# Why the club of 5 at the UN? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 7, 2003, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-club-of-5-at-the-un/186720 "2003-07-07T05:48:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Wake\_up\_call](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/dec6dc/32.png) [@Wake\_up\_call](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wake_up_call)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-club-of-5-at-the-un/186720/1 "2003-07-07T05:48:25Z")
I am new to SDMB. I am sure this issue must have been discussed before in this forum. I tried to run a search, but could not find anything relevant. The question is this: Why is it that 5 nuclear countries have the right of veto at the United Nations? Namely, US, UK, France, Russia and China? Why don’t we remove that right away from them? Why is it that they can continue maintaining their nuclear weapons but they have the gall to stop anyone else having them (short of India, Pakistan and Israel). Why is it that it is OK for the 8 countries to have nuclear weapons, but not OK for any other country to have any? If it is a bad thing to have, why doesn’t the world insist that all 8 get rid of theirs, before preaching others not to have any? If charity starts at home, why doesn’t the US champion the effort to get rid of all nuclear weapons from planet earth, starting with her own first? Is the club of 5 setting a bad example to the rest of the world? Is the rest of the world a mere hostage to the 8 nuclear powers? If yes, why do we let this go on and what are we going to do about it? if no, please explain why it should continue the way it is. Does non-proliferation means that you can have your SUV but I cannot have mine? I suppose I don’t understand what is going on here. Would you please straighten me up. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-club-of-5-at-the-un/186720/2 "2003-07-07T06:17:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Wake up call \* > **Why is it that 5 nuclear countries have the right of veto at the United Nations? Namely, US, UK, France, Russia and China?** They were the victors of World War 2. Thus, they were in a position of strength after the war. > [@](#): > > **Why don’t we remove that right away from them?** How? The vetos are written in the UN Charter. You don’t really think that those countries are going to give that right up, do you? > [@](#): > > **Why is it that they can continue maintaining their nuclear weapons but they have the gall to stop anyone else having them (short of India, Pakistan and Israel).** Simple answer? All the other countries signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The world as a whole has no real interest in seeing every two-bit tinpot dictator get nukes. > [@](#): > > **Why is it that it is OK for the 8 countries to have nuclear weapons, but not OK for any other country to have any?** See above answer. > [@](#): > > **If it is a bad thing to have, why doesn’t the world insist that all 8 get rid of theirs, before preaching others not to have any?** How? With sanctions? If you want to see the world come completely apart, buddy, then that would be a great idea. Or maybe threaten the US with force. Yeah, that would work… > [@](#): > > **If charity starts at home, why doesn’t the US champion the effort to get rid of all nuclear weapons from planet earth, starting with her own first?** Nukes are deterrents. If North Korea can reach the West Coast with a nuke right now as they claim, then why don’t they? Because they don’t want to become a parking lot, that’s why. For 50 years the US used nukes for deterrence. If you can provide any evidence that deterrence is no longer needed, then we can talk. > [@](#): > > **Is the club of 5 setting a bad example to the rest of the world? Is the rest of the world a mere hostage to the 8 nuclear powers? If yes, why do we let this go on and what are we going to do about it? if no, please explain why it should continue the way it is.** No, and no. It should continue the way it is because things are stable and have been for a long time. If you try to change things that dramatically with nukes, someone may decide that it is to their political adavntage to strike first. Where’s the stability in that? > [@](#): > > \*\*Does non-proliferation means that you can have your SUV but I cannot have mine? I suppose I don’t understand what is going on here. Would you please straighten me up. Thanks. \*\* More or less, yes. Why? Read a history book. I wasn’t there. ---
**Author:** ![Doomtrain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/0ea827/32.png) [@Doomtrain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doomtrain)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-club-of-5-at-the-un/186720/3 "2003-07-07T06:23:41Z")
I don’t think it’s based on nuclear weapons. I believe the permanent seats on the Security Council were set just after World War II by the victors: Russia, China, France, Britian, and the U.S. ---
