Nope. Just curious is all.Does it matter?
My heart skipped a beat when I saw the thread title. Dammit, OP.
*yawns*A world without the US and/or UN is basically going to force the world back into human norm and have major wars erupt every two decades, if we're lucky.
Problem, you assume the military is the keeper of the peace. The reality is that the Woods System -i.e. global commerce- did more to keep the peace than nukes outside of the US/USSR grudge match.*yawns*
Is this the silly idea that the US military keeps the peace, that some people use to justify the absurd overspending for an ineffective tool? Just asking, because it would be an absurd claim to make, when the US military is, well, not that stronger effectively than the other UNSC ones:
1) It can crush the military of tinpot dictatorships and utterly fail to build up on it afterwards.
2) It cannot win a war with anyone who spends the cash on a deterrent, nuclear or other.
Major wars have stopped not because of big toys compensating for some inadequacy but because they cannot be won in the era of MAD.
You seem to be working on a 19th century mindset, in which resources justify war on an economic standpoint. Economy and industry demolished that state of things, in that raw resources are not really worth the cost of a modern war anymore. Profit is made through services and more and more advanced industrial processes rather than raw resources while the cost of warfare has risen sharply. Consider the Iraq War of Aggression in 2003: the oil resources there would not justify the cost of the war and subsequent occupation, which is a pretty good argument to debunk the thesis about an oil-justified war.Problem, you assume the military is the keeper of the peace. The reality is that the Woods System -i.e. global commerce- did more to keep the peace than nukes outside of the US/USSR grudge match.
Since all those resources are now 'freely' available without colonial empires denying them, a lot of the reasons for war simply evaporated. The US military being it's immense size is simply the requirement for the Woods System to be viable. The UN without the US pretty much causes a repeat of the League of Nations: it becomes completely ineffectual, it starts being screwed over with situations that it couldn't handle, then it ultimately collapses and the world is literally on fucking fire.
MAD is simply a theory that no one wants to test yet. Without the US and UN, the chances of some idiot wanting to test MAD goes up sharply.
Noone, then. There is nothing saying the UNSC must have five permanent members.I amended the OP to make it more clear what I am asking for.
There is already two Europeans member, adding a third would be a bit disproportionate in my opinion. If we really need to put a replacement, then I would say Brazil, as it is on the same continent than the US.Anyone? Germany maybe?
How come when I make this argument I get called a dumb isolationist.*yawns*
Is this the silly idea that the US military keeps the peace, that some people use to justify the absurd overspending for an ineffective tool? Just asking, because it would be an absurd claim to make, when the US military is, well, not that stronger effectively than the other UNSC ones:
1) It can crush the military of tinpot dictatorships and utterly fail to build up on it afterwards.
2) It cannot win a war with anyone who spends the cash on a deterrent, nuclear or other.
Major wars have stopped not because of big toys compensating for some inadequacy but because they cannot be won in the era of MAD.
Probably because you are surrounded with people who need their compensating tool. The same people who apparently believe, despite thousands of years of counter-examples, that winning a war means killing more people than you lose, thus explaining how these people's dream military has won two wars in sixty years: Panama and 1991 Iraq, failing to win its numerous others despite big tech and huge budgets.How come when I make this argument I get called a dumb isolationist.
Seriously?! "India" and "military, economic, and technological prowess" is a dichotomy. They're not a good choice. Not unless they start to make actual progress at the very least.India is a good choice given their military, economic, and technological prowess
Agreed. On these criteria, I'd get Japan or South Korea rather than India.Seriously?! "India" and "military, economic, and technological prowess" is a dichotomy. They're not a good choice. Not unless they start to make actual progress at the very least.
Good joke! It just has a "self-defence force" that is among the most armed fleets on Earth.Japan doesn't even have a military, so I'm not sure what to think of that.
To quote one of your enemies on SBGood joke! It just has a "self-defence force" that is among the most armed fleets on Earth.
Particularly China, which is itself a Security Councilor, fucking hates India. I would have to echo Chatokay with Brazil, since they are on the same continent and have a similar size of manpower to the US.Also, India is just in such a precarious position with its neighbors. I don't think the rest of the world wants to amplify drama in that region by giving India more influence.
Japan doesn't even have a military, so I'm not sure what to think of that.
But nothing in terms of power projection. Noone gives a shit about Brazil's military when it cannot be significant much further than its boerders.Particularly China, which is itself a Security Councilor, fucking hates India. I would have to echo Chatokay with Brazil, since they are on the same continent and have a similar size of manpower to the US.