NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm thinking Germany, Japan, India and MAYBE Brazil.

Isn't the bigger question?

Should you be on the security council if you sell weapons?

the nation of
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-
O RLY?

I don't think any of those four really have a chance any time soon.

Another European nation is simply overkill...too much overrepresentation of one continent...so Germany is out.

Brazil has a lot of potential, but it simply isn't there yet...they have a lot of domestic issues to deal with before they can start playing a bigger role in global politics...

Adding India would PISS OFF Pakistan, so that won't be happening anytime soon...

Japan contributes a lot of money to the UN, but China will never let them in. Period.



So...there you go.

The Security Council should be composed exclusively of Pacific Ocean island nations such as Fiji and Tuvalu. Because they clearly have a clue.

Brazil, India, and Japan, definitely. And Iran; that would shake things up a bit.

Which nations aren't on the UN Security Council but should be?

I know one nation which should not be in UNSC.

France.:p

Seriously, what have they ever done to deserve or justify that seat, except being on the victor's club of WWII (after not having suffered for it like the other victors) ?

Japan will not be on the Security Council if China (with its veto) or South Korea has anything to say about it. Heck, even North Korea might agree with South Korea on this issue.

I still haven't figured out what China and the Koreas have against Japan. You WON. Unless they're jealous about being piss poor, while Japan is thriving.

The Security Council should be composed exclusively of Pacific Ocean island nations such as Fiji and Tuvalu. Because they clearly have a clue.It's starting to scare me how often I completely agree with you.

no one should be on the UN security counicl

the un shouldnt even exist, it is nothing but a drain.

North Korea.

The Security Council should be composed exclusively of Pacific Ocean island nations such as Fiji and Tuvalu. Because they clearly have a clue.
Fuck! Don't forget Niue! Or Tokelau!

:eek: :eek:

DJIBOUTI!

The security council needs nations with COOL names on it.

How about removing a few nations?

Iran if it gets the atom bomb.

Ok, I just had an idea. 10 nation Security Council, 2 nations per continent, but since North America has so few and Europe so many, Europe gets three, NA gets one.

According to my 10 nation format, who would you pick? (you don't have to stick to my Europe 3 NA 1 system)

I'm thinking:

Europe: Germany, Russia, UK
Asia: Japan, PRC
Africa and ME: Egypt/Saudi Arabia, Nigeria/South Africa
North America: United States
South America: Argentina, Brazil

Ok, I just had an idea. 10 nation Security Council, 2 nations per continent, but since North America has so few and Europe so many, Europe gets three, NA gets one.

According to my 10 nation format, who would you pick? (you don't have to stick to my Europe 3 NA 1 system)

I'm thinking:

Europe: Germany, Russia, UK
Asia: Japan, PRC
Africa and ME: Egypt/Saudi Arabia, Nigeria/South Africa
North America: United States
South America: Argentina, Brazil
France, Germany, Russia, PRC, India, USA, Canada, Brazil, South Africa, Egypt.

I was also thinking of taking one seat from SA and giving it to Australia.

I know one nation which should not be in UNSC.

France.:p

Seriously, what have they ever done to deserve or justify that seat, except being on the victor's club of WWII (after not having suffered for it like the other victors) ?

Poland actually has a much stronger case for that honor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_contribution_to_World_War_II

Beats the crap out of France. They never quit fighting even when their homeland was overrun, unlike the spineless French.

Ok, I just had an idea. 10 nation Security Council, 2 nations per continent, but since North America has so few and Europe so many, Europe gets three, NA gets one.

According to my 10 nation format, who would you pick? (you don't have to stick to my Europe 3 NA 1 system)

I'm thinking:

Europe: Germany, Russia, UK
Asia: Japan, PRC
Africa and ME: Egypt/Saudi Arabia, Nigeria/South Africa
North America: United States
South America: Argentina, Brazil

But countries like India and even France seem more deserving of membership than Egypt or Argentina, IMO.

