Is the UN Security Council's 5 perm. members a relic of the cold war?

Question

Five members, of 10, are permanent members of the UN Security Council.

USA, UK, France, China, and Russia

Is keeping 5 permanent members of the UN Security council just a outdated relic of the cold war?

REFORM IS NEEDED!

Ty for your honesty Willis.

Answer 1

Tony I usually disagree with you, but you are right in this case.

Answer 2

No. It is not. It's a relic of WWII.

Those are the five leading countries of Allied Powers, who won WWII. Cold War hasn't started when the security council was established.

Answer 3

Yes it is just a relic of the cold war! As a matter of fact the whole UN was a knee jerk reaction and has become outdated and toothless.

Answer 4

Yes and according to reports from the last UN council meeting, the calls for reform are now at screeching levels.

Answer 5

And it truly is meant to be a wonder? One would evaluate that it really is completely organic. fingers sales have a good tendency to promote peace. it really is the unarmed (or a minimum of those with inadequate fingers) who have a tendency to be sufferers contained in the international, so the finished order is this: first, we ought to cleanse the middle of guy; then we disarm. Doing those contained in the opposite order is bassackwards and would not paintings. you even ought to grant a nod to a pair smaller gamers. The Swiss and the Swedes make some somewhat sturdy stuff, as a pair of examples.

Answer 6

probably, but it'd be hard to change. you can't get the permanant members to give up their vetoes, and giving out more vetoes in an organization that is already a buracratic mess that can't get anything done would be like giving candy to a fat kid... a bad idea.

Answer 7

Yes.