5 ms·

There's always been jaw-jaw. Whether or not the UN providing a forum has actually lead to any less war-war doesn't seem obvious.

madez 11y ago
It's always good when governments have ways to escalate international conflicts other than by shedding blood, even though, or especially if, these ways are consequenceless. Just to appease the hardliners.
- vanderZwan 11y ago
  So it's kind of like the opposite of Sayre's Law? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre%27s_law
azernik 11y ago
One of the interesting things about reading histories of the outbreaks of the World Wars was how much international coordination was hampered by the lack of a regular, active forum where all the big international leaders went (the League of Nations was hampered from the beginning by the absence of the US). When everyone is doing everything by ad-hoc, one-on-one phone calls and negotiation sessions, things don't get done fast enough to react to crisis.
- danielweber 11y ago
  How much of that was just communication difficulties?
  - azernik 11y ago
    Some, but not all; a lot of the missteps in the lead-up to WWI, for example, were where two people had a conversation, agreed on something reasonable, then failed to communicate it to third parties who needed to be on board. When all of the great powers are in a room (as in the Security Council, which is I think the most necessary part of the UN) everyone gets all at once a feel for the positions of everyone else.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  True, but... do you claim that in the UN, things do get done fast enough to react to a crisis?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - azernik 11y ago
    Better? I think when the international community doesn't respond to crises, it's because there really is no consensus on what to do and different countries have different interests at stake, which can't really be fixed by better communication.

madez 11y ago

It's always good when governments have ways to escalate international conflicts other than by shedding blood, even though, or especially if, these ways are consequenceless. Just to appease the hardliners.

vanderZwan 11y ago
So it's kind of like the opposite of Sayre's Law? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre%27s_law

azernik 11y ago

One of the interesting things about reading histories of the outbreaks of the World Wars was how much international coordination was hampered by the lack of a regular, active forum where all the big international leaders went (the League of Nations was hampered from the beginning by the absence of the US). When everyone is doing everything by ad-hoc, one-on-one phone calls and negotiation sessions, things don't get done fast enough to react to crisis.

danielweber 11y ago
How much of that was just communication difficulties?
- azernik 11y ago
  Some, but not all; a lot of the missteps in the lead-up to WWI, for example, were where two people had a conversation, agreed on something reasonable, then failed to communicate it to third parties who needed to be on board. When all of the great powers are in a room (as in the Security Council, which is I think the most necessary part of the UN) everyone gets all at once a feel for the positions of everyone else.
AnimalMuppet 11y ago
True, but... do you claim that in the UN, things do get done fast enough to react to a crisis?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- azernik 11y ago
  Better? I think when the international community doesn't respond to crises, it's because there really is no consensus on what to do and different countries have different interests at stake, which can't really be fixed by better communication.