So you want to encourage states to gain nuclear capability? Remind me how that is a good idea?
Neurotik: 1.) I seriously doubt a country is going to invest in a nuclear weapons program just to get a seat on the Security Council. It ain’t worth the billions, especially given that at least 5 countries will have the veto.
2.) If the Bush Administration continues to push for war with Iraq while insisting that the North Korean brouhaha can be resolved peacefully, a few countries are going to think nuclear weapons are worth it just to keep the U.S. off their backs.
3.) A country with a powerful military, say France or India, swings more weight and is more important, in the Realpolitik sense, than a small country like Paraguay or Togo.
4.) If North Korea is or becomes a nuclear power, then I look for Seoul or Tokyo to acquire the bomb a few years later.
Not so. Several countries, including Brasil, have been pushing to “go nuclear” in order to achieve Great Power position. To add in the incentive of a permanent spot on the Security Council would add even more weight to those pushes. Not only that, but how hard would it be to prevent North Korea from investing in their nuclear program if the added bonus was a permanent spot on the SC.
Second, veto power on the UN is more important from a Realpolitik sense than a large army. Look at how much power France wields in shaping international policy just from it’s Security Council veto. The combination of nuclear recognition and SC veto would be too much for many nations to ignore.
It’s just a really bad idea.
Neurotik: I would say France also derives much of its power from a good army, the fact that it has nuclear weapons, close alliances with countries like Germany, and working relationships, if not alliances, with countriles like Russia and the U.S., and the fact that it retains somewhat close ties with many of its former colonies. Correct me if I’m wrong, but does not France belong to an organization with its former colonies, an organization similar to the British Commonwealth?
Also, if 12-20 countries, and I suspect that at least 20 will be nuclear within a century, regardless of whether they get a SC seat, get on the Security Council, I think all those vetos will result in a SC that is limited in its accomplishments. It’s hard to get 12-20 persons to agree on breakfast, let alone international policy.
I think NK, if it doesn’t already have the Bomb, is going to go after nuclear status, regardless of a permanent spot on the SC or not.
You can say that all you want, but I’m going to disagree with you every time. 
The only thing that really seperates France from several other borderline states in the world is its veto power on the SC. Otherwise it would be on the same level as Germany, India and a few other countries, rather than on the same level as the US, China and Russia. They would be significant powers, but not even close to the significance and influence they now have due to their veto power.
**
Maybe so, but that doesn’t mean we should add incentives to do so.
As for your attempt at limiting the power of the SC, all it will mean is that more and more countries will ignore the SC and do what they wish if they have the power to do so.