The United Nations goal is technically maintaining international peace and security. If they’re always afraid to do something when a country attacks another without provocation, out of fear of escalating the situation, why does it even exist?
In: 3
it’s a political forum for dignitaries. it’s military power is restricted to ‘peace keepers’ and humanitarian aid used almost exclusively for anti genocide reactions and is very limited.
the UN is slowly expanding power as a government but is pretty much just a centralized communications hub for any organized government to talk to other governments publicly.
The un is not a military bloc. It’s members aren’t bond to protect watch other…. I think your trying to ask this question about NATO
I assume this is about Russia-Ukraine. First off, China has a huge backdoor if they want a chunk of Siberia. They should take it, but they’d get nuked, too.
The problem is the nuclear weapons and those who control them. When the US used them in Japan, there is an argument to be made that it saved lives, despite killing 100-200k people. Those 2 bombs ended the war.
People don’t recognize how advanced the weapons have become, and how if someone is losing the conventional battle, how a couple of countries have the capacity to flip the game board into the air and everyone dies.
UN does a decent job of taking action against any member other than the permanent five on the security council. And it has prevented an all out war between any of those permanent five through dialog. Not a whole hell of a lot but better than nothing I guess.
1. The United Nations do not exist to wage war, but to keep peace. Sending UN troops to fight a war on one side could easily make a mockery of the whole institution. It’s not about not escalating the situation but about not taking sides.
2. The security council of the UN is what makes decisions about interventions. In this council, Russia, the US, China, France and Great Britain have a right to veto anything. So you have at least 2 global superpowers with often competing interest in there, three if you consider France a representative of the EU. Meaning it is unlikely that all 5 of these countries agree on the necessity of an intervention at any given time, and if one doesn’t, nothing happens. And yes, the members with eternal veto rights are kinda arbitrary picks based on who was a global power at the point of inception of the UN.
[removed]
The UN is a forum for dialogue between nations. It’s where one nation can address grievances on another nation and have allies and otherwise-neutral third parties weigh in on the matter.
Occasionally, the UN does have teeth (see: Korean War), but for the most part exists so nations can talk it out rather than shoot it out.
It exists to
1. Ensure western powers can avoid a war amongst themselves
2. To avoid Eastern powers from becoming influential or to ensure eastern powers are not able to retaliate
3. To ensure there are no consequences/ opposition to their scheme of things
Where does it say that the UN is about maintaining peace and security? They provide 60%+ of the world’s children’s vaccinations.
This is an absolutist question. There are levels of escalation and countering that involves all facets of the international system not just the military.
Latest Answers