Re: [FT] UNSC

steve@pugh.net wrote:

> On 14 Mar 2001, at 17:37, Richard and Emily Bell wrote:
>
> > The problem with the UN having better toys than the others is that
> > the UN is funded by the member states and the FSE, NAC, and ESU
> > control the permenent seats of the security council (a continuing
> > sorepoint to the NSL).
>
> Isn't that assuming that the current permanet seats pass down to
> their political inheritors without any changes (UK and USA - NAC,
> China and Russia - ESU and France - FSE). Over two centuries and
> several major wars? I'd say that was highly unlikely.
>
> If the security council still exists I would say that the four main
> powers would each have a permanent seat, the fifth permanent seat, if
> one exists, may be an appointee from within the UN itself.
>

It may be that for simplicity, the number of permenent seats on the
security council has been reduced to three, as the UK and USA, and the
Russians and Chinese have each melded into a single state, but it is
highly unlikely that any new permenent seats have been formed, or vacant
ones reassigned (as it would be against the interests of the current
occupants).

If the security council does not exist, then someone managed to dissolve
the UN and recreate it, but the only reason that the UN was formed at
all
was that the US would have veto power (which it grudgingly shared with
the other victorious powers, along with France and China).  The League
of
Nations failed because it did not provide a means for the powerful
nations to ignore it, and without their full support, no one else really
supported it either.

There is no reason besides artistic license for the UN in Tuffleyverse
to
be any better.	Possibly, the UN quietly dissolved when even the US was
no longer a superpower, but before the rise of the new empires.  Then a
much broadened NATO expanded, until it made sense to change the name to
the UN.  This scenario still prevents the UNSC from having any fancy
toys, but the funding picture is better, as the member states pay all of
the expenses.  Out of politeness, the vessels of nations warring outside
of the core are interned for the duration of the conflict.  So long as
all four of the major powers are not warring with each other
simultaneously, the system works pretty well.