**Author:** ![bibliophage](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bibliophage/32/7615_2.png) [@bibliophage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bibliophage)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-club-of-5-at-the-un/186720/4 "2003-07-07T06:47:31Z")
This is more of a debate than a factual question, so I’ll move this thread to GD. bibliophage moderator GQ ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-club-of-5-at-the-un/186720/5 "2003-07-07T06:58:10Z")
There is no reason that the rest of the world cannot have nukes and the cartel of five can. Israel is granted them on the grounds that the Arab states would quickly overrun them otherwise, but the five Israeli-Arab wars are fairly conclusive evidence that this is a ridiculous premise. India and Pakistan had sanctions imposed after their nuclear tests because they were NPT signatories, but neither state suffered a great deal because of the sanctions. (they affected areas of commerce of little significance between the US and both states; India is largely self-sufficient, and Pakistan does not do much exporting) ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-club-of-5-at-the-un/186720/6 "2003-07-07T07:03:05Z")
[nitpick]India is not an NPT signatory. The US imposed sanctions under a US law which requires sanctions for countries actively pursuing nuclear weapons programs.[/nitpick] ---
**Author:** ![Eolbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d07c76/32.png) [@Eolbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eolbo)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-club-of-5-at-the-un/186720/7 "2003-07-07T07:13:42Z")
Its a post WW2 arrangement. These five were the five big nations that ran the world after Germany and Japan were defeated, and they set up an arrangement that suited them. The United Nations was the formal name of the alliance that defeated the Axis. They have a veto as a recognition of reality. The predecessor to the UN, the League of Nations, was more democratic in theory, but in practice a number of key nations were not members which sort of defeated any importance it may have had. An international organisation doesnt work if 20 piddly nations vote to do something, and a major power walks out in response. So now we have a formal recognition of power in the form of the veto, its a way of saying “Lets be frank here, I’m a superpower and you are Ghana, I dont care what you and Mali have voted I’m not doing it.” ---
**Author:** ![Wake\_up\_call](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/dec6dc/32.png) [@Wake\_up\_call](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wake_up_call)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-club-of-5-at-the-un/186720/8 "2003-07-07T07:14:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF \* > **They were the victors of World War 2. Thus, they were in a position of strength after the war.** But that was over 50 years ago. You mean it is not about time we change a few things, considering that we are in the 21st century with new realities? Hello, are you still living in yesteryear glories? > [@](#): > > **The vetos are written in the UN Charter. You don’t really think that those countries are going to give that right up, do you?** So, the UN chapter was written for different times, 60 years ago. Heck, if we can amend the 200 years old US Constitution, we can surely re-write or amend the 60 year old UN charter. Wake Up Call indeed. > [@](#): > > **The world as a whole has no real interest in seeing every two-bit tinpot dictator get nukes.** Sorry Mr. US Air Force guy. But, over 100 countries these days see you, your country and your military might as nothing but a dictator with nukes. And if you don’t change your attitude soon, you can easily become a two-bit tinpot too. > [@](#): > > **If you want to see the world come completely apart, buddy, then threaten the US with force. Yeah, that would work…** Nobody has to threaten the US with force. With the kind of attitude you display, the country would eventually fall apart on its own weight. > [@](#): > > \*\*If North Korea can reach the West Coast with a nuke right now as they claim, then why don’t they? Because they don’t want to become a parking lot, that’s why. \*\* As long as you have the ability to turn anything you don’t like into a “Parking Lot”, I am all for 150 countries to have nukes to turn you into a “Parking Lot”. United, those 150 countries can have a bigger dick than yours. > [@](#): > > **For 50 years the US used nukes for deterrence. If you can provide any evidence that deterrence is no longer needed, then we can talk.** The world has had enough of the US showing its penis to dominate others. Maybe the world now does not need US interference in its affairs, let alone “US deterrence” > [@](#): > > **It should continue the way it is because things are stable and have been for a long time. If you try to change things that dramatically with nukes, someone may decide that it is to their political advantage to strike first. Where’s the stability in that?** I see. But it is OK for the US to always have the political advantage. Are you real? > [@](#): > > **Read a history book.** I just read one. it is called “The rise and fall of the Great Empires”. So, when do you think the US Empire is going to fall. And fall, it will, if the super duper patriotic Air Force guys like you do not change your attitude. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-club-of-5-at-the-un/186720/9 "2003-07-07T07:22:43Z")
School’s out in most of the Northern Hemisphere, right? 14, maybe 15. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-club-of-5-at-the-un/186720/10 "2003-07-07T07:29:45Z")
