9 ms·
Expelling Russia from the UN Security Council – A How-To Guide
- thrown_22 4y agoAlternative title: >Nuclear Holocaust - A How To Guide
- rafael09ed 4y agoWhy would expelling Russia from the security council cause a Nuclear Holocaust?
- rightbyte 4y agoThey can't veto stuff anymore.
- cplusplusfellow 4y agoThe point of the UN is to negotiate your differences rather than decide them with MAD or nuclear weapons.
- lm28469 4y agoIt's no guarantee but cutting one more diplomatic link surely won't help Anyone really believes they'll just continue to shoot each-other until someone packs up and leave ? This conflict will end like most conflicts, around a big wooden table with a fat stack of paper and a fancy ink pen. Either that or we escalate until we all lose
- fuzzylightbulb 4y agoThe whole point of the UN is to avoid a major war between nuclear states. It is not a reward for countries that happen to share our values. The UN was designed to permanently cement the post-WW2 powers as the major powers, and to provide a forum for them to resolve major differences rather than feel like they have to resort to lobbing atom bombs at one another. Everything else the UN does - from the participation of small states to the very important humanitarian initiatives - is of secondary concern.
- T-A 4y agoRussia would still sit in the UN's General Assembly. This proposal is about removing its veto power in the Security Council.
- krn 4y ago
- LatteLazy 4y agoUnless Russia used a nuke this month, I think you've missed his point?
- krn 4y agoIt's just a question of time when tactical nuclear weapons will be used in Ukraine, if Ukraine continues with the successful offensive[1]. Also, Russia is not even a world superpower: neither economically, nor militarily. It could easily be replaced by India as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. [1] https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2022/09/27/russia-putin-tactical-nuclear-weapons-ukraine-robert-baer-ovn-intl-hnk-vpx.cnn https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2022/09/27/russia-putin...
- LatteLazy 4y agoI have to disagree... Personally I don't think it IS just a matter of time before nukes are used. Putin is not a nice guy, but he isn't a comic book villain. Plus this is a ground war, so any nuke ruins the land they're fighting over and kills as many of their own troops (who aren't exactly equipped for basic fighting, let alone fallout) Russia has enough nukes (almost 6000, and the ability to deliver them) to annihilate any other country, and put the whole planet into nuclear winter. That makes them a super power, even if they cannot win a ground war with Ukraine. For reference, India only has 160 https://www.statista.com/statistics/264435/number-of-nuclear-warheads-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/264435/number-of-nuclear... Also, given it's history of annexing it's neighbours and conflicts with China and Pakistan (both also nuclear states) India is a very poor candidate for Security Council membership (at least as a "better" substitute for Russia).
- LatteLazy 4y agoIt will be very lonely on the council if we kick people out for things like "launching wars of aggression"...
- zardo 4y agoIt would just have the rotating member.
- lizardactivist 4y ago
- guilhas 4y agoAlso UK and China
- bllguo 4y agoI must have missed when China has ever threatened global security. Western belligerence has driven nearly all modern international conflict.
- guilhas 4y agoI agree with you, don't think they did, up until now they seem to have kept their business for themselves and resolved everything with trade and diplomacy. Quite impressive, and interesting how opposite of that the USA/EU/UK keeps forcing themselves on the world But I was commenting based on mainstream perception, to try to make it easier to understand. And a lot of HN wants to believe China bad To complete the point of the original comment, if any country that has done something perceived as bad is to be expelled, most would have been
- mcv 4y agoTwo big differences: the US is still the US. And for all its wars, the US has never gone on a war of conquest. I don't condone US aggression, but these are important differences from a UN perspective.
- lizardactivist 4y agoClearly, the UN's definition of war of conquest is too limited, and their perspective has intentionally been turned away from the atrocities and crimes the US has commited towards other countries. It does put the UN's credibility into question.
- 4y ago
- lm28469 4y agoYes let's cut every single diplomatic links and ship as much weapons as we can to Ukraine, this surely will not get out of control I used to think people is 1910s and 1930s were plain dumb when they all blindly marched towards both world wars, now I see it happening live and it's frightening to see how many of our politicians and journalists get hard at the idea of escalating a conflict
- T-A 4y agoRussia would still sit in the UN's General Assembly. This proposal is about removing its veto power in the Security Council.