What would happen if we abolish the U.N.?
822314
The U.N. is largely dysfunctional, but it certainly serves a purpose.  We have had a number of successful, multinational military campaigns engaged through the U.N. to ensure peace and security in a number of countries.  The World Court I believe is successful (except for America's lack of participation at a certain level). The General Assembly is a forum for all countries to air out their grievances.\nI think that if the U.N. would be dissolved, what we'd see is more disaffection from small countries (especially Muslim countries) who would believe that the "major" powers would be then completely free to do anything.  In addition, without a collective international voice, the "emerging" superpowers of India, China, perhaps Pakistan, would feel less contstrained from using their large populations, economies, and weapons to become richer and "more respected" on the international stage, and may try to do something like invade a country or hold the EU or the US "for ransom," refusing to trade or threatening (indirect) military action.  So, I think it would make the world less stable, but not change a whole lot.
710902
No there wouldn't be world peace.... but a lot less fighitng.
95861
It is a possibility but the consequence would probably be third world war. I hope that it never happens.
523001
It would change the Earth's rotation and the Earth would tilt on its axis. What if all of us asked the same question at the same time that violated one of  Yahoo's community guidelines? Would the system completely break down?
335852
The UN needs to go. It's a waste of money and valuable real estate in NYC. They really don't do anybody any good other than to sponge money from the USA.
571
I'd try to eliminate censorship because censorship is stupid.  I'd also pull the troops out of Iraq.
846415
Bush would have loved to finish the job. The U.N. would not allow it. That is when we should have left the U.N.
547905
Being under UN's control wouldn't solve the problem. The Palestinians won't stop until Israel is destroyed and the entire Jewish population is dead or gone somewhere else.
875057
There would be utter chaos. Their government is not strong enough to support itself and there would be groups trying to overthrow it. It would just lead to more violence than there is now. This is just a big mess that the United States has gotten itself into. There is nothing more we can do there but if we pull out it would probably be worse than it was before we went in. There's just no answer for how to solve this problem.
206676
The world would come together in panic ... "Where the &*^^ did the US go?"  Conspiracy theorys would abound.  Tensions would be high - no one would trust anyone else.  Did an experiment go wrong?  Did one country develope an incredible weapon?  Are the aliens finally attacking?  Did God decide simply to wipe them off the face of the earth?  Different groups would claim responsibility -- most of them groups no one has ever heard of.  And all over this great world, there would be office pools involving which country would disappear next.  (My money would be on Akrotiri - but really, if they disappeared, who'd notice?)
513616
I would abolish my kingdom.
688162
In regards to Bush leaving, it depends on who would replace him. As for the world being better off with out the entire USA, I guess much of the world would have serious financial problems considering how much money, food, and aid the USA gives to everyone else.
1078463
Yes. The U.N. is primarily made up of countries that would have to be considered as run by dictators.  Nothing good can come from such an organisation.  We cling to it in hope of it fullfilling its inteded purpose.  We should accept its failure or get rid of the countries that are not in compliance with the founding principals. As it is, it is only a way of helping evil prevail.
510667
Here's and idea---get the UN out of the US and get the US out of the UN.
252912
I would stop selling weapons. That would prove to the people that the US really wants peace.
557059
U.N peacekeeping is not a good job. You will basically be under U.N umbrella and not by the rules of your native country, and the U.N is managed by people who have no military experience at all, and is very corrupt and deploy you places they have very little information and waste your life in there, remember Somalia?, (Very good example) U.N mission failed in Somalia, because the mission has never been planed well.
780768
If the USA threw the UN out of New York, it would likely decamp to Brussels (home of NATO, Council of Europe and capital of the European Union). I can't see the UN going anywhere else although I suspect one of the other Security Council members would offer to host it:- maybe London or Paris.\n\nIf the USA did this then they could either stay in the UN or leave. \n\nIf they decided to stay then I don't see much change from the status quo except everyone would decamp to another country. The USA might lose a bit of influence, but as it is still the most powerful economy in the Security Council and NATO, it would still be most able to act unilaterally in its own interest regarding world affairs. After all, no government in their right mind is going to stand up militarily to the US as has been seen in Afghanistan and Iraq.\n\nIf the USA were to leave, I guess the pro argument (from the US point of view) would be that they would be more able to act in whatever way they wished in world affairs, whether that be to withdraw completely from any world involvement or to force their will upon other countries with military backup.\n\nI can't see a pro argument for the USA leaving from other countries' point of view. The vast majority of countries look to the USA for world leadership, which is why they are trying so hard to get the USA onboard the Kyoto Protocol. The idea that any world issue can be resolved without the USA being onboard is naïve.\n\nThe main argument against the USA leaving the UN would be that it would set a precedent for other countries to follow. No doubt Russia and Israel would quickly follow suit so that they could go their own way in solving their own internal and external security problems. Maybe China, India, Brazil and the other big emerging markets would leave as well.\n\nI think what would be left would be Europe, South East Asia and Africa as these are the states that have most to gain out of the UN. Maybe Canada would stay as they are much more into consensus politics than is the USA, but the majority of others would leave.\n\nThe problem with this scenario is that world security, on a general level, would rapidly decrease, as there would be no supranational body to keep a check on the power of every country's government. There would be little consensus in world politics as countries went their own way politically. What we would be left with is a situation not much different from Europe pre-WW1, but on a global scale. The world would be governed by alliances between countries forming themselves into loose power blocs rather than with an overarching polity keeping a check on this.\n\nAs was seen in Sarajevo in 1914, the smallest action could trigger a conflict of massive proportions if there is no supranational body to keep watch. It took Europe until 1945 to realise that to stop a continual threat of war, some form of integration was needed to prevent war between countries. What we have seen in Europe since 1945 is truly amazing. Old enemies now resolve disputes in offices rather than on the battlefield. As a result the European citizen has a more secure life, is free to travel, free to say what he/she thinks... we've never had it so good.\n\nConversely, if there is no UN, then markets would likely collapse or depreciate due to a lack of security and the lives of people all over the world would no doubt get much harder.\n\nChris, Manchester, North-West England, United Kingdom, Europe.