New UNSC ?

[Wright]

where did i say gdp per capita ? how am i trolling , i said india small economy compared to population

india population - 1.2 billion- economy 1.8 trillion
china population 1.3 billion - economy 7.3 trillion

Yeah I agree. Spain, Canada are about even with India, Italy is almost twice as large economically.

 

[faithfulguy]

When Japan who destroyed China like a cardboard crushed under a train can be out of UNSC why not UK.

You are really one of the most pervasive trolls in the entire forum. UNSC was created out of the victors of WWII. India was represented by Britain at that time. As no world war had occurred since the creation of UNSC, it must be doing something right. Lets don't rattle the boat as there is nothing to fix.

All these talk about new nations in UNSC are not going to happen. Unless UNSC cannot function without a particular nation, than UNSC would still do just fine without any reform. Finally, for all the talks about how outdated is UNSC, most nations still wish to join the UNSC. And withdraw from the UN by any none permanent 5 member would not cause the UN to lose its significance.

 

[WS-10 Engine]

india should never get permanent UNSC seat.

you need an independent foreign policy to be taken seriously, india dont have that, it follows everything the west tells them to.

it wont be a serious contributor, just a thing to brag about.

no need to involve india in any global issues either, its not a major power, its not even a regional power.

indians first need to feed its poverty stricken population before buying weapons, seeking veto power at UN, etc.
they have the most cruelest caste system ever, its a vulgar system and THE worst human rights violations you can possibly imagine. its sick.

first sort out your hungry population and very high child mortality rates, its non existent infrastructure, its collapsing curreny and its woeful debt problems.

india is nothing but a complete disaster and they have the audacity to act like some global big shot, B**CH PLEASE!!!!!

 

[KingMamba]

US, Brazil, UK, France, China, Russia, Turkey

India and Pakistan no because they have border disputes, put Israel in the same category those 3 should not be considered because of their disputes.

Germany and Japan no because US is their daddy. Brazil represents South America besides they are widely respected worldwide plus good economy and military to boot. Turkey to be the ME representative. I would consider Iran or Saudi if they can diversify their economies and make it less reliant on oil/gas.

Also system should be the resolution needs 4 yes in order to pass therefore the one veto cannot derail a whole process like we see today. So 4/7 resolution passes.

 

[Ottoman-Turk]

yh i think above is right except adding another asian nation to make it more balanced , maybe emerging indonesia?

2 europe , 1 north america , 1 south america , 1 europe/asia/middleeast , 1 asia/europe , 1 asia

 

[xuxu1457]

Permanent members
1.USA
2.UK+Germany+france share one seat Eu
3.China
4.Rassia
Permanent members without veto
5.India
6.one Islam coutry or unit
7.Brazil (stand for the South America)
8.South Africa (stand for Africa)

 

[KRAIT]

Permanent members
1.USA
2.UK+Germany+france share one seat Eu
3.China
4.Rassia
Permanent members without veto
5.India
6.one Islam coutry or unit
7.Brazil (stand for the South America)
8.South Africa (stand for Africa)

Not according to religion....one shouldn't mix UN with religion. Rest is logical.

 

[KingMamba]

yh i think above is right except adding another asian nation to make it more balanced , maybe emerging indonesia?

2 europe , 1 north america , 1 south america , 1 europe/asia/middleeast , 1 asia/europe , 1 asia

Middle east is in Asia anyway and I think it has to be odd so 7 is best. Besides it should also be based on military strength and Indonesia cannot hang with the rest.

Not according to religion....one shouldn't mix UN with religion. Rest is logical.

What do you think about my post?

 

[KRAIT]

Middle east is in Asia anyway and I think it has to be odd so 7 is best. Besides it should also be based on military strength and Indonesia cannot hang with the rest.



What do you think about my post?

You can call me biased, but country of size in all aspects, geographical, cultural, economical, strategical, educationally significant, miltitary might, NAM, responsible Nuclear power, past record, support from all permanent member of UNSC but China, makes India the prime candidate.

Border dispute can't be taken account as China has way more such disputes.

I don't know about Turkey's sphere of influence. But I think India won't be added in this decade. And Kashmir is not going to be resolved soon(it is hardly any matter for UNSC even if its matter of two nuclear power).

If Turkey is that influential, then lets India to your list (you are free to reject that for obvious reason).