I would go for a wholly different approach:

European Union
United States
Arab League
MERCOSUR
AU
China
India
Japan

But I do admit that this seems to overrepresent Asia a little bit. Then again, they have the majority of the population, so they deserve a majority of the seats... (I first wanted to give a seat to the ASEAN as well, but decided against it)

But countries like India and even France seem more deserving of membership than Egypt or Argentina, IMO.

I would go for a wholly different approach:

European Union
United States
Arab League
MERCOSUR
AU
China
India
Japan

But I do admit that this seems to overrepresent Asia a little bit. Then again, they have the majority of the population, so they deserve a majority of the seats... (I first wanted to give a seat to the ASEAN as well, but decided against it)

Population is only one major factor. There should be individual seats for economics and influentual powers as well.

Population is only one major factor. There should be individual seats for economics and influentual powers as well.

That is why Japan, China and the USA would get their own seats. But as for Europe (or Africa, or ME), the countries are not influential enough by themselves to be given a seat, IMO. I mean, what did France ever do to get a seat? Or the UK? Give one seat to the EU combined and we'd be better off (and if that isnt ok, then just give one seat to Germany, instead)

maybe they should just reformate the council.
Remove the veto.
and maybe implement regional seats instead of national. so

1 for north america
1 for south america
1 for europe
1 for middle east (morocco to iran)
1 for africa
1 for asia
1 for oceania

majority for wins

or something similar

I'd have as permanant members:
1. Argentina
2. Australia
3. Brazil
4. Canada
5. PR China
6. France
7. Germany or Poland
8. India (After a peaceful settlement is found over Kashmir)
9. Indonesia
10. Italy or Poland
11. Japan
12. South Korea
13. Mexico
14. Russia
15. Saudi Arabia or Egypt
16. South Africa or Nigeria
17. Turkey
18. United Kingdom
19. United States

Instead of having a one-nation veto, it would be a 4/5 nations to veto for it to take effect. However, having 5 nations with as much power as they have now is plain wrong, and the size will need to be expanded in order to be representative of the world's population and interests.

I'd say New Zealand. seriously.

there's a reasonable argument that the UN wouldn't even exist today without us. hehe.

for one thing, our PM was one of, if not the [i can't remember] Major proponants for establishing it in the first place, when most had writen the whole concept off after the debarcal that was the legue of nations.

though, to be honest, i think we'd be better off if there WASN"T a security councle.

what do they even DO, anyway, appart from derail the process every time the UN looks like actually doing something that is both effective AND intelligent?

[the un manages a lot of ineffectiveness and stupidity.]

Germany, Japan, Brazil and India.

Those are the only other four nations that matter.

That is why Japan, China and the USA would get their own seats. But as for Europe (or Africa, or ME), the countries are not influential enough by themselves to be given a seat, IMO. I mean, what did France ever do to get a seat? Or the UK? Give one seat to the EU combined and we'd be better off (and if that isnt ok, then just give one seat to Germany, instead)

Yes, because Germany's only the third most economically powerful country in the world. :rolleyes:

I'd say New Zealand. seriously.

there's a reasonable argument that the UN wouldn't even exist today without us. hehe.

for one thing, our PM was one of, if not the [i can't remember] Major proponants for establishing it in the first place, when most had writen the whole concept off after the debarcal that was the legue of nations.

though, to be honest, i think we'd be better off if there WASN"T a security councle.

what do they even DO, anyway, appart from derail the process every time the UN looks like actually doing something that is both effective AND intelligent?

[the un manages a lot of ineffectiveness and stupidity.]
Of course the UNSC also happens to be the only part of the UN that actually ever accomplishes anything. Welcome to the varied glories of a quasi-legislative body.

I still haven't figured out what China and the Koreas have against Japan. You WON. Unless they're jealous about being piss poor, while Japan is thriving.

You obviously have no idea what atrocities the Japanese committed in those two countries during WWII.

Go directly to a history book. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.

The Security Council should be composed exclusively of Pacific Ocean island nations such as Fiji and Tuvalu. Because they clearly have a clue.The only problem is, they wouldn't have the military power to enforce decisions of the SC though...

