It is tough to add members to permanent status. You want to add India, well Pakistan will have something to say about that. You want to add Germany, France may speak up and say no, Turkey, well there are a number of nations against that. How about adding Japan...well China will probably say no. Amending the UN charter is just not going to happen.

In keeping with British/French cooperation as of late, perhaps Britain will keep it's seat, but France will get to sit in it until 2020.

Tom,

Did you ever think that maybe one reason that POTUS and other thousands were in India was to miff the Chinese by extending our relationship with the Indians? I certainly hope our government has the wherewithall to figure that out. Good, long term relationships with area co-habitants of the Chinese and adversaries of the Chinese may be good for long haul. Certainly anything that makes the Chinese flinch probably is.

Although it would more properly represent the balance of power, this won't happen. Also it begs the question should the UNSC even try to represent a balance of power?

As I understood it, the idea behind the UNSC permanent members was designed to prevent a 'league of nations' style collapse by making sure that a core group of nations would not withdraw from the UN as Germany and Japan did.

China's long-term hunt for Indian Ocean access for the is sort of like the Russian position in the Great Game. They seem to be making good progress with both Pakistan and Myanmar.

China played the Pakistan card long ago, enabling nuclear islamic missiles against New Delhi. Is the US on the verge of guaranteeing India nuclear security against China-Pakistan? Or have we already done so secretly? That might hold promise to put Islamabad's hope for reconquista jihad on permanent ice.

The IRPak port at Gwadar is under-developed, their hold on Beluchistan's Quetta insurgents tenuous. A Chinese capitalized air hub and naval base down there would complement Chinese overwatch of the Mollaca Straights from good old Rangoon.

What goes round comes round.

What would be the basis for adding Japan as a permanent member?

it's a confederation of nations tied primarily by common economic interests. It doesn't have an elected executive power, no common judiciary and a parliament with mostly consultattive powers. It has no common army. It has no nukes, France and UK have, 3rd in rank after the US.Russia but technologically second.

Nobody can "kick" France and the UK from the Security Council, it would only lead to an implosion of the system. The only possibility would be a voluntary stepdown and a replacement by a FEDERATED EU (USA style). That won't happen before 2100, if ever.

Japan has nothing to do there. In that case Germany would be far more fitted or Brazil. Or both.

Anywat the US doesn't care about what the UN says, especially when the UN disagrees, Iraq being the latest example. But it's useful to veto any resolution condemning Israel.

So the logic would be that the Us pulls out of the UN, teabaggers would love that. Can be replaced by NAFTA, as long as it exists.

a) The message is sent that we will work with our rivals but support our allies.

b) It also probably is time to kick out France and Britain and instead give the EU one seat.

Two questions: you are aware that the EU doesn't have a foreign policy, aren't you? and how many troops does India have in Afghanistan, more or less than Britain and France?

And I believe that it is a prerequisite that members of the Security Council first be members of the UN, and only states are eligible for that.

If any of you jokers are really serious about this, how would the UN charter be amended to accomodate you?