Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmilloy | Hacker News Reader

Yeah. It seems to me that it's not so much that "war is illegal" as "certain countries have declared a monopoly on force and have the means to enforce it." Or at least try to. That's probably a good thing, but it seems useful to me to approach it with a more accurate perspective.

View on HN

"It seems to me that it's not so much that war "is illegal" as "certain countries have declared a monopoly on force and have the means to enforce it.""

In some lines of thought, that's the definition of illegal...

OK, but even by that definition, it's not the UN that has made it illegal. The UN is pretty toothless.

I mean, yes, they have peacekeeping forces. Those forces are not keeping the peace by force. In fact, there have been times when they have stood aside while one side violated the peace, because the UN force's rules of engagement didn't allow them to use force to prevent one side from starting the war back up.

It can be pretty toothless, but the mere fact that it exists as a platform for discussion, expression if views and the firmation if consensus is a huge improvement compared to nothing. I think the experience nations get of working together on issues is also pretty valuable.

AnimalMuppet isn't making a general criticism of the UN, he's arguing that the UN isn't responsible for war being illegal under dfmooreqqq's operational definition.

The "Pax Americana".

That term isn't right, since there are a few other countries involved, but it brings to mind the right associations.

If you interpret "the UN" in this context as "the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council", it's pretty much the same thing as you're saying.

Yes, but being explicit and acknowledging the concentration of power is better than saying pithily "war is illegal", as if it were shoplifting or loitering.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com