 

[Hello_10]

india is already there , maybe i wrote it wrong i meant india has small economy compared to population , 1.85 trillion economy for 1.2 bill population , come on lets be objective thats small , although big on a global position

there are few things which I have said on PDF many times but there are always new people who raise the same question and then get confused with few basic things........

first, if you want to measure 'strength' of an economy, not its power to import, then you need its PPP value which adjust exchange rate. here we find GDP of India was $4.45tn in 2011 but its still manipulated by the US/UK since 2006. as, till 2005, we had a different way of measuring GDP on PPP which used to include 'estimated' 'undocumented' part of GDP also. and I remember, this way GDP of high population 'developing' countries was around 60% to 70% higher, of the country like Brazil/Turkey it was around 10% higher. and for the developed nations, the difference was hardly around 1% to 3%. like as below:

for 2005, India's GDP at PPP is estimated at $ 5.16 trillion or $ 3.19 trillion depending on whether the old or new conversion factor is used

It's official: India's a trillion-$ economy - Times Of India

means, GDP of India on PPP was already $5.16tn in 2005 and since then India registered around 9% growth on average for 2006, 2007, 2008 and then around 8% on average in 2009, 2010, 2010 period. (these British SHiiiTs were mainly behind all these manipulating of India's datas, I personally know this.........)

this way, if GDP of India was $4.45tn in 2011 by new method then it would be around $7.5tn on PPP by 2011 if we consider the old method which was in application till 2005

also, its true that population of India is 1.2bil but 850mil people might have hardly $2.0tn share in it, leaving around $5.3tn for rest of 350mil Middle Class with per capita income of around $17,000 on PPP which is close to Very High HDI countries like Argentina, Poland etc. hence you may say, India has 850mil people with per capita income around $2,500 and rest 350mil population with $17,000 on PPP........

when you consider India, you would alway think that even if population of India may become 2.0bil one day, their 350mil middle class is more in number than US also, the so called 'strongest' in your list, with projected growth rate over 7% for next 20 years, the minimum

 

[KingMamba]

You can call me biased, but country of size in all aspects, geographical, cultural, economical, strategical, educationally significant, miltitary might, NAM, responsible Nuclear power, past record, support from all permanent member of UNSC but China, makes India the prime candidate.

Border dispute can't be taken account as China has way more such disputes.

I don't know about Turkey's sphere of influence. But I think India won't be added in this decade. And Kashmir is not going to be resolved soon(it is hardly any matter for UNSC even if its matter of two nuclear power).

If Turkey is that influential, then lets India to your list (you are free to reject that for obvious reason).

Actually I believe that India SHOULD be on the UNSC eventually but for obvious reason India along with Pakistan and Israel should not be included or else there disputes will never be resolved. However if all 3 resolve their disputes my new UNSC is as follows

US
Israel
France
Russia
China
Pakistan
India
Turkey
Brazil

9 with majority vote and the resolution is passed. So 5 out of 9 vote yes and it can pass.

I take UK out because they kowtow to US anyway same as Germany and Japan. France can stay as their President has recently shown they have their own independent foreign policy by declaring removal of french troops by end of the year.

 

[KRAIT]

Only thing holding India is group of 4 approach, coz it consists Japan and China don't want it and has said it will support only India's bid not Japan's/ And rest of the nations both UN SC and other majority one takes India's stance. Germany as recently supported it but again there is Quid Pro Quo condition.

Pakistan and Israel not in near future. Pakistan for obvious reason (due to international image currently portrayed) and Israel for significant opposition from all Muslim countries.

Lets see, 2010-2030 will be a great time period for geo politics, lines will be redrawn, new friends and foes will emerge, new alliances, possible multi polar world in making SCO, NATO don't know what more to come...

We can agree to disagree.

 

[Hello_10]

Only thing holding India is group of 4 approach, coz it consists Japan and China don't want it and has said it will support only India's bid not Japan's/ And rest of the nations both UN SC and other majority one takes India's stance. Germany as recently supported it but again there is Quid Pro Quo condition.

Pakistan and Israel not in near future. Pakistan for obvious reason (due to international image currently portrayed) and Israel for significant opposition from all Muslim countries.

Lets see, 2010-2030 will be a great time period for geo politics, lines will be redrawn, new friends and foes will emerge, new alliances, possible multi polar world in making SCO, NATO don't know what more to come...

We can agree to disagree.

these 2 are not even in G20, how will they make it in top 9? only G4 have chance for permanent seat, whenever it will happen, even if after 10 to 20 years ..

 

[KRAIT]

these 2 are not even in G20, how will they make it in top 9? only G4 have chance for permanent seat, whenever it will happen, even if after 10 to 20 years ..

I said it for that person's point.....and I already mentioned the factors where you can understand my stance and time I am talking about...few posts earlier.

Out of G4 i think hardly 2 MAY be added soon...

 

[Hello_10]

I said it for that person's point.....and I already mentioned the factors where you can understand my stance and time I am talking about...few posts earlier.

Out of G4 i think hardly 2 MAY be added soon...

yes you right, I just remembered the possibly 2 from Africa also (South Africa and Nigeria which is a Muslim nation also). I forgot these two