I'm thinking Germany, Japan, India and MAYBE Brazil.

None.

Keep it as a closed club for the USA, the UK, France, Russia and China -
and warn all others to contemplate the phrase: 'silent as the grave'.

You obviously have no idea what atrocities the Japanese committed in those two countries during WWII.

Go directly to a history book. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.

THEY WON. You don't get to brood when you win. The defeated get to brood.

None.

Keep it as a closed club for the USA, the UK, France, Russia and China -
and warn all others to contemplate the phrase: 'silent as the grave'.

...

That's fucking stupid. What sort of international democracy is that?

I'm thinking Germany, Japan, India and MAYBE Brazil.
I'm thinking the same.

...

That's fucking stupid. What sort of international democracy is that?


I haven't mentioned international democracy.
And I wont - other than as to curse the very idea.

None.

Keep it as a closed club for the USA, the UK, France, Russia and China -
and warn all others to contemplate the phrase: 'silent as the grave'.

Screw France. They haven't been a real world power since Napoleon. I'd replace them with India.

I haven't mentioned international democracy.
And I wont - other than as to curse the very idea.

Great. Go off and make your own organisation. We're talking about the UN.

Screw France. They haven't been a real world power since Napoleon. I'd replace them with India.


I'm afraid that the rest of the world will not be ueberhappy in a situation
in which the majority of the SC
is made up of the UK, and 2 of our proteges
with whom we happen to have a very special relation.

Great. Go off and make your own organisation. We're talking about the UN.


Yes.
The organisation WE set up ca 1941.
We - and not the Germans.

Yes.
The organisation WE set up ca 1941.
We - and not the Germans.

And that is... what?

Yes.
The organisation WE set up ca 1941.
We - and not the Germans.

Smells like American Supremacionism...

The Security Council should be composed exclusively of Pacific Ocean island nations such as Fiji and Tuvalu. Because they clearly have a clue.


Fiji especially. A friend of mine recently worked there for a week on a farm and she told me about a guy there who can't leave the country because he is black listed as a terrorist for his parts in two attempted coups. Apparently they would get support by getting drunk at the local pub and then marching on parliment in a big group..


For those unaware, all these people saying Brazil, Germany, Japan and India, aren't quite talking out of their asses. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G4_nations)

And that is... what?


The United Nations: as designed by FDR and Winston Churchill.

And not some freaknik version.

The United Nations: as designed by FDR and Winston Churchill.

And not some freaknik version.

The UN was founded in 1945, stooge.

the security council should be limited to nations that are able to physically provide " security " when needed .

the security council should be limited to nations that are able to physically provide " security " when needed .

Awesome. Both New Zealand and Australia have been providing security in Timor and the Solomon islands recently. They should be on the SC..

The UN was founded in 1945, stooge.


Indeed. By us. As the winners of WWII.

Eris sacerdos in aeterno - and no dilution of OUR prerogatives.

THEY WON. You don't get to brood when you win. The defeated get to brood.Then learn to quit brooding, because Australia wasn't defeated, making it a winner by default.

Indeed. By us. As the winners of WWII.

Eris sacerdos in aeterno - and no dilution of OUR prerogatives.They weren't really the winners at the time they decided to found it, though.

the security council should be limited to nations that are able to physically provide " security " when needed .That would empty it out very quickly.

Indeed. By us. As the winners of WWII.

Eris sacerdos in aeterno - and no dilution of OUR prerogatives.

Well, if you don't want the cooperation of Germany, Japan, Italy, etc... you're more than welcome to wallow in the economic mess you've made. The world's screwed, goodbye.

Then learn to quit brooding, because Australia wasn't defeated, making it a winner by default.

If I could change my emotions, I would, but I can't, so I don't. Now shoosh.

They weren't really the winners at the time they decided to found it, though.


No matter how well one might argue, my outspoken basic philosophy is the same as that which the Americans merely say behind closed doors:

any attempt to dilute OUR prerogatives means we go to war.

