
Ask HN: If all world leaders are women, would there be any war? - FrankyHollywood
If so, we should change constitutions world wide :)
======
tchaffee
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.

------
informatimago
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.

------
eberkund
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.

------
peterburke
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.

------
Fomite
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.

------
kamikazeturtles
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
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...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2017/03/08/women-leaders-around-the-world/)

------
smt88
There would still be war. Neither sex nor gender can guarantee someone's
position on war.

