19-02-2003 10:33									#91
	Support Apolyton

Permanent membership (and associated veto power)was, IIRC, directly tied in to both military and economic capability - ie: The permanent members were those expected to contribute most of the funds/strike force needed to make the UN work.
One could make the case for merging the UK/French vote/seat and perhaps now adding Brazil (once the whole South American economy picks up again anyway), perhaps India, and at the very outside Japan or another Euro vote.
Getting rid of veto powers/permanent seats though could sink the UN as an effective entity.
You'd be left with a simple majority vote either in the SC or the General assembly and absolutely no way to enforce it.
For example, with all the bad press the US has gotten lately, a majority vote put forward by a coalition of minor nations might have achance of sanctioning military force against them, regardless of the lack of ability to enforce the same.

	19-02-2003 10:43									#92
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: I am also against Japan getting any seats on the SC, since Japan still has not renounced its atrocities in the past. If human rights played any role in determining Security Council seats, China would've been kicked out a long time ago...

That's not a human rights issue. That's about a country that invaded its neighbours not that long ago and still haven't officially recognised that.

As to human rights, should I remind you that the US itself was kicked off the Human Rights Committee?

	19-02-2003 10:44									#93
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger As to human rights, should I remind you that the US itself was kicked off the Human Rights Committee?

What does that have to do with the point he raised?

	19-02-2003 10:48									#94
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: That's not a human rights issue. That's about a country that invaded its neighbours not that long ago and still haven't officially recognised that.

We should kick China off the Security Council for its occupation of Tibet then. The Japanese may not have issued an apology that meets your requirements, but at least they aren't still occupying their neighbors.

quote: As to human rights, should I remind you that the US itself was kicked off the Human Rights Committee?

It just goes to show you how far the UN has fallen. The way China has managed to weaken the UN human rights regime is disgraceful...

	19-02-2003 16:25									#95
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

In the long term, there should be a set formula.

How about the four most populous nations and the four biggest economies? That gives a maximum of eight members and a minimum of four (due to overlap).

Land area could be tossed in also (four biggest countries: keeps Russia in despite low population density and poor economy). Maybe military strength, but it's hard to measure accurately and it tends to follow the other criteria (big armies from high population, hi-tech equipment from big economy).

	19-02-2003 16:49									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

If it stays as a fifteen member SC with five permanent seats the most fun way to resolve it would be to allocate seats to countries that can meet certain criteria.

1 Ability to project military force globally
2 Possession of effective nuclear weapons
3 Prepared to fund the UN
4 The economic power to support 1, 2 and 3

Then you could rank countries and have promotion and relegation from the "permanent" seats (which would carry vetoes) and from the SC itself.

The fun would be seeing who would be prepared to bust a gut to get on and who would scrap their military to get off.

	19-02-2003 18:00									#97
	Remove this text

quote: What a random out-of-left-field ME troll. Trying to spice up the thread, Axi?

quote: axi, you never fail to amaze me with your um, er, interesting points of view.

Thank you, thank you...

But seriously, if there is no US veto, the UN will probably want to do something about it's 33 resolutions that Israel violates. The most reasonable thing to do is force Israel to withdraw behind it's 1967 borders and send in loads of peacekeepers to thwart terrorism and to guarantee security for the settlers until we find out how to solve the whole problem and until the Palestinian state becomes able to police and defend itself. Israel would never accept that, so if force was agreed upon (and in cases like last spring, nobody in the world except the USA would object to that), Israel would have to resist, leading to sanctions and eventually an intervention. That's when the nukes come out of the closet and Israel becomes a North Korea - type threat to world peace, only 50 times more real, because it possesses that many times more nukes.

	19-02-2003 18:25									#98
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

IIRC, Israel doesn't officially have any nuclear weapons, because this would make it a violator of nuclear non-proliferation treaties, which would be a Bad Thing diplomatically.

Has the list of "official" nuclear nations been updated recently? Is it still just the five permanent members of the Security Council?

There have been some very peculiar earthquakes in India and Pakistan recently.

	19-02-2003 18:30									#99
	Inflate your Upload Space

The nuclear weapons thing is a nonsense anyway. Germany and Japan could build a nuke in a couple of weeks if they wanted. All it needs is some uranium/plutonium and some advance engineering knowledge.