Then learn to quit brooding, because Australia wasn't defeated, making it a winner by default.

Australia, NZ, Canada et al were only fighting because the brits were. They probably supposidly had their 'interests' covered by the UK being there.

Awesome. Both New Zealand and Australia have been providing security in Timor and the Solomon islands recently. They should be on the SC..

NZ's practically dismantled its military. No.

NZ's practically dismantled its military. No.

*shrug* just checking how thourough that persons 'security provider' theory was.

No matter how well one might argue, my outspoken basic philosophy is the same as that which the Americans merely say behind closed doors:

any attempt to dilute OUR prerogatives means we go to war.

You're really a 21st Century being with a early 20th Century mindset, aren't you?

News flash: You are no longer at war with Germany! Or Japan for that matter. And the Reds? Gone! Fuckadoodledo, what a world, what a world...

actualy, NZ's military, or at least it's navy, is rebuilding, and stronger/more effective than before. our army hasn't been downgraded that i remember, ... and our airforce was so poor to start with that it's dismantleing basicly means nothing.

just an fyi. still doesn't make us a major power, but *shrugs*

Isn't the bigger question?

Should you be on the security council if you sell weapons?yep..

Should ***** Country be in.. if you ever used WMD.. or any bomb/weapon that killed more than 10000 civiees (one-shot)

no one should be on the UN security counicl

the un shouldnt even exist, it is nothing but a drain.the UNSC is a political entity.. but it is not a Democratic entity

it needs to be over-hauled or replaced.
VETO has to go.

the UNSC is a political entity.. but it is not a Democratic entity

it needs to be over-hauled or replaced.
VETO has to go.
The UN is a political, not democratic, entity. Why should the security council be any different?

That would empty it out very quickly.


;) give the man a cookie !

the UNSC is a political entity.. but it is not a Democratic entity

it needs to be over-hauled or replaced.
VETO has to go.

The Veto exist so that the other nations couldnt gang up on one nation say China or Russia ..or both.. Or china and everyone ganging up on the US and Britain .. Its a safeguard against giving up too much sovergnity and makes it so that its ALL or nothing ..either everyone is in or no one..its a lesson learned in WW II when " collective " security would have been able to prevent WW II and its meant to have the strongest countries militarys work toghether to confront an aggressor nation with overwhelming force and unity of will.

call me when it actually happens that way .

yep..

Should ***** Country be in.. if you ever used WMD.. or any bomb/weapon that killed more than 10000 civiees (one-shot)
What about mass bombings, where you've got loads of bombers unloading severe firepower. Or multi-bomb chemical strikes. Both are capable of killing lots of people. How about incidents where no bombs were used, and instead chemicals were sprayed out of an airplane as if it were a crop duster? How about infantry marching through a city and shooting everybody on sight? All of the above are morally equivalent, IF the participants started out morally equivalent. The only difference being that your method is specifically designed to exclude the US.

While we're at it, let's rule out countries that have murdered vast quantities of their own citizens in the past as well.

you know, you're rapidly reduceing the available options to...

ummm....

well, New Zealand, Tibet, Switzerland, maybe canada.. places of that nature.

though, NZ depends on how you look at the New Zealand wars, [contrary to popular belife, there were maori and europeans on both sides] and, depending how you take that exactly when you start defineing NZ as a sperate nation rather than part of the British Empire

you know, you're rapidly reduceing the available options to...

ummm....

well, New Zealand, Tibet, Switzerland, maybe canada.. places of that nature.

though, NZ depends on how you look at the New Zealand wars, [contrary to popular belife, there were maori and europeans on both sides] and, depending how you take that exactly when you start defineing NZ as a sperate nation rather than part of the British Empire
That's my point. Nearly every single country is guilty of some sort of bullshit or another. Occeandrive is just being a boldfaced anti-American and tailoring his criteria to exclusively exclude the US.

