But at the moment we do have a relatively significant nuclear arms stockpile
(compared to countries that don't have nay for example, not compared to the US or Russia) so, whether you agree with it, that still makes us fairly significant.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 11 Aug 2010, 10:12, 1 reply, 14 years ago)

Not so much, given the number of other nuclear states
including those that're undeclared. If it's nukes that count, then permanent seats should also go to South Africa, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea, possibly Iran, possibly Syria and so on.

In terms of non-nuclear importance, they should also go to Brazil, Germany, Saudi Arabia, and a few others.

British decline isn't absolute, of course; it's relative. But that's what really counts. So you either have to accept that the P5 criteria are arbitrary - in which case, the moral authority seems to vanish - or that there should be a mechanism to remove states - in which case, bye-bye UK - or that more and more states can have permanent seats - in which case, the very idea of a two-tier SC looks to be untenable, and we're in effect back to the League of Nations and its requirement for unanimity in decisionmaking.

None of the horns of this trilemma looks too attractive to those who want the UK to keep its P5 seat...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 11 Aug 2010, 10:22, Reply)