	19-02-2003 18:34									#100
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

for me it comes down to who can wield influence on the world stage and project forces around the world for peace-keeping and similar missions, which after all seems to be the main function of the SC.

there are only three countries in the world can project military forces effectively, the US, britain and france. russia perhaps could at one time but the country and military is in such a state of disrepair that it can no longer do so. as for china while they might have a huge population and army, they would, quite frankly, struggle to project a movie...

as for worldwide influence, again the US, britain and france are world leaders, russia has some influence around the world, while china has precious little outside east-asia and is largely irrelevant in africa, the middle east and south america, where most UN and SC actions are directed towards.

personally i don't think the SC needs changing, people may talk about regional balance, or population or whatever, but to be honest what would a country like brasil or south africa add to the SC, the short answer is bugger all.

if a permanent member had to be removed then china should be the prime candidate, although that would raise the question of who could replace, india is a possibility but in terms of world influence and projection of forces it is even less important than china.

	19-02-2003 19:13									#101
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

It's rather difficult to define what it means to "project military force around the world".

I'm sure Bangladesh could project military force anywhere with a seacoast: a freighter full of Bangladeshis armed with clubs would do it. Bangladesh regularly projects its citizens into the Indian Ocean involuntarily.

Militarily, Al-Qaida can project military force around the world.

	19-02-2003 19:41									#102
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Well put Kontiki. My point exactly.

	19-02-2003 21:01									#103
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless It's rather difficult to define what it means to "project military force around the world". I'm sure Bangladesh could project military force anywhere with a seacoast: a freighter full of Bangladeshis armed with clubs would do it. Bangladesh regularly projects its citizens into the Indian Ocean involuntarily. Militarily, Al-Qaida can project military force around the world.

It's not difficult to define it at all. Projecting military force around the world means being able to put forth a significant military presence, with serious ground, air and naval assets to any point on the globe in a relatively short time frame. Currently, only three countries can do that unquestionably (US, Britain and France) with Russia theoretically having the capability but never having tested it, and likely not having the funds to do it.

	19-02-2003 21:16									#104
	Get a bigger avatar today!

But what is a "significant" military presence? What are "serious" ground, naval and air assets?

A single cargo ship carrying men equipped with inflatable boats and shoulder-launched missiles, with a missile-armed helicopter on the deck, is a serious ground, naval and air threat to many countries.

	19-02-2003 21:43									#105
	Remove this text

How about:

North Korea
Iran
Iraq
Libya
Cuba

	19-02-2003 22:36									#106
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless But what is a "significant" military presence? What are "serious" ground, naval and air assets? A single cargo ship carrying men equipped with inflatable boats and shoulder-launched missiles, with a missile-armed helicopter on the deck, is a serious ground, naval and air threat to many countries.

I'd say "significant" is the ability to overthrow governments, capture and occupy territory against real (and by this I mean from a country with some actual structure and military, not someplace like Somalia)military opposition, or more generally hold back a good portion of another country's military, all while having the ability to sustain such actions for at least weeks on end. "Serious" ground, naval and air assets would be the forces required to do such.

Or put another way, the ability to do what Britain did with the Falklands in the 80's.

The single cargo ship you mention would be tantamount to a major terrorist action, which is to say that it could cause havoc and scare the crap out of civilians, but not defeat or sustain any protracted military action without almost complete local assistance. How many countries do you really think don't have the wherewithall to soundly defeat a cargo ship full of men within a week or two at the most? Not many.

	20-02-2003 00:06									#107
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki It's not difficult to define it at all. Projecting military force around the world means being able to put forth a significant military presence, with serious ground, air and naval assets to any point on the globe in a relatively short time frame. Currently, only three countries can do that unquestionably (US, Britain and France) with Russia theoretically having the capability but never having tested it, and likely not having the funds to do it.

While France does have this ability, I believe that it is limited in the scope that it could sustain.

Britain has this ability, but needs help from the commonwealth (as they did in the Falklands).

Both would need NATO or US help for prolonged operations.

Russia cannot sustain ground operations if support is needed from across an ocean. They simply do not have the logistical resources for a large scale campaign. They probably could sustain a medium length encounter against heavy resistance if they were able to resupply by land.

The US can sustain full operations anywhere in the world for as long as needed.

Suprisingly, one other country has been able to sustain a fairly sizable force across an ocean for a rather lengthy time. That was Cuba in Angola. This operation did receive a tremendous amount of local support however.

The criteria for the security council should not just be the ability to project military force, but the ability to apply serious diplomatic pressure as well. Additionally, security council members should be able to exert economic pressure( I would imagine that the GNP of the 5 veto countries is well over 50% of the worlds). The current countries are well positioned for this.