Australia now has a Security Council seat.

[Qazox]

Fuck you Australia, you stole Finland's seat. Fuck you.

Fuck Luxemburg too.

Lets be real, if you're not one of the permanent 5, your opinion really doesn't matter.

True. But basically (other than China at the time) the Permanent Council was just the nations that had Atomic bombs in 1947. If they expanded it to that same critertia today: Canada, Ukraine, Khazakstan, Belarus, South Africa, Pakistan, Israel, India, North Korea and possibly Iran would be on there.

They should redo the Permanent Council, by having 2 nations from each continent be a member. The rest of the Council is 7 other nations (1 from each continent, plus 1 from anywhere) elected to 4-year terms. A nation cannot be re-elected.

[The Archregimancy]

Lets be real, if you're not one of the permanent 5, your opinion really doesn't matter.

True. But basically (other than China at the time) the Permanent Council was just the nations that had Atomic bombs in 1947. If they expanded it to that same critertia today: Canada, Ukraine, Khazakstan, Belarus, South Africa, Pakistan, Israel, India, North Korea and possibly Iran would be on there.

This is simply wrong. It's utterly wrong in so many ways; extraordinarily so.

The permanent members were the 'great powers' that were considered to be the winners of WWII; nuclear weapons were an irrelevancy since only one of the founders had nuclear capability.

It was formed in 1945, not 1947.

In the words of the UN itself:

On October 24, 1945, the victors of World War II — China, the U.S.S.R., France, the United Kingdom, and the United States — ratified the UN Charter, creating the Security Council and establishing themselves as its five permanent members

In both 1945 and 1947, only the USA had nuclear weapons. The USSR wouldn't develop nuclear weapons until 1949; the UK's first weapons test was 1952; France 1960 (the PRC was 1962 - only two years after France).

Your list of current nuclear states is baffling. Canada does not have nuclear weapons, has never had nuclear weapons, and has signed multiple international treaties repudiating the possession of any WMD; it did have US warheads on Canadian bases between 1963-1972, but has never possessed its own; the last Canadian air force units with US nuclear warhead capability were retired in 1984. All Soviet nuclear weapons in Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan had been transferred to Russia by 1996, and none of these states now have nuclear weapons on their soil (even someone else's). South Africa dismantled its six nuclear weapons prior to the end of apartheid - making it the only sovereign state to voluntarily give up its own nuclear arsenal.

Whether or not it's attempting to develop a nuclear arsenal is open to furious debate, but Iran is clearly not currently a nuclear weapon state.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Rwanda? There are a lot more important African nations than Rwanda. Nigeria is much, much more relevant in every way, as an example. I think Australia does need to become more important in its region, though, and probably to restart a "Big Australia" policy using the largely under-developed northern water tables as a target zone for South Asian migrants or some such.

[Inis Arglidd]

I wish that there weren't vetos for permanent members. Aus won't make a difference there because of that.

[Tairoth]

Lets be real, if you're not one of the permanent 5, your opinion really doesn't matter.

True. But basically (other than China at the time) the Permanent Council was just the nations that had Atomic bombs in 1947. If they expanded it to that same critertia today: Canada, Ukraine, Khazakstan, Belarus, South Africa, Pakistan, Israel, India, North Korea and possibly Iran would be on there.

They should redo the Permanent Council, by having 2 nations from each continent be a member. The rest of the Council is 7 other nations (1 from each continent, plus 1 from anywhere) elected to 4-year terms. A nation cannot be re-elected.

half of those nations dont even own nukes...... they used to but not any more

[Kvatchdom]

Fuck you Australia, you stole Finland's seat. Fuck you.

Fuck Luxemburg too.

Lets be real, if you're not one of the permanent 5, your opinion really doesn't matter.

Shutup

[New Chalcedon]

Lets be real, if you're not one of the permanent 5, your opinion really doesn't matter.

True. But basically (other than China at the time) the Permanent Council was just the nations that had Atomic bombs in 1947.