That's my point. Nearly every single country is guilty of some sort of bullshit or another. Occeandrive is just being a boldfaced anti-American and tailoring his criteria to exclusively exclude the US.

edit: oops. missread your post.

to be honest, i don't think the USA should have a seat on the security councle either. they'd be one of the prime targets for UN intervention if they didn't have it.

of course, i don't think any of the current members, 'cept britain on it's good days [is it a member ? i forget] should be on the security councle, or even represented in the UN any more than any other nation.

;) give the man a cookie !I have a box sitting next me as I type, actually :p

Poland actually has a much stronger case for that honor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_contribution_to_World_War_II

Beats the crap out of France. They never quit fighting even when their homeland was overrun, unlike the spineless French.

You do realize there were French Regiments that fought with the Brits too?

edit: oops. missread your post.

to be honest, i don't think the USA should have a seat on the security councle either. they'd be one of the prime targets for UN intervention if they didn't have it.

of course, i don't think any of the current members, 'cept britain on it's good days [is it a member ? i forget] should be on the security councle, or even represented in the UN any more than any other nation.
Britain, France, Russia, the US and China are all the Permanent members.

yep..

Should ***** Country be in.. if you ever used WMD.. or any bomb/weapon that killed more than 10000 civiees (one-shot)

*shrug*

It was a declared war.

Japan

They wont chang the UNSC, the coffee club will stop that, and it was the Nuclear Powers, the only people who originally were meant to have Nukes, it just happens that other countries,(South Africa, India, Pakistan, and some others) happened to have aquired them or developed them. And India would support us to much and we would support them (us is Britain btw), different groups are too unhappy about new nations joining that no change will be made.

What about mass bombings, where you've got loads of bombers unloading severe firepower. Or multi-bomb chemical strikes. Both are capable of killing lots of people. How about incidents where no bombs were used, and instead chemicals were sprayed out of an airplane as if it were a crop duster? yeah.. I agree How about infantry marching through a city and shooting everybody on sight?too dificult to know if it really happened that way.
he-says-she-says scenario.

yeah.. if those "WMD" equivalents are used on civileans..too dificult to know if it really happened that way.
he-says-she-says scenario.


of course, if the "shoot everyone in sight" bit is done with enough attention to detaill....

it's more of a "he said she... oops, she's not saying anything,s he's dead... oh well, nevermind" scenario.

you need to put in a poll on this thread

Israel should definitly be on it.



Only joking!
Germany because of their contributions.
Ireland( the current PM is an excellent negoitator even thou no one likes him), they have more experience of conflicts than many UNSC members.
I do think a Middle East County for geographical reasons should be on it, but I wouldn't really b up for picking anyof them at the moment. Maybe UAE?

IMO, the SC needs to be forcibly overhauled by the UN. Not the US, or Russia, or China, but the UN itself.

Seriously, what have they ever done to deserve or justify that seat, except being on the victor's club of WWII (after not having suffered for it like the other victors) ?
Well, I'd argue that being conquered isn't much fun.

But I agree, I would have thought that Germany would be a much more logical choice for a continental European nation. Although the French have nukes.

My personal favourite is to abolish the security council, or at least abolish the permanent memberships. Definitely get rid of the veto.

But if there have to be permanent members, I'd put on there:
US (that's a given)
China (same here)
EU (the only realistic alternative is to give three seats to Europe, which would be sorta unfair)

Russia doesn't get a seat because having lots of nukes isn't enough. And other than the nukes, they don't have much to show at the moment.
Japan doesn't because the Chinese won't want it, and because having lots of money but pretty much no international influence isn't enough.

Then three non-permanent members from America (as a whole), two from the Middle East (which can include Israel but obviously doesn't have two), two from Africa and three from Asia and Oceania.

Im in favour of Neo-Leonstein suggestion. No permament members. However maybe having like 2 member nations from each continent/region on the council would be cool. I also agree that the veto needs to be abolished

I like the regional idea, but lets not forget antartica! Who's going to represent all those scientists? (aside from their native countries, of course)

in all seriousness, my vote goes to Japan