3 ms·
Yeah, so why isn't India a permanent member? They're much larger, second only to China, and have nukes.
by vba616 5y ago
Yeah, so why isn't India a permanent member? They're much larger, second only to China, and have nukes.
- belter 5y agoAt the time of formation of the United Nations India was not an independent country. The acceptance of India as a permanent member has been raised on and off by several countries always with sympathetic tones. It's an historical accident.
- fulvioterzapi 5y agoPermanent members are not determined looking at who's bigger, or who has nukes. Permanent members are the five biggest winners of WW2.
- vba616 5y agoYour theory differs from the GP so better to address them than me.
- fulvioterzapi 5y agoIt's not a theory, it's a well established fact that you can easily find on Wikipedia: "The permanent members were all allies in World War II (and the victors of that war)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_members_of_the_United_Nations_Security_Council https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_members_of_the_Unite...
- vba616 5y agoPlease stop telling me why belter's premise is wrong. You can't debate me about a premise introduced by another person. You have to resolve the issue with them. I already made a comment that is based a premise (dudul's) that seems similar to yours, instead of belter's. Here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30494411 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30494411
- vba616 5y agoAgain, when I respond to someone, in the context of their premises, I am not adopting those premises and I don't have to defend them to anyone. Go back and argue with the person who actually introduced what you want to dispute.