4 ms·

UN security council is another classic example, where any permanent member can use the veto to block any resolution they want, regardless of how the other perma

by yumraj 8y ago

UN security council is another classic example, where any permanent member can use the veto to block any resolution they want, regardless of how the other permanent or elected members vote.

DaiPlusPlus 8y ago
That’s by design. The council is kept small and all permanent members are nuclear powers. The ability for Russia and the US to veto each other’s foreign policy spats and agreeing-to-disagree is the reason we’re still alive today.
- yumraj 8y ago
  There are more nuclear powers now, so shouldn't the security council permanent membership be expanded? We're not in 1945 anymore.
  - DaiPlusPlus 8y ago
    The _neu_-nuclear powers possess at most a few hundred warheads and lack true intercontinental delivery systems. They might kill a few million people but the damage will be localised. All of the countries that could - and would (given the right kind of existential threat posed by another) kill a few _hundred million_ people in even a limited exchange are on the council. There are other, non-nuclear states that could cause similar (<10m) deathcounts if they had a conflict. What we don’t want to do is frame the security council as “the nuclear club” which allows them to dictate global security - that would give states like DPRK and Hussein’s Iraq even more motivation to pursue a nuclear weapons programme. To an extent it does come down to sincerity - I’m not concerned about India being a nuclear power despite it bordering Pakistan and PRC: I have faith in India’s democracy and stability to use their power responsibly (Kashmir is another discussion) - but I don’t extend that to DPRK who are clearly using it to avoid a Libya-type situation but who may end up using it anyway given the inherent instability of autocratic dynasties.
    - yumraj 8y ago
      I obviously didn't mean all. India, Japan, Germany and perhaps a couple of others, such as South Africa and Brazil, deserve to have permanent status to have a more even security council. It's more an economic issue than a nuclear issue IMO. And, I think the veto should be done away with.
      - thaumasiotes 8y ago
        > Japan... deserve[s] to have permanent status to have a more even security council. I'm imagining whether China might veto this... ;)
      - JonoBB 8y ago
        South Africa does not have any nuclear weapons - they were all decommissioned at the end of Apartheid

by yumraj 8y ago

UN security council is another classic example, where any permanent member can use the veto to block any resolution they want, regardless of how the other permanent or elected members vote.

DaiPlusPlus 8y ago

That’s by design. The council is kept small and all permanent members are nuclear powers. The ability for Russia and the US to veto each other’s foreign policy spats and agreeing-to-disagree is the reason we’re still alive today.

yumraj 8y ago
There are more nuclear powers now, so shouldn't the security council permanent membership be expanded? We're not in 1945 anymore.
- DaiPlusPlus 8y ago
  The _neu_-nuclear powers possess at most a few hundred warheads and lack true intercontinental delivery systems. They might kill a few million people but the damage will be localised. All of the countries that could - and would (given the right kind of existential threat posed by another) kill a few _hundred million_ people in even a limited exchange are on the council. There are other, non-nuclear states that could cause similar (<10m) deathcounts if they had a conflict. What we don’t want to do is frame the security council as “the nuclear club” which allows them to dictate global security - that would give states like DPRK and Hussein’s Iraq even more motivation to pursue a nuclear weapons programme. To an extent it does come down to sincerity - I’m not concerned about India being a nuclear power despite it bordering Pakistan and PRC: I have faith in India’s democracy and stability to use their power responsibly (Kashmir is another discussion) - but I don’t extend that to DPRK who are clearly using it to avoid a Libya-type situation but who may end up using it anyway given the inherent instability of autocratic dynasties.
  - yumraj 8y ago
    I obviously didn't mean all. India, Japan, Germany and perhaps a couple of others, such as South Africa and Brazil, deserve to have permanent status to have a more even security council. It's more an economic issue than a nuclear issue IMO. And, I think the veto should be done away with.
    - thaumasiotes 8y ago
      > Japan... deserve[s] to have permanent status to have a more even security council. I'm imagining whether China might veto this... ;)
    - JonoBB 8y ago
      South Africa does not have any nuclear weapons - they were all decommissioned at the end of Apartheid