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

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14464780

2 8 9 years ago

news.ycombinator.com

If so, we should change constitutions world wide :)

eberkund• 9 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's no different when they are in a leadership position. For example, Hillary Clinton.

smt88• 9 years ago

There would still be war. Neither sex nor gender can guarantee someone's position on war.

Fomite• 9 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.

So basically...no.

tchaffee• 9 years ago

I would like to think there would be more diplomacy and less war. Unfortunately we don'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't accused of being soft. Thatcher comes to mind.

And while it seems reasonable to assume testosterone is a factor in aggression, I don't think most wars are started as quickly and as passionately as a fist fight.

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.

kamikazeturtles• 9 years ago

Spain went through the Inquisition under Queen Isabella.

Russia was led into many wars by Catherine the Great.

Queen Victoria's reign witnessed most of the British Empire's colonial expansion.

...

So, no.

FrankyHollywood• 9 years ago

thats true offcourse, but those are examples of 100s of years of history. Any armed conflict I know about now is initiated by men.

And look at the average interest of men and women. Games they play, movies they watch, not many men like to see Bridget Jones and not may women like to see Vietnam war movies :)

I would assume, on average, women start a lot less conflict. Non of these woman are at war as far as I know : http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/08/women-leader...

informatimago• 9 years ago

Basically, so far women didn't go to war. It was in their best interest to send men to war, to perform some "natural" selection, and be left with the better stallions.

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's green light, and the same benefits can be expected.

Even about nuclear war, since we'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.

peterburke• 9 years ago

Yes, war cannot be prevented by the gender of its leader.

Business constraints (banking support, cost/benefit), risk and group morality play a far greater role in a countries decision than a single individuals gender.

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

Related Stories