The Atlas Initiative:

This is for a near-future political thriller

By 2037, industrial civilization was starting to buckle under the pressure of having to supply 8.3 Billion people with food, energy, and sufficient medical care in the face of climate change and political instability. Unless something was done to counteract this, the nations of the world would plunge into an escalating series of resource wars in the hopes of sustaining their ending in exhaustion and collapse. Panicked, the U.N Security Council called a Summit the outcome of which was the formation of the Atlas Initiative.

It started as a think tank/R&D firm funded by the United States, China, India, Russia, and the U.K. The task before them was enormous: to devise a viable plan by which the effort to save civilization could be rendered a success.

I\'ll go more into the specifics of the plan next post, but w I\'m more aiming to get the politics right. So let\'s posit that the U.N Security Council in such a time of global crisis loaned considerable scientific and military assets to an organization like the Atlas Initiative for the reasons specified. What are some of the many reactions be and how would that factor into actually dealing with the crisis?

I don't see any of these countries trusting the UN (or each other) enough to make that work unless they've already exhausted all of their own resources, in which case the UN isn't going to have enough resources to do it either .

It wouldn't have to be all of their resources exhausted... but it would have to be a situation where any solution however repulsive and under ordinary circumstances politically untenable would be preferrable to the threat looming over them: a series of resource wars followed by exhaustion, collapse, and a new stone age amid a drowning and devestated world. So it's a situation where the Godzilla Threshold has been crossed and a plan is needed (2037). The Atlas Initiative - a think tank/R&D Firm provides the plan and persuades the U.N Security Council to loan the scientific and military assets requird to pull it off (2042)

However, for this to be even remotely plausible there would have to be a Pearl Harbor Moment to serve as catalyst for this sort of global response. Given that I am trying to write a near future political thriller/ old-fashioned radio serial starting from the Godzilla Threshold and following the plan to bring the world "back from the brink" and keep it that way, how could I design the setting to provide maximum opportunities for stories of that kind?

(edit: Would the G8 be a more plausible option?)

edited 12th Jan '15 11:36:33 AM by goldenerasuburb

Some people-in fact, lots of people would oppose a paradigm shift away from money-better Dead than Red, as it were.

edited 13th Jan '15 12:26:46 PM by dvorak

You're looking for a scenario wherein the governments of the world are willing to give up their own powers to the auspices of a new body that they certainly won't entrust with enough power to get things done, which may make decisions contrary to their own desires, and which would certainly lack enforcement capability to punish major governments that wouldn't follow its wishes?

Yeah, realist polisci check here: it's not happening.

The way I see it, a lot of countries would be against it because they might feel they'll just be paying (giving resources) to help the named countries and not their own people.

Even if the world has become far more civilised thanks to the UN, countries still distrust each other. And, I hope I don't offend anyone by saying this, there is a lot of distrust towards the specific countries you mentioned in the OP.

I believe that, in the best case scenario, a lot of countries would just leave the UN, form their own coalitions and hope for the best. Worst case scenario is, of course, (yet another) world war.

Anyway, regarding your "Pearl Harbor" moment, you'll also have to consider that, unless it happens everywhere, a lot of people will respond with It's very sad what happened in <insert country here> but it's not my problem.

P.S. A little question, why India and not France, the other member of the UNSC? Is it because of the population?

That's pretty much what it all boils down to. Countries would only join such an organization if they feel they'll be better off in it than out of it, and it's very hard to imagine such a scenario, especially at the outset.

Fun fact: the anime series Macross had humanity become unified under the U.N. due to the threat of a possible alien invasion,. However in order to make it happen there was a unification war.

Such a plan would certainly call for a hell of a lot of oversight just to make sure the involved countries weren't getting cheated out of their remaining resources. Which means a heck of a lot of beauracratic red tape. Let's face it, things change slowly because it takes time to anything. I can see these countries cooperating if they feel backed up against the wall, but damn sure everyone is going to want to keep an eye on everyone else.

Also in regards to the UN comment above; the UN is more of a diplomatic platform rather than a body with power. At least in action. So really the UN CAN'T do anything without the agreement of the countries involved in it. I'd suggest to the OP that he study how the organization works since he wants to get the politics right.