The security council was built around the nuclear powers at the time. I guess there are two ways to look at it:

1: The new nuclear powers should be included, I guess including N Korea, India, and Pakistan. And possibly Israel, if they admit to having them.

2: Rethink the whole thing. Are nukes really as important as everybody thought they were after WWII? If not, what should we look at to decide who to include?

▲

jameshilliard 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> The security council was built around the nuclear powers at the time.

That's not actually true, the 5 permanent seats on the UNSC were granted in 1945, well before any country aside from the US managed to develop nuclear weapons.

Those 5 countries did all eventually develop nuclear weapons and became nuclear weapon states under the NPT but that happened quite a bit later.

▲

JumpCrisscross 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Are nukes really as important as everybody thought they were after WWII?

Possibly moreso. Nuclear sovereignty is demonstrably above the conventional type. At the end of the day, having a forum where nuclear powers with long-range delivery capability can veto things reduces the risk of them using that capability to veto in the real world.

By the range requirement, Tel Aviv and Pyongyang qualify for UNSC inclusion. New Delhi and Islamabad do not—they will mostly just nuke each other.

▲

runarberg 2 days ago | parent [-]

I haven’t run the stats on this but it seems to me that countries which have nukes are more likely to invade other countries and then use the nukes as shields to prevent retaliation.

Out of the 9 current nuclear armed countries 5 have invaded another countries this century, and three of the most prolific invaders this century (Israel, USA, and Russia; each with over 3 invasions this century) are all nuclear armed. Out of the 4 countries which haven‘t invaded another country this century, two (India and Pakistan) regularly engage in border skirmishes and bombing campaigns. This leaves China and North Korea as the only two nuclear armed countries (out of 9) which don‘t regularly engage in foreign wars.

By our current experience, the proliferation of nuclear armed states is almost certain to end in a disaster at a previously unseen scale. We should be doing everything in our power to prevent this world of future horrors.

▲

jameshilliard a day ago | parent [-]

> This leaves China

Not exactly.[0]

> and North Korea

Also not exactly.[1]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_China%E2%80%...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_invol...

▲

JumpCrisscross a day ago | parent [-]

To China I’d add the illegally occupied and annexed Tibetan territory. It’s old news. But it’s weird to ignore.

	▲	runarberg a day ago \| parent [-]
		Not this century. I was going by this list here for what counts as invasions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions_in_the_21st_... and counted 3 or more invasions as prolific invaders. But your parent is absolutely correct that China and North Korea also regularly engage in wars, though what counts as war and what counts as skirmishes is up for debate, I would count https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_China%E2%80%... as a war (I had just forgotten about it), ditto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Yeonpyeongdo_bombardment That however just makes my point stronger.