[bluish29]

> The alternative to this unfair structure is no United Nations, and no place for countries to come to the table which is potentially worse.

Why the alternative is no united nations instead of equal and real representation of international community without bunch of countries having veto power.

[mmastrac]

It's just how things work. The League of Nations failed largely because it lacked the participation and support of major powers. The United States, despite being a principal architect of the League, never joined [1]. This lack of participation undermined the its legitimacy and effectiveness.

The veto power was established at the founding of the UN in 1945 as a reflection of the state of the world following World War II. The major powers were given veto power to get their buy-in and participation. Without this mechanism, these powers might not have joined or supported the UN, undermining its formation and initial effectiveness.

If the veto power were removed, the major powers might feel that their core interests and national security concerns could be overridden by the majority [2], leading to their withdrawal from the UN, and significantly weakening the organization's influence and capacity to act.

There's no real authority in any of these bodies, only the appearance and illusion of legitimacy which requires buy-in from its strongest members.

[1] https://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/league

[2] From above:

> Motivated by Republican concerns that the League would commit the United States to an expensive organization that would reduce the United States’ ability to defend its own interests, Lodge led the opposition to joining the League. Where Wilson and the League’s supporters saw merit in an international body that would work for peace and collective security for its members, Lodge and his supporters feared the consequences of involvement in Europe’s tangled politics, now even more complex because of the 1919 peace settlement.

[bluish29]

You are contradicting yourself. If the world power participation in UN is vital to its role but at the same time nothing outside the conflicted power between them then why do you think UN is more than a club of world power extended to include some people from thr outside?

And what actually prevented a global conflict after the world war II is not the UN succeeding into what League of nations, it is nuclear war and MAD doctrine. UN is currently a place so inneffective outside the general stuff that the veto countries can agree.

Again you are describing the current status que not how a real equal international community should work. Because currently when you hear that international community is behind <foo> it is usually US and some of their allies who are actual minority of humans [1]

[runarberg]

> And what actually prevented a global conflict after the world war II is not the UN succeeding into what League of nations, it is nuclear war and MAD doctrine.

This is wishful thinking and a history revisionism. Mathematically speaking MAD will always result in a nuclear Armageddon. People knew that and worked with the UN to prevent proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and escalation of the Nuclear Arms buildup. Without the UN it is hard to see something like the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty or the Non-Proliferation Treaty striking balance to the Nuclear Arms race and preventing a nuclear Armageddon.

[candiodari]

It was the US starting and pushing the comprehensive test ban treaty, not the UN. The UN didn't even try until the US successfully pushed it for decades. And STILL, all relevant negotiations are conducted by the US, the relevant backing organization is thoroughly US. It's physically in the US. It's staffed by US people. It's really more or less a branch of the US military, and it's equipment is almost exclusively on US military bases.

Also, the comprehensive test ban treaty is based on mathematical research. Yes, seriously. Who did that research? The US, and they shared it, which changed the calculus of nuclear weapons and allowed the treaty to happen. In fact, a US mathematician is famous for ignoring the US president in an actual meeting with him while doing this research.

Nuclear nonproliferation is a pure US project, that, if we're being honest, does not even really have the support of the US's closest allies. All countries WANT nuclear weapons, and while they cooperate with nonproliferation, they maintain nuclear weapons. That EVEN goes for France and the UK. Hell, even fucking Belgium tried (and, one might add, only stopped once they were absolutely sure they could do it). And, let's face facts: Belgium, along with 100 other countries will try to acquire nuclear weapons again if the US guarantees are violated. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, for example. Likely, at least Japan and China are maintaining programs that at the drop of a hat, in months, can produce working nuclear weapons. And I'd be AMAZED if both of those countries aren't, at minimum, further along than Iran is. Hell, my money is that at least those two have working nuclear weapons ready. Untested, but ready. Frankly, I'd be amazed if Belgium and even Canada don't have the core of a nuclear weapon ready stashed away ready somewhere (because both countries have the infrastructure needed to produce Nuclear weapons, and they have that infrastructure IN OPERATION (for other reasons, and yes, both countries have valid reasons). Yes they say they're not using it for weapons, but the idea that they're not at minimum "at the ready" is completely absurd to me)

What did the UN do?

