The UN is really just meant to prevent World War 3 and nuclear war. It has succeeded in this for the last 70 years. The structure of the UN is basically unanimous consensus between the major world powers with each power getting a veto.

There is no unanimous consensus on this issue at all.

▲

spwa4 2 days ago | parent [-]

Did it? Because this was also always the argument for the "League of Nations" that came before it. If you read 1930s newspapers that's what they give as a reason for the organization's existence ...

Now after WW2, consensus is that the League of Nations may have outright caused WW2, and certainly contributed more than any other individual factor. The League of Nations was the embodiment of the treaty of Versailles. As if that wasn't bad enough, the League of Nations was also the league of nations that stopped most reactions against Hitler immediately before the war.

I'm not even going to bother drawing the obvious parallel with how the UN is treating nuclear powers, and people defending themselves against attacks by a nuclear (or trying-to-be-nuclear) power.

▲

daft_pink 2 days ago | parent [-]

It did because world war 3 hasn’t happened and it’s been about 80 years vs the short time between world war 2 and world war 1.

	▲	spwa4 a day ago \| parent [-]
		I'll just ask the forbidden question: and did WW3 not happen because of the UN ... or because of MAD? (VERY importantly, combined with a fundamental agreement on the value of human life, at least to some extent, between the 2 dominant powers Russia and the US and now China) Not saying that a meeting room where nuclear powers have permanent presence isn't useful. But to say it is responsible for peace somehow is just crazy.