• 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.