TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Ask HN: If all world leaders are women, would there be any war?

2 pointsby FrankyHollywoodalmost 8 years ago
If so, we should change constitutions world wide :)

7 comments

tchaffeealmost 8 years ago
I would like to think there would be more diplomacy and less war. Unfortunately we don&#x27;t have a lot of recent history for case study. And it seems in the current male dominated environment, some women may overcompensate and try too hard to be tough so they aren&#x27;t accused of being soft. Thatcher comes to mind.<p>And while it seems reasonable to assume testosterone is a factor in aggression, I don&#x27;t think most wars are started as quickly and as passionately as a fist fight.<p>But I do think it is worth tracking. When you look at the criminal world and how the acts of violence are so heavily weighted towards men, it does make one wonder.
informatimagoalmost 8 years ago
Basically, so far women didn&#x27;t go to war. It was in their best interest to send men to war, to perform some &quot;natural&quot; selection, and be left with the better stallions.<p>Of course, the 20th century saw some changes, in the effectiveness and collaterality of weapons, and in the fact that some women do go to war. But basically, the later represents only a handicap to the armies allowing it. But as long as the war cannot degenerate into a wide scale (ie. involve the USA), or a nuclear war (ie. involve two countries with nuclear weapons), it&#x27;s green light, and the same benefits can be expected.<p>Even about nuclear war, since we&#x27;ve developed small scale nuclear weapons (and since we can also see that the mid-to-long terms effect of nuclear bombs are rather benign, cf. Japan or Tchernobyl)), I would say that the probability to see a local and limited nuclear war is close to 1.
eberkundalmost 8 years ago
Of course, what makes you think women are not in favor of war? Of the course of history women are often encouraging war and that&#x27;s no different when they are in a leadership position. For example, Hillary Clinton.
peterburkealmost 8 years ago
Yes, war cannot be prevented by the gender of its leader.<p>Business constraints (banking support, cost&#x2F;benefit), risk and group morality play a far greater role in a countries decision than a single individuals gender.
Fomitealmost 8 years ago
Britain fought numerous wars under Queen Victoria, the Falklands War under Thatcher. Indira Gandhi was in charge during the 1971 war between India and Pakistan.<p>So basically...no.
kamikazeturtlesalmost 8 years ago
Spain went through the Inquisition under Queen Isabella.<p>Russia was led into many wars by Catherine the Great.<p>Queen Victoria&#x27;s reign witnessed most of the British Empire&#x27;s colonial expansion.<p>...<p>So, no.
评论 #14465158 未加载
smt88almost 8 years ago
There would still be war. Neither sex nor gender can guarantee someone&#x27;s position on war.