I can follow that line of reasoning, but I think it is biased (maybe unintentionally) to the point where its conclusion is inaccurate. Indeed, the League of Na

I can follow that line of reasoning, but I think it is biased (maybe unintentionally) to the point where its conclusion is inaccurate. Indeed, the League of Nations couldn't prevent WW2, neither did the UN prevent a lot of atrocities from happening. That is, aside from all the atrocities that it did actually prevent (probably numerously, but we will never know for they didn't happen). If not from starting, than at least from expanding to the point that they otherwise would have. As for WW2, besides its roots in the settlement of WW1, it was also the opportunistic selfish advantages that some particular countries (not talking about Germany) saw in it's unfolding, while pretending otherwise to the public, that made WW2 to unfold as it did (reminder: it was the USA who continued doing good business with Germany, until it was Hitler who declared war on the USA). The real question to ask is: what would we have without the UN? All there would be is bilateral agreements between individual countries. It is well known from history how easily those create extremely complex situations where a local conflict can often quickly spiral out into global conflicts (because of conflicting agreements between allies of the involved parties). WW1 probably being a good example of that, and in fact a primary motivator behind the creation of what eventually became the UN. Climate change will indeed cause all sorts of problems, violence no doubt among them. One thing is sure though, with only bilateral agreements between countries, it will be only more bloody and inhumane than with the UN at least striving for a global consensus approach. It's only with collective agreement that the effects of these challenges can be limited to their least worst outcomes. It will be bad either way, but that's no valid argument to fatalistically argue that nothing will matter. Of course, the USA could choose that none of this is their problem, and only look at their own self-interests. But that will rather sooner than later pave the way of their own inevitable demise (which in that case would probably be a very unpleasant one). As long as a substantial part of the US economy and international political dominance comes directly from how the country profits from conflict elsewhere on the globe, little chance that the USA will ever sincerely contribute to making this world a better place. This is not to say that other countries are benevolent or sincere, but it is the USA who openly advocates breaking down whatever instruments we still have to resolve issues by consensus instead of violence. The UN is by no means a perfect solution, but without it this world would likely be a far worse place. The world before it existed sure was. Something apparently only the USA (and a few vassals) seems to openly disagree with. I remember only a few other countries that did; mostly totalitarian ones and responsible for some of those atrocities that that the UN failed to prevent.