[lightgreen]

With so many controversies about UN (WHO about masks; UN about Taiwan; Russia and China having veto; UN support for Khmer Rouge and so on and on and on), UN does not matter much. It would be better for the world if UN was disposed and replaced with something meaningful.

(The article mentions “The UN called on authorities to specifically ensure federal and local police were clearly identifiable“, which would be very good, but nobody really cares about what UN says.)

[_8j50]

What a silly thing to say, and who should fight that world war? You do realize the UN is the reason WW3 has been delayed for so long? The UN is not an authority over nations, it's an organization meant to facilitate diplomacy. So, instead of Europe sanctioning the US in this case, they take action in form of a meaningful yet ineffective condemnation. It succeeded in avoiding diplomatic escalation.

The US is not special, extrajudicial killings happen all over the world, when was your UN replacement that will fix the world when this started in philippines in 2016? Syria? What will your replacement do, send troops? Sanction? The UN does that.

Ever heard of the term belling the cat? http://read.gov/aesop/003.html

[chrisco255]

The UN is not the reason for the delay in WWIII. Mutually assured destruction is the reason for that. The US and Russia conducted proxy wars for decades in spite of the existence of the UN.

[_8j50]

Not true at all, world war is not synonymous with nucleat wat between US and Russia. Regional conflicts grow and draw in super power allies, before you know it you are fighting proxy wars and those proxy wars grow to actual battles. If and when nuclear powers feel their existence is in danger, they will use nuclear force.

Mutually assured destruction sounds nice in movies but in reality, it stopped the mighty japanese empire. Some look at nukes as a way to sacrifice millions to save billions. Some think even a nuke power like the US will not continue to escalate after a nuclear war because of political red tape or MAD,the US or Russia for examples might surrender and accept loss instead of riskiny a global nuclear war.

[chrisco255]

Sure, regional wars can grow into world wars. WWI was precisely that. However, the dynamics of war entirely changed after nuclear proliferation. There have already been dozens of not more than 100 regional proxy wars since WWII and none of them have triggered a true world war. So the UN was not effective at preventing regional war (which as you said can escalate to world war) but it is effective at preventing world war? I don't see it. I see individual nations acting in their own perceived best interests. I see US military dominance as this century's "Pax Britannica" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Britannica). But as the US's economy shrinks relative to global GDP and China's expands this peace will come under tremendous stress. I'm not convinced the dysfunctional UN will be the world's savior.

[_8j50]

The UN facilitates diplomacy, instead of NATO deciding to do something about russia, they have a security council vote and with diplomacy form blocs of nations on each side of a conflict. Before the UN,an alliance like NATO will do something about russia and just drag in others. Not just the great war, but WW2 is a good example, diplomacy with italy and japan would have prevent or deescalate many of their aggressions, but at the same time response against the axist could have been global, imagine not waiting for an axis invasion but sending troops as part of a coalition force before they advance to you, problem was there was no place where nations could agree on a response.

If China starts invading asia for example, the UN can be used to sanction or even coordinate a resistance effort both diplomatic and kinetic before it gets out of control.

[lightgreen]

> WW2 is a good example, diplomacy with italy and japan would have prevent or deescalate many of their aggressions

How that could possible work?

UN talks to Italy and Japan saying: hey guys, we know you already killed a lot of people (especially you Japan, Nanjing Massacre), and we know you are Germany allies, but please, do nothing while we crush the Germany, and then we will liberate all the territories you have already acquired, but you just deescalate your aggression.

What would be the reason for Italy and Japan to listen the "UN"?

Oh, BTW, League of Nations existed prior to WW2, and Germany, Italy and Japan were it's members.

> If China starts invading asia for example, the UN can

China has veto. UN can't do anything against China.

[ta17711771]

I'd rather have been conquered by the Japanese.

[lightgreen]

Which means that you are either an ultra pacifist against any form of violence even for self-defecnce or you did not study history well enough https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

[_8j50]

You never heard of the Nanjing massacre? Some say it's worse than the holocaust: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

Unless you are japanese that empire will not have treated you nicely. "The man in the high castle" shows how it might have been under japanese rule. No thanks.