I think it's highly unlikely. Many people believe that the risk is too great that if a world government should become tyrannical and oppressive, there'd be no place to go. Competition and choice among governments and nations is as important to quality of life as is competition and choice between companies and products. On an historical note, the original theory of the United States was that competition between independent sovereign stantes in a loosely governed Federation, in which the puropose of the Federal government ostensibly was to safeguard the freedom of commerce between those competing states but otherwise to let them govern themselves independently, would promote freedom and prosperity. That guiding principle has long since died (some people point to the "New Deal" as the downward pivot point, but that's debatable among US historians), and is believed is what propelled the US to it's rapid growth and prosperty during its early development.

Heaven help us if that should happen. When it comes to resolving conflicts, the UN really does not have a very good track record. Its first big test (the Korean conflict) ended in a stalemate. The UN forces fighting on behalf of South Korea were not allowed to take the actions necessary to defeat North Korea (the aggressors in the war). As a result the people of North Korea have suffer under one of the most repressive regimes there is while their neighbors to the south prosper. North Korea is still stirring up trouble today because the UN did not do the job right in the early 1950's. This conflict, however, set the pattern for much of what the UN has done since. The UN prefers short-term Band-Aids rather than long term solutions. It prefers to stop conflicts before the aggressors in these conflicts can be properly defeated and removed from power. Because of this the aggressors are able to rearm and start trouble all over again at a later date and the UN has to go in an broker another cease fire starting the cycle all over again. Then there is the history of corruption with in the UN. One of the problems is that most of the member nations are dictatorships. Corruption is rampant in such nations. This corruption is then carried by their delegates to the UN infecting it. The Oil for Food program in Iraq was one example of this corruption (http://tinyurl.com/4sppa). Then there was the systematic rapes that were committed by UN "peacekeepers" in a number of African nations they were supposed to be protecting (http://tinyurl.com/bqt8z http://tinyurl.com/ra3g3). These are just a few of the problems with the UN. For more just Google UN Corruptiont. I would not trust them to provide a just government for the world.

absolutely not---the un is a vast wasteland, corrupt, incompetent and self serving. i don't need a bunch of idiots from the third world who cannot even get their own stuff together or feed clothe and protect their population to govern me or my country. they couldn't find their ass with both hands! never--never!

It is sickening that the UN is already a cackling hall of the worst jackals and despots. Many of these two bit despots don't give their people the right to vote, yet their country gets a vote in the UN? Make all dictatorships 'non-voting' members. Set up standards for 'inclusion' including basic freedoms and human rights tolerance and you will have a more reasonable world body. Many americans are getting sick of funding this broken organization that allows Syria on the human rights council (etc.). So my answer is NO WAY.

I don't think it will. Its far more likely to become a pawn or appendage of a one world government.

I think it is a very unlikely idea. To think that one government body could manage 7 billion people is proposterous. There would be too many cultural conflicts, moral conflicts, religious conflicts, etc...to adequately manage everyone.

One the one hand, it'd be nice if we could have a governing body that could coordinate the actions of various countries and all just like the US does for it's 50 states. However, I don't think that the UN is a good way to do that. NATO is a little better equipped as their members are closer in ideologies and share more common goals than the diverse members of the UN. Also, there is the fact that, as I pointed out in a comment above, there are five members with total veto power. Make friends with one of them and your country can get away with ANYTHING because your ally will defang the UN if they try to impose sanctions. Military action is unlikely as that isn't the UN's thing, and in that respect I feel they are a bit soft.

The concept of one world government is SO FAR into the future of even possibly coming true,that it's really just a good story element for sci-fi movies and novels. And the UN would hardly be the proper vessel to undertake such a thing. First off, while the UN was initially set up to actually be something like a global police force, that never really happened. It was supposed to have it's own Army, Navy and Air Force. The whole potency of the United Nations is really dependent on just what powers it is granted by member nations and to what extent those powers can be used. Most nations have not and would not want to abdicate that much sovereignty to an external body. This is good for the nations, but bad for the United Nations. It has never lived up to what it's founders thought it should be. Maybe we're better for it? Maybe not. But in the end, the UN as it is now, could never become the single governing body for the whole world.

If the UN were to become the world government, then god help us all! Genocide would spread like wildfire around the globe, while the UN held endless meetings about what to call it. Tyrannical megalomaniacs would have free reign to carry out their atrocities with impunity, and if ever they DID actually decide to intervene in any conflict (ha ha) they'd most likely send a force of 500 troops against 150,000 heavily armed and murderous war criminals, and tell them they aren't allowed to fire their weapons unless they've already been killed, or some other equally incomprehensible directive. With that many cooks in the the kitchen it would be like a republican/democrat debate on PCP!

We're already there... Those in the UN simply want the EU to get stronger & then.... "BOOM" bye bye USA...

Revelation 17:11 (New International Version) New International Version (NIV) Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society 11)The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction. League of Nations becoming the UN??

The UN should be put out of existence. It is a worthless corrupt organization.

I'd rather it were the United Nations than the Pentagon.

It's a place to make Angelina Jolie the next "Mother Teresa". Why didn't the terrorists fly a plane into it on 9/11/01? Because no one would have cared!

Are there any available shuttle flights to the moon/mars?

God Help Us All.

I hope the rapture comes first!

Considering how corrupt it already is...

If it ever does become a 1 Government, it won't be run by multiple political parties with different ethnicities. Wouldn't you say to even think it possible, with all the racial and cultural and ethnic factors even in today's arena, is more 'fantasical' than 'possible'? And if there were to be one, the goals of the nations would be for the good of the people which is not that bad, is it?? If each Nation is willing to give up their seats to one Government, I guess it is their choice... which might mean every Republican and Democrat politician in the US without a job.. Besides, why would any Nation want to be sucked into a scam like idea?? Will the motto be, 'Give me your Nation's seats, and we will give you good things?' Sounds a bit slippery. Why do I need to give in order to receive??? Which would the National leaders abhor more? 'Conspiring to Kidnap or protecting private enterprise?'

It won't.

According to Daniel 2:44 -

Look at how many countries are members and how much each one contributes. It will probably morph into something else in order to encompass more control. We already have a World Parliament. http://worldparliament-gov.org/

It will happen after Christ comes for his church. The Antichrist will head it up.

not sure what they rnean by that

They have done nothing of what they promised in the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights. FRom the many comments that preceded mine it seems that their is overwhelming dislike of the UN

This wise and brilliant woman will cure of that idea forever Unjust Justice: Against the Tyranny of International Law (Crosscurrents) 2nd Revised edition by Chantal Delsol The contemporary democratic humanitarian is a staunch proponent of “international law” and “international justice” as a way for the Western world to do penance for its missionary, colonial, and imperial past. However, argues the French philosopher Chantal Delsol, this purportedly humanitarian project is deeply flawed in its premises, means, and ends. In Unjust Justice, Delsol shows that as the favorite weapons in today’s “progressive” arsenal, the ideals and institutions of international law reflect the very moralistic dogmatism and inquisitorial spirit that the Enlightenment originally sought to replace. Older liberals, such as Montesquieu and Kant, were aware of the tyrannical potential of Enlightenment thought. Montesquieu therefore mounted a sturdy defense of human cultural and political diversity, and Kant distinguished sharply between the moral and the legal order. Contemporary progressives, on the other hand, betray a naïve and moralistic glibness. Delsol deflates their pretensions, unmasks their hypocrisies, and exposes the logic of their tyrannical methods. In so doing, she defends those real human and political values that are threatened by the contemporary zeal for international law.