UN Security Council Reform: Who should be the Permanent Members and have the vetoe?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
But what is a "significant" military presence? What are "serious" ground, naval and air assets?

A single cargo ship carrying men equipped with inflatable boats and shoulder-launched missiles, with a missile-armed helicopter on the deck, is a serious ground, naval and air threat to many countries.

I'd say "significant" is the ability to overthrow governments, capture and occupy territory against real (and by this I mean from a country with some actual structure and military, not someplace like Somalia)military opposition, or more generally hold back a good portion of another country's military, all while having the ability to sustain such actions for at least weeks on end. "Serious" ground, naval and air assets would be the forces required to do such.

Or put another way, the ability to do what Britain did with the Falklands in the 80's.

The single cargo ship you mention would be tantamount to a major terrorist action, which is to say that it could cause havoc and scare the crap out of civilians, but not defeat or sustain any protracted military action without almost complete local assistance. How many countries do you really think don't have the wherewithall to soundly defeat a cargo ship full of men within a week or two at the most? Not many.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Kontiki


It's not difficult to define it at all. Projecting military force around the world means being able to put forth a significant military presence, with serious ground, air and naval assets to any point on the globe in a relatively short time frame. Currently, only three countries can do that unquestionably (US, Britain and France) with Russia theoretically having the capability but never having tested it, and likely not having the funds to do it.

While France does have this ability, I believe that it is limited in the scope that it could sustain.

Britain has this ability, but needs help from the commonwealth (as they did in the Falklands).

Both would need NATO or US help for prolonged operations.

Russia cannot sustain ground operations if support is needed from across an ocean. They simply do not have the logistical resources for a large scale campaign. They probably could sustain a medium length encounter against heavy resistance if they were able to resupply by land.

The US can sustain full operations anywhere in the world for as long as needed.

Suprisingly, one other country has been able to sustain a fairly sizable force across an ocean for a rather lengthy time. That was Cuba in Angola. This operation did receive a tremendous amount of local support however.

The criteria for the security council should not just be the ability to project military force, but the ability to apply serious diplomatic pressure as well. Additionally, security council members should be able to exert economic pressure( I would imagine that the GNP of the 5 veto countries is well over 50% of the worlds). The current countries are well positioned for this.