>mechanisms that attempted to prevent it - those that you're describing - simply don't work Wrong. They do work. They just don't work perfectly. And even when

>mechanisms that attempted to prevent it - those that you're describing - simply don't work Wrong. They do work. They just don't work perfectly. And even when they are working, they don't always lead to the preferred outcome. Nevertheless it is an institution we need. If we lose it, we lose all institutional mechanisms to prevent another world war. The five permanent members of the Security Council in effect have a veto. It was known at the time of adoption that should a permanent member engage in aggressive war, they would be expected to veto any enforcement action against themselves. This is the design of the Charter, the only way it could ever have been passed. None of the winners of the world wars would have willingly ceded their sovereignty so much that the entire rest of the world could have held them accountable after what had just happened. None of the five would have signed it. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Does that sound like a pretty good axiom?