> I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger.
I believe that this is fundamentally the same opinion that Oppenheimer held, that resulted in the establishment seeing him as an enemy and a threat. I would like to resurrect these two gentlemen, bring them up to date on the history of the United Nations, and ask them if their opinions have altered.
Oppenheimer was naive bordering on stupidity. He advocated against nuclear weapon detection systems. Somehow the foremost expert on nuclear weapons believed these detection systems would not work but some random amateur physicist that happened to be head of the NEC was right in that they would. This was also how we learned that the Soviets had a bomb. Oppenheimer advocated for cooperation amongst nations in nuclear weapons and guess what, the Soviets rejected it.
Von Neumann was right about everything and him having personally experienced Soviet brutality didn't have the luxury of being ignorant of reality.
> him having personally experienced Soviet brutality didn't have the luxury of being ignorant of reality.
Allied troops didn't reach Hungary until 1944, and the Soviet-backed coup occurred in 1947. von Neumann moved to Germany in 1926, and to the US in 1933.
> Von Neumann was right about everything
He wanted the US to start WWIII with a nuclear first strike on the Soviet Union.
> and the Soviet-backed coup occurred in 1947. von Neumann moved to Germany in 1926, and to the US in 1933.
He personally experienced communism.
> He wanted the US to start WWIII with a nuclear first strike on the Soviet Union.
If we look at the past 100 years of Soviet existence what can we say has happened?
The spread of soviet arms across all of the world, hundreds of millions dead from famine, war between Russia and Ukraine today.
What is the alternate history where the US does invade the Soviet Union?
Also given we are talking about the smartest person from the 20th century, I'm going to guess his logic when coming to the conclusion of first strike was sound.
I think it depends on how you explain the history and structure of the UN. One one hand, eh, maybe the UN was just enough for the US and USSR to hold off launching nukes. On the other hand, they may look at the structure with the US and USSR/Russia being permanent security council members (or the idea of permanent members in general) self defeating since we are often opposed and the UN can't really do much without the sign off from the Security Council. So they may say, the UN isn't an argument against because the UN is badly structured designed to not have any real teeth in the first place.
> the UN can't really do much without the sign off from the Security Council.
Yes, it can; it has deployed peacekeeping missions without Security Council signoff (UNEF I), by the UNGA after France and the UK vetoed action in the UNSC, it adopted broad sanctions against South Africa, through the UNGA, after a triple veto by the US, UK. and France.
The UNGA has taken various action, including expelling Russia from the Human Rights Council, in respect to the Russo-Ukrainian war in a process starting with a Russian Security Council veto.
The common underlying factor in all of these is the UNGA “Uniting for Peace” resolution pit forward by the US during the Korean War because, while dodged initially in that situation because of the Soviet boycott of the UN over other issues, the problem with letting the Security Council veto be the end of the story was made very clear in that context.
I'll amend my statement then. The UN has no teeth against big players. The UN has done some things, but they tend to be with smaller nations without as much clout on the world stage. The UN, still has yet to really wrangle in the major powers on the world stage. The UN wasn't really effective in preventing US wars in the middle east (Afghanistan and Iraq), isn't really effective in the currently unresolved situation in Ukraine, nor is it effective in wrangling in China's territorial claims or their tensions with Taiwan. The US refuses to allow the UN's International Criminal Court to oversee war crimes committed by US troops, as I suspect the same is true for Russia. Or has it been effective in negotiation in the Israel-Palestine relationship. Nor, as a guess, will the UN do anything mention-able in easing China-US relations. It would be better to say, mutually assured destruction has probably done more to wrangle in world powers than the UN has. And the UN's structure is such that it ultimately will never really be able to reign in world powers.
This was also published before the Soviet nuclear bomb test, when the US had a nuclear monopoly and when Curtis LeMay was boasting about using it to win WW3.
> The UN's biggest flaw is the security council veto power.
100% the opposite.
The UN doesn't have any power to do anything that its members don't want to do. Because there's no enforcement mechanism except military action.
And no one is going to use military force to enforce anything against a nuclear power.
Which means that, in order for the UN to function, it needs to keep countries willing to participate. And the security council veto is a pragmatic means to that end.
I believe that this is fundamentally the same opinion that Oppenheimer held, that resulted in the establishment seeing him as an enemy and a threat. I would like to resurrect these two gentlemen, bring them up to date on the history of the United Nations, and ask them if their opinions have altered.