Daaamn, that was lonely for America for so long. Y'know, seeing as the USA was the only nation with atomic weaponry until 1949, when the USSR exploded its first device.

If they expanded it to that same critertia today: Canada, Ukraine, Khazakstan, Belarus, South Africa, Pakistan, Israel, India, North Korea and possibly Iran would be on there.

Um, what? South Africa gave up its nuclear devices at the end of apartheid, Canada's involvement was intermittent at best, Iran doesn't have them yet (and may not even be seeking them, depending on which military analyst you ask) and all of the former Soviet republics gave them up in the mid-1990s.

They should redo the Permanent Council, by having 2 nations from each continent be a member. The rest of the Council is 7 other nations (1 from each continent, plus 1 from anywhere) elected to 4-year terms. A nation cannot be re-elected.

Are you even aware of how the UNSC was intended to work?
For starters, I'm not sure whether it's technically permissible for non-permanent members to serve consecutive terms (I don't believe there's a technical bar), but it's never happened yet. Unless you're talking about never being able to repeat terms, which is just plain stupid.
Second, please name the two African - or South American, or North American - nations significant enough to merit permanent membership. Permanent UNSC membership, if it's awarded to any new nations at all, should be awarded as the ultimate proof that the recipient country has Made It. It's one of the big kids now; it deserves the very highest level of say in crucial matters of international security - for that's what permanent membership of the UNSC (with the associated veto power) amounts to.
Third, the UNSC was never intended to be a particularly egalitarian body (that role belongs to the UNGA, which is a one-nation-one-vote body): the initial purpose in setting up the UNSC as it was set up was to create a body that was small enough to be (theoretically) able to come to somewhat-rapid decisionmaking, which would be populated by nations which were powerful enough to make meaningful contributions to whatever decisions were made.

Frankly, here are the reforms I would like to see made:

(1) Permanent members: Add two (Brazil and India - India because it has made it to become at least a first-tier regional power, and Brazil because it's the 800lb gorilla of South America, and rapidly on its way up). Possibly merge French and UK permanent seats into a single seat, rotating between UK and France, although I'd be willing to scrap that if the two nations involved protested too loudly.

(2) Total membership: Expand by two non-permanent members also, such that non-permanent membership is allocated by region as follows: Africa 3, Asia 2, GRULAC 2, WEOG (including Oceania) 3, Eastern Europe 1, Arabic World/Middle East 1.

(3) Create formal requirements for a nation to be able to serve as a non-permanent member. As a starting point: any UNSC non-permanent member must either (a) have paid for (either via assessment, or by voluntary overpayment on assessments) a share of at least 0.2% of the regular UN Budget for the previous three years consecutively (49 members presently do so), or (b) have maintained - again, for the previous three years - at least 1,000 troops for peacekeeping operations.

The countries rich enough to contribute significantly to the UN's general operations can make it under the first requirement, and most poorer countries can make it (presently, 10 African nations send more than 1,000 peacekeepers each to duty with the UN, and at least another 10 could, if they wanted to) under the second. Additionally, any permanent UNSC members must pay membership dues by strict assessment, rather than being permitted to cry poverty (as China does, presently paying less than half the dues France does, despite having five times the GDP).

Basically, instead of being the same old, same old (and in at least two cases, no longer especially relevant) permanent members of the UNSC, plus ten non-permanent members which often are a joke (see: Liechtenstein - what the fuck sort of role is the Lietchensteiner Police, all 125 of them, supposed to play in actually maintaining security on the ground?), you'd have seven permanent members (both new members of which are definitely in the up-and-coming category), and twelve non-permanent members, who would be required to demonstrate a willingness and capacity to contribute meaningfully to the UN's operations before taking their seats at the big boys' table.

[Luxembourg]

Fuck you Australia, you stole Finland's seat. Fuck you.

Fuck Luxemburg too.

IT'S SARCASM, DON'T GET MAD D:

...

