by their rules if they are not compensated well enough.

Some of them are. Others get the compensation of being able to sell shit to the Yamantau Alliance, or of simply knowing that out there, there is a group of people who are working to ensure that they aren't vulnerable to unseen forces or eternal torture.

War will not be lost, but that is because Yamantau-club knows they have to give a lot to maintain the support of the rest of the world.

Heh. What exactly are the other nations going to do if they don't like what the Yamantau Alliance is doing?

Threaten to withhold economic support? As I mentioned above, the Yamantau nations are already the bulk of the world's economic and military might.

Threaten to ally with Heaven? Ask Myanmar (hopefully now Burma once again) how well that works.

Sit it out? Then they just get ignored, and others reap the benefits.

Tiwaz wrote:

Guardsman Bass wrote: What bill? The nations on the Yamantau Council, by and large, represent both the bulk of the military forces using in the anti-Heaven and -Hell efforts, as well as the majority of the world's economic might. They are footing the bill.

Germany, I recall, is not in Yamantau. But their tank division participated in battles.

Wrong.

Pantheocide Chapter 8 wrote:
. . . in this room, the Chairman of the Council was just the first amongst equals. Nations had gained their place in this room in one of two ways. Either they had the military and economic power to demand it or they had simply been in the right place at the right time to earn it. The United States, Russia, China, Great Britain, France, Germany, Australia, Japan, India, Iran, Israel, Brazil, Italy, Thailand and Singapore.

Furthermore, while Yamantau has bulk of military and industrial might, they cannot turn their industrial might into war economy without support of other nations.

How long do you think USA for example could keep their tanks running if oil producers demanded payment for every barrel of fuel?

That is part of footing the bill.

The nations above have quite a bit of oil capacity between them if it was necessary. Moreover, do you seriously think any of the major oil producers are going to refuse them and the war effort? The countries in question could just take the oil if they had to.

Not really. As I mentioned above, most of the other nations have a relatively small role in the whole Salvation War effort. And there are other ways to make deals than in the UN.

Name one that is equally effective and covers as much nations at same time.

The Yamantau Council covers the most important players, and the rest can be dealt with via informal and/or country-to-country deals.

You don't get it - they don't need the UN, with all its baggage, rules, and regulations, to do this.

Guardsman Bass wrote:
Wrong.

Pantheocide Chapter 8 wrote:
. . . in this room, the Chairman of the Council was just the first amongst equals. Nations had gained their place in this room in one of two ways. Either they had the military and economic power to demand it or they had simply been in the right place at the right time to earn it. The United States, Russia, China, Great Britain, France, Germany, Australia, Japan, India, Iran, Israel, Brazil, Italy, Thailand and Singapore.

I stand corrected.

The nations above have quite a bit of oil capacity between them if it was necessary. Moreover, do you seriously think any of the major oil producers are going to refuse them and the war effort? The countries in question could just take the oil if they had to.

And how far their own capacity goes? Will they drive their own economy to ground to fuel the military?

As for taking the oil. Very good way to ensure that you are mired in two front war. It is something they would want to avoid like plague.

It is easy to say you take the oil, it is completely different case to actually pull it off successfully.

Case in point, Iraq.

The Yamantau Council covers the most important players, and the rest can be dealt with via informal and/or country-to-country deals.

You don't get it - they don't need the UN, with all its baggage, rules, and regulations, to do this.

How many members are in Yamantau-club? Hmm? Have you noted how many members are in UN?

192. That means you have to pull well over 100 deals on bilateral grounds to get where UN gets with just one.

As for baggage, all nations were involved in creating that baggage.

How does the UN simplify any bilateral deals or whatever there are, anyway? With or without a UN, nations are still going to talk to each other and make deals and stuff. Sure, they might not meet in the UN buildings or might not use UN regulations or whatever, but deals and agreements and communications are still going to happen with or without a UN, even if the UN came in any other name, shape, form, size, mass, density, color, dimension, scent, odor, taste, or sound.

I mean, whole craploads of international deals happen in organizations with acronyms that have more letters than the UN. The G8, the EU, ASEAN, NATO, SEATO, that Russian-Chinese-whatever international organization, the Arab League, the League of Nations, ISAF, WHO, NORAD, etcetera.

Yes, it might be more inconvenient - but it will still happen. The UN is not irreplaceable. The only way to totally remove the UN would be, to, uh, destroy all the member nations or something.

And it's not like the Yamantau Club members are putting all the UN nations on an Ignore List. Both organizations can work together, except that Yamantau is taking the lead.