United Nations Security Council - Why is the UK on it?

  • 🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Destacado
Because the UK owned a quarter of the world at the time of the creation of the UN. Same with France as it was a colonial power. If you want to get everyone to sign up for your international organization, best get the largest, most powerful nations at the time on board.
 
When the UN was founded in 1945, Britain still had a major empire and some even still considered them to be a superpower alongside the United States and Soviet Union (albeit one that was in a state of decline)

It wasn't until the Suez Crisis in the late 1950's that Britain and France were no longer going to be the dominant world powers they were before the World Wars and that their empires were effectively dead.

Plus, Britain was a core part of the Allied Forces in World War II, and the UN Security Council was basically the five core nations of the Allied Forces (United States, British Empire, France, Soviet Union, and China)

Britain is on that council for the same reason France is.
 
Syaoran Li dijo:
When the UN was founded in 1945, Britain still had a major empire and some even still considered them to be a superpower alongside the United States and Soviet Union (albeit one that was in a state of decline)

It wasn't until the Suez Crisis in the late 1950's that Britain and France were no longer going to be the dominant world powers they were before the World Wars and that their empires were effectively dead.

Plus, Britain was a core part of the Allied Forces in World War II, and the UN Security Council was basically the five core nations of the Allied Forces (United States, British Empire, France, Soviet Union, and China)

Britain is on that council for the same reason France is.
Presiona para expandir...
Yes, and they both have extended families (Commonwealth and Francophonie) over which they assert influence, so it makes sense to have them there .
 
Only the US had nukes when it was created. The security council permanent members have nothing to do with nukes, it's the "we won WWII" club.
 
The "United Nations" was the collective noun used to describe the Allies during World War II, and the United Nations Security Council was made up of the major combatants on the winning side.
 
Global force projection.

Even though the UK and France are second tier militaries now, they're the last remaining European powers that can still send serious hardware somewhere and support meaningful, regime-destroying missions. Everyone else has spheres of influence or local force projection, but few outside the Security Council can have naval and air assets blowing shit up halfway around the world without assistance.

(France may have lost that capability over the last 10 years, but they still have something. We'll see next time a crisis comes up.)

As shitty as the UN and Security Council are, there is good reason their structure hasn't changed. If you're trying to maintain peace/stability/status quo without nuking the world, you invite the actual powers to the big table, and let the regional actors squabble and posture at the kiddie table.
 
I do not recall most of these nations having nuclear weapons.

1587271062756.png

The UNSC members aren't chosen on whether they have nuclear weapons or not. Neither were the permanent members.
 
Sackity dijo:
I do not recall most of these nations having nuclear weapons.

Ver archivo adjunto 1240644
The UNSC members aren't chosen on whether they have nuclear weapons or not. Neither were the permanent members.
Presiona para expandir...
I suppose I meant permanent members in the OP, and I understand the post WWII reasons why Britain is there, but why 70+ yeats later? Especially when their 'nuclear deterrent' is basically leased from the US? Look at France, at least they have an independent arsenal.
 
Buster O'Keefe dijo:
I suppose I meant permanent members in the OP, and I understand the post WWII reasons why Britain is there, but why 70+ yeats later? Especially when their 'nuclear deterrent' is basically leased from the US? Look at France, at least they have an independent arsenal.
Presiona para expandir...
It's cheaper to buy American nuclear delivery systems for their submarines, rather than going out of their way to design and build their own systems just for the sake of nationalism. To paraphrase from the NTI (Nuclear Threat Initiaive) website, "While the submarines are designed and constructed in the United Kingdom, the Trident missile is purchased directly from the United States—a process that is deemed more economical as it allows the United Kingdom to "exploit American economies of scale.""

The warheads in the missiles are wholly made in Britain.

I'm not too sure on what you mean by 'leased' from the US, unless you're referring to the nuclear weapons stationed on mainland Europe by the US as part of Nuclear Sharing agreements, in which case the UK's nuclear arsenal does not fall under.
 
Buster O'Keefe dijo:
I suppose I meant permanent members in the OP, and I understand the post WWII reasons why Britain is there, but why 70+ yeats later?
Presiona para expandir...
Because the UK is a permanent member and it was the permanent members that decided the rules for membership. There's no way to get a majority of the permanents to remove the uk, as doing so would risk their own position on the council.
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo