Tweet
Proportional representation depending on number of warheads employable?
-
"Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson
“In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter -
An open secret? Since when?Originally posted by DanS
It's an open secret that Japan spends rather substantially more than 1% of its economy on its military.DISCLAIMER: the author of the above written texts does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any offence and insult; disrespect, arrogance and related forms of demeaning behaviour; discrimination based on race, gender, age, income class, body mass, living area, political voting-record, football fan-ship and musical preference; insensitivity towards material, emotional or spiritual distress; and attempted emotional or financial black-mailing, skirt-chasing or death-threats perceived by the reader of the said written texts.Comment
-
Besides, while I agree 3 West-European countries in the council may be overkill, I find it rather logical that Europe's richest and second most populated country is the council. And I think other factors come into play aside of military strength, such a diplomatic clout and financial and material contributions to the UN.
I don't think it can be the intention that countries are encouraged to jack up their military activity in order to get allowed to the SC.DISCLAIMER: the author of the above written texts does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any offence and insult; disrespect, arrogance and related forms of demeaning behaviour; discrimination based on race, gender, age, income class, body mass, living area, political voting-record, football fan-ship and musical preference; insensitivity towards material, emotional or spiritual distress; and attempted emotional or financial black-mailing, skirt-chasing or death-threats perceived by the reader of the said written texts.Comment
-
I'll back away from that. It is often said that the Japanese spend a lot more than 1% of their economy on the military, even though that's the nominal amount listed for public consumption. However, I do not know where I can find backup for that assertion, even though I can give a couple of suggestions where the extra money might be (construction, certain equipment purchases, etc.)Originally posted by Colon
An open secret? Since when?I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
I agree that there's more to the SC than the military, such as financial contributions otherwise. That's mostly why Japan is a good candidate. But the military aspect is most important in that nobody should be in the SC unless they can cash the checks that the SC writes. Germany is a fair bit away from being able to do so.Originally posted by Colon
Besides, while I agree 3 West-European countries in the council may be overkill, I find it rather logical that Europe's richest and second most populated country is the council. And I think other factors come into play aside of military strength, such a diplomatic clout and financial and material contributions to the UN.
I don't think it can be the intention that countries are encouraged to jack up their military activity in order to get allowed to the SC.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
How so? Are you just against having more Asians on the permanent security council? It is, after all, quite white-bread: Russia, France, UK, and America are all largely white nations.Originally posted by Atahualpa
Japan and China in the council
This will effectively render it useless...B♭3Comment
-
It is quite obvious that he believes Japan and China to be mutually exclusive, IE that if one supports something, the other will oppose it and veto it.Comment
-
Isreal as a permanent memberOriginally posted by chegitz guevara
Only nuclear powers should have permanent seats, and every nuclear power should have one.
Comment
-
And India and Pakistan. Maybe Iran soon too
"The French caused the war [Persian Gulf war, 1991]" - Ned
"you people who bash Bush have no appreciation for one of the great presidents in our history." - Ned
"I wish I had gay sex in the boy scouts" - DissidentComment
-
Dammit, couldn't you just let me have an ounce of fun?Originally posted by Whoha
It is quite obvious that he believes Japan and China to be mutually exclusive, IE that if one supports something, the other will oppose it and veto it.B♭3Comment
-
what a great idea! then you can have every tin pot dictator and his brother spend 50% of GDP on nuclear weapons research and create a world where everyone has nukes. lets bring North Korea into the security council! and iran.Only nuclear powers should have permanent seats, and every nuclear power should have one.
do you think Qaddafi would ever have given up his program if he coulda gotten a seat on the security council?"Everything for the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State" - Benito MussoliniComment
-
Why isn't India on the council?
Bullbatter. I don't care about economics or militarics. They are by far the most populous country that is not represented.meet the new boss, same as the old bossComment
-
Germany has been contributing substantially in Afghanistan and the Balkans. They surely have been more active internationally than Japan has. (IIRC the latter only has a miniscule force in Iraq, which even isn't a UN mission)Originally posted by DanS
I agree that there's more to the SC than the military, such as financial contributions otherwise. That's mostly why Japan is a good candidate. But the military aspect is most important in that nobody should be in the SC unless they can cash the checks that the SC writes. Germany is a fair bit away from being able to do so.DISCLAIMER: the author of the above written texts does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any offence and insult; disrespect, arrogance and related forms of demeaning behaviour; discrimination based on race, gender, age, income class, body mass, living area, political voting-record, football fan-ship and musical preference; insensitivity towards material, emotional or spiritual distress; and attempted emotional or financial black-mailing, skirt-chasing or death-threats perceived by the reader of the said written texts.Comment
-
Colon: Germany's been more militarily active internationally because Japan's constitution doesn't allow its armed forces anywhere off those islands (which is why their force in Iraq is non-combatant military).
On the other hand, Japan one of the largest contributors of international aid in the world, far exceeding the US and Germany, iirc.B♭3Comment
-
Does that matter? Whether it be their constitution or whether it be materially, Japan doesn't contribute more military-wise than Germany does.Originally posted by Q Cubed
Colon: Germany's been more militarily active internationally because Japan's constitution doesn't allow its armed forces anywhere off those islands (which is why their force in Iraq is non-combatant military).DISCLAIMER: the author of the above written texts does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any offence and insult; disrespect, arrogance and related forms of demeaning behaviour; discrimination based on race, gender, age, income class, body mass, living area, political voting-record, football fan-ship and musical preference; insensitivity towards material, emotional or spiritual distress; and attempted emotional or financial black-mailing, skirt-chasing or death-threats perceived by the reader of the said written texts.Comment
Comment