[Tratvia]

Fuck you Australia, you stole Finland's seat. Fuck you.

Fuck Luxemburg too.

IT'S SARCASM, DON'T GET MAD D:

...

I think the practicalities of that would be somewhat difficult, not to say indelicate! Even given the precedent of the German woman who married the Berlin Wall. And to the Argentinean chap a couple of pages back, Calimera I, calm down! No one is saying that Argentina doesn't deserve a seat although I'd give the Falkland Islands one as well, just to see the look on the Argentinean Ambassador's face. Argentina deserves it for giving us 12 years of Thatcher (and to address the current controversy about whether she should get a state funeral, I'd say yes and then fund it by installing a urinal and a dancefloor on the grave, £10 each, paid directly to Arthur Scargill and the Socialist Labour Party!)

[AiliailiA]

True. But basically (other than China at the time) the Permanent Council was just the nations that had Atomic bombs in 1947. If they expanded it to that same critertia today: Canada, Ukraine, Khazakstan, Belarus, South Africa, Pakistan, Israel, India, North Korea and possibly Iran would be on there.

They should redo the Permanent Council, by having 2 nations from each continent be a member. The rest of the Council is 7 other nations (1 from each continent, plus 1 from anywhere) elected to 4-year terms. A nation cannot be re-elected.

half of those nations dont even own nukes...... they used to but not any more

"We have nukes, so No."

No-one wants Pakistan to be a permanent member of the SC. Let alone Israel or the DPRK.

[AiliailiA]

...

I think the practicalities of that would be somewhat difficult, not to say indelicate! Even given the precedent of the German woman who married the Berlin Wall. And to the Argentinean chap a couple of pages back, Calimera I, calm down! No one is saying that Argentina doesn't deserve a seat although I'd give the Falkland Islands one as well, just to see the look on the Argentinean Ambassador's face. Argentina deserves it for giving us 12 years of Thatcher (and to address the current controversy about whether she should get a state funeral, I'd say yes and then fund it by installing a urinal and a dancefloor on the grave, £10 each, paid directly to Arthur Scargill and the Socialist Labour Party!)

Since you are so brave in heading off-topic, perhaps you can tell me more about the German woman who married the Berlin Wall. Was she knocked up before it was knocked down?

[Cevalo Nacio]

Oh boy, now they can sit at the big boy table!

[Tratvia]

I think the practicalities of that would be somewhat difficult, not to say indelicate! Even given the precedent of the German woman who married the Berlin Wall. And to the Argentinean chap a couple of pages back, Calimera I, calm down! No one is saying that Argentina doesn't deserve a seat although I'd give the Falkland Islands one as well, just to see the look on the Argentinean Ambassador's face. Argentina deserves it for giving us 12 years of Thatcher (and to address the current controversy about whether she should get a state funeral, I'd say yes and then fund it by installing a urinal and a dancefloor on the grave, £10 each, paid directly to Arthur Scargill and the Socialist Labour Party!)

Since you are so brave in heading off-topic, perhaps you can tell me more about the German woman who married the Berlin Wall. Was she knocked up before it was knocked down?

Google is your friend, old boy. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2035996/Woman-married-to-Berlin-Wall-for-29-years.html Basically, she has a rather odd condition which leads her to be attracted to walls. Her name is Eija-Riitta Berliner-Mauer (give you one guess what that means), and apparently the Great Wall of China is "too thick".

[Forster Keys]

Since you are so brave in heading off-topic, perhaps you can tell me more about the German woman who married the Berlin Wall. Was she knocked up before it was knocked down?

Google is your friend, old boy. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2035996/Woman-married-to-Berlin-Wall-for-29-years.html Basically, she has a rather odd condition which leads her to be attracted to walls. Her name is Eija-Riitta Berliner-Mauer (give you one guess what that means), and apparently the Great Wall of China is "too thick".

*pokerface*

[Qazox]

OK.. I got it wrong people.. here's my flayed skin in recompense.