The UN tried to solve the Nepal situation. Nepal doesn't exist anymore.

The UN tried to solve the DRC situation. It didn't work, and hundreds of thousands to millions were massacred as a result.

The UN tried to solve the Iran/ISIS/Lebanon/Syria/... conflicts. Eventually the only thing that was solved was the US using it's remaining military force in Iraq to destroy ISIS. The other conflicts are still simmering. Nothing was solved by the UN.

The UN tried to solve the Yemen situation. Nothing was solved.

The UN tried to solve Somalia. The people they tried to protect are no longer there (and most are dead).

The UN tried to solve the Israel situation. You are constantly complaining about what happened, which can be summarized as Israel successfully protected itself with US aid.

The UN, the same people, but under the name "League of Nations" tried to prevent WW2. Germany and the US still claim their actions CAUSED WW2. I'm not sure it's 100% true, but they make a pretty good case.

Besides, it wouldn't even matter, since the UN itself is a US and Israeli project. It would fall apart, even now, without the US.

Oh and you neglect to mention "the other MAD", that also is provided by the US: the guarantee that if one country attacks another, the attacked country will receive at minimum humanitarian aid, likely military aid from the US, and sometimes direct military intervention by the US. This MAD is also a critical component of post-war peace, because many countries would win military conflicts against at least some their neighbors, and where it doesn't work (e.g. Russia) ... we see constant wars.

Your case that countries worldwide are depending and trusting the UN to protect them from military conflict is absurd.

[mmastrac]

I don't think I'm contradicting myself - I think the UN is a mutually-beneficial, shared illusion that works only when the major powers that go into it believe that it works.

The most cynical view of the UN is that it is a club of the five major members that happens to include the rest of the world, yeah. But the power of the shared illusion gives it broad acceptance. And even if enforcement is uneven, the broad acceptance of the UN's role provides it with a degree of moral and political authority.

[immibis]

What does that even mean? If you do something the USA doesn't like, you get nuked (metaphorically or literally). That is how it is, court or no court. What good is a group that pretends to be "real representation of international community" if the USA can still override it with nukes?

The UN veto attempts to at least make the process transparent. A veto is like a promise "we will drop nukes on you if you try this, so don't." It's much better to find out that way, than to find out by having a nuclear bomb dropped on your head from a military jet.

[bluish29]

Unless of course the US is talking about another countries with nukes themselves. But you are making a good case for why it is in each country best interest to acquire nuclear weapons. North Korea appears, in your argument, one of the wisest regimes in the world.

I'm pretty sure that when US is vetoing Russia, it does not mean "we will drop nukes on you if you try this, so don't". Because Russian response will be of the sort "Great, try this and enjoy the fireworks over your population centers, we will hate to see the UN gone with the whole of New York".

[immibis]

Russia also has a veto. Either one can threaten the nukes to block a proposal.

A neutral order where nobody has nukes would be better than one where everyone has nukes. You probably can't get from here to there without the complete destruction of the US state apparatus along the way, though. The Russian one too. And every other major player.

[mbonnet]

because the reality is, some nations have nuclear weapons and colossal economic power, and some don't.

[dragonwriter]

India has nuclear weapons and more economic power than the UK.

And yet the UK has a veto, and India does not.

Also, only one of the P5 powers had nuclear weapons when the UN Charter was signed.

[linearrust]

The UN was created when india was a subservient colony of britain. When veto powers were being given out, india didn't exist as an independent country. That's why the UK has veto power while india doesn't.

There definitely needs to be a rebalancing of power within the UN but none of the P5 want their power diluted. And they have the all powerful veto power.

[ImJamal]

We've switched who has veto powers before. Soviet Union to Russia and the Republic of China to the People's Republic of China.

There is no reason we can't replace another government.

[Thiez]

Both of those cases involve the dissolution of the state holding the veto power. While dissolving the UK would be hilarious, I imagine they would veto it.

[dragonwriter]

> Both of those cases involve the dissolution of the state holding the veto power

The Republic of China did not dissolve.

[ImJamal]

The Republic of China is still around. The country we generally refer to as Taiwan is actually the Republic of China.

India is way larger both population and geographically than the UK just like the People's Republic of China is compared to the Republic of China so it seems like there is a precedent to do it.