Timeline for How did Russia retain the UNSC veto power of the Soviet Union?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 14, 2023 at 1:47 | comment | added | cpast | @grovkin At the time the Security Council was founded, only the US had any ability to deliver a nuclear strike. France didn’t get nukes until 1960. Taiwan never got nukes. The PRC got nukes in 1964 but didn’t get a Security Council seat (or even UN membership) until 1971. India, which detonated a nuke in 1974, still doesn’t have a UNSC permanent seat. There’s no possible way to explain UNSC permanent membership based on nuclear weapons. | |
| Jul 2, 2018 at 10:43 | comment | added | Chris H | @grovkin an empire isn't a country though (it's closer to being the property of a country). Also the Empire wan't a founding member of the security council, the UK was, so there's no need to consider succession in this case. | |
| Jul 1, 2018 at 23:12 | comment | added | grovkin | The "successor state" claim is dubious, at best. If territory mattered, then Canada would have been a successor state to the British Empire. If population mattered, then India would have been the successor state to the British Empire. Russian Federation retained control of USSR's nuclear weapons. And the Security Council was formed to have an ability to establish and show consensus among all the powers which had demonstrable capacity to deliver a nuclear strike. WWII claim is also questionable. Arguably Canada was a more powerful nation than France at the end of WWII. | |
| Jul 1, 2018 at 20:34 | comment | added | CJ Dennis | @Graham Ah! I didn't see a Thanos so I thought their comment had been deleted. In that case, England is already a country and wouldn't need to be renamed. It would automatically inherit the UK's seat. | |
| Jul 1, 2018 at 18:08 | comment | added | James_pic | @Graham Yes, I think I was attempting to answer the (possibly different) hypothetical question of "What if the UK split in such a messy way that there was no clear successor state?" | |
| S Jul 1, 2018 at 15:00 | history | suggested | lly | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
grammar; 'essentially speaking' isn't a thing: 'essentially' or 'generally speaking'; fixing quote per article; fixing -ize spelling to match rest of answer
|
| Jul 