• BWchief117@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Call it a flaw if you want, but it is also probably contributing to no more world wars

        • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think it’s less effective than it could be with the ability to check world powers and their allies with financial incentives among other things.

      • AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The US would veto via military action if we couldn’t veto by voting. It’s a bad system, but better than going to war (more than we already do).

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        No - they’re why the UN exists.

        The purpose of the UN is to prevent global war. The Security Council veto keeps the UN from taking sides in a military conflict against the interests of a county that can maintain that level of warfare.

        • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lmao

          The UN was not created to maintain peace. They were the result of a massive conflict. The ability to give financial incentives for peace by restricting powerful nations would make the UN a thousand times more effective.