So in other words you’re not interested in debating or even attempting to have a conversation. You just want to demonize countries with nukes, and the US in particular. Gotcha. I’m sorry I even attempted to answer your question. It’s not like you even read the answer before giving me your canned responses. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-club-of-5-at-the-un/186720/11 "2003-07-07T07:31:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dutchboy208 \* > Israel is granted them on the grounds that the Arab states would quickly overrun them otherwise, but the five Israeli-Arab wars are fairly conclusive evidence that this is a ridiculous premise. The Arab-Israeli wars occured before Israel gained, surreptisiously, nuclear capacity. As for ‘granted’, Israel maintains a very strained ‘plausible deniability’ and the US refrains from applying anti-proliferation policy to Israel. As for Wake Up Call, before throwing about suggestions-assertions, it might very well behoove you to obtain some modicum of learning and information about the subject at hand, if only to reduce the looking foolish and immature factor. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-club-of-5-at-the-un/186720/12 "2003-07-07T07:32:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by furt \* > \*\*School’s out in most of the Northern Hemisphere, right? > > 14, maybe 15. \*\* At best. Mr. Air Force guy, indeed. :rolleyes: It’s like Nitti in The Untouchables calling Ness “Treasury Man”. ---
**Author:** ![Eleusis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Eleusis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eleusis)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-club-of-5-at-the-un/186720/13 "2003-07-07T07:36:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by GMRyujin \* > \*\*I don’t think it’s based on nuclear weapons. I believe the permanent seats on the Security Council were set just after World War II by the victors: Russia, China, France, Britian, and the U.S. \*\* Except maybe for France. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-club-of-5-at-the-un/186720/14 "2003-07-07T07:39:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF \* > \*\*At best. > > Mr. Air Force guy, indeed. :rolleyes: It’s like Nitti in The Untouchables calling Ness “Treasury Man”. \*\* I always thought Treasury Man had a certain je ne sais quoi to it, but regretably Air Force Guy doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-club-of-5-at-the-un/186720/15 "2003-07-07T07:41:31Z")
> [@](#): > > There is no reason that the rest of the world cannot have nukes and the cartel of five can. Israel is granted them on the grounds that the Arab states would quickly overrun them otherwise, but the five Israeli-Arab wars are fairly conclusive evidence that this is a ridiculous premise. Israel isn’t really granted nukes: their official policy is that they don’t have any. It’s just as open secret that they have several hundred of them. I’m not sure if they are an NPT signatory or not. Israel could probably be forced to reduce their stocks of weapons if the US got involved. But this isn’t really relevant, so I’ll stop myself ther. > [@](#): > > But that was over 50 years ago. You mean it is not about time we change a few things, considering that we are in the 21st century with new realities? Hello, are you still living in yesteryear glories? Err, **WakeUpCall**? I wish everybody, the US especially, was making a bigger effort into nuclear disarmament. But what’s this have to do with yesteryear? The US is still the most powerful nation, and the other 4 probably round out the Top 5 when you consider that it’s about economic strength, not just military. There is, I think, a push from Germany and Japan to get permanent seats on the council, but we’ll see if that ever gets anywhere. I agree with you in principle in that there are other powerful nations that deserve a say, but the system as it exists isn’t going to be scrapped. 