Not The Onion

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The UN is largely ineffective due to the security council. The fact that one country can effectively shut down a vote is the opposite of the Federation of Planets.

Now that I think of it, of course the UN is ineffectual. It's set up like the US system of legislature. A powerful smaller body that is largely disproportionate to the rest of the world fully controls everything the UN does.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I mean, it's much better than the alternative of said country starting nuclear war to get its way.

There's also the Uniting for Peace resolution.

parent

[–] edg@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

It's a victim of our reality and can never be anything more without a lot of work from a lot of people who have equally bold aspirations.

parent

[–] muntedcrocodile@hilariouschaos.com 2 points 1 year ago

Its a failed experiment. It had no real backing and thus has no real power.

parent

[–] rikudou@lemmings.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Because all the agressor countries have veto power on anything, aka it's a useless organisation.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] enumerator4829@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

Without that, the UN would be even more useless. It’s a discussion forum, not a federation. You need to have ”evil” at the table. And nuclear capable evil won’t sit at the table unless they get a big veto to swing around.

But they are in fact at the table. Communicating. Most likely in bad faith, but still communicating and talking.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] ILoveUnions@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Every time someone says "but the veto powers!!!" I like to helpfully point out the league of nations