2: You know there are other countries on the Security Council, right? The big 5 get permanent places and a veto, yes, but they’re not the only ones making the decisions. There are 10 other nations that hold rotating spots. And that’s just the Security Council, there’s also the General Assembly. > [@](#): > > Nobody has to threaten the US with force. With the kind of attitude you display, the country would eventually fall apart on its own weight. > [@](#): > > But, over 100 countries these days see you, your country and your military might as nothing but a dictator with nukes. Can’t argue that I don’t like America’s current attitude, unfortunately this doesn’t seem at all relevant to anything. And anyway, **Airman** is correct that nuclear proliferation is not in anybody’s best interest. What’s your problem with that comment? > [@](#): > > As long as you have the ability to turn anything you don’t like into a “Parking Lot”, I am all for 150 countries to have nukes to turn you into a “Parking Lot”. United, those 150 countries can have a bigger dick than yours. Are you insane? “The US is too powerful, so everybody else should have nukes so they can blow it up.” That’ll solve a _lot_ of problems, Einstein. The world would be in much safer hands if Kim Jong-Il had nuclear weapons. I have no end of problems with the current US government, but the US hasn’t ‘turned anything it doesn’t like into a parking lot.’ Come on. Deal with reality instead. Actually, most of what you say doesn’t seem to be relevant to the question about why the Security Council is set up like it is. That was a factual question, and the (short) answer is that it’s because those countries were on the winning side in World War Two and were thus in a position to set the terms for a body like the UN. You sound more interested in uninformed ranting against the US, which is why we’re in Great Debates now. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-club-of-5-at-the-un/186720/16 "2003-07-07T07:41:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF \* > \*\*Mr. Air Force guy, indeed. :rolleyes: It’s like Nitti in The Untouchables calling Ness “Treasury Man”. \*\* I thought it sounded more like something out of [99 Luftballoons](http://www.inthe80s.com/redeng.shtml). ---
**Author:** ![Eleusis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Eleusis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eleusis)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-club-of-5-at-the-un/186720/17 "2003-07-07T07:42:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bibliophage \* > \*\*This is more of a debate than a factual question, so I’ll move this thread to GD. > > bibliophage > moderator GQ \*\* Next stop, BBQ Pit. p.s. **Wake Up Call** - why does your location say USA if you hate the USA so much? You call us “you” so you obviously aren’t American. p.p.s. I smell patchouli ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-club-of-5-at-the-un/186720/18 "2003-07-07T07:44:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Wake up call \* > \*\*But that was over 50 years ago. You mean it is not about time we change a few things, considering that we are in the 21st century with new realities? Hello, are you still living in yesteryear glories? \*\* Well, maybe, but the fact that it’s the security council who would have to vote to give up veto power, that resolution would likely be vetoed by the five perminent powers. So, that causes inertia to set in. I’ll also point out that the U.S.'s veto power doesn’t mean that the U.S. has an absolute political advantage, or that the US will always get its way. In fact, one of the reasons that the UN has been largely ineffectual for a lot of its history is that, during the cold war, the U.S. and Soviet Union would block each other’s resolutions. Because both countries had veto power, that meant that often, neither side got what they wanted in the U.N. Even now, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. doesn’t have absolute control of the Security Council. The recent war in Iraq, for example, wasn’t fought under UN auspices, because both France and Russia opposed the U.S. backed plan. I’d like to see some changes in the structure of the UN myself, and think I might even support removing the veto power, but it’s a mistake to see that veto power as simply a stick to prevent those nations without nuclear weapons from having them. (Remember, when the UN was first established, only the US had nuclear weapons). ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-club-of-5-at-the-un/186720/19 "2003-07-07T07:56:09Z")
> [@](#): > > p.s. **Wake Up Call** - why does your location say USA if you hate the USA so much? You call us “you” so you obviously aren’t American. > p.p.s. I smell patchouli Can we not do this, please? I’m a very liberal guy myself, and I still don’t endorse what **Wake up call** is saying. Let’s stick to the argument - or at least the poster - in question instead of making a bunch of smears. ---
**Author:** ![Eleusis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Eleusis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eleusis)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-club-of-5-at-the-un/186720/20 "2003-07-07T08:02:52Z")
Yeah **Marley23** , you’re right. Sorry about that. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-club-of-5-at-the-un/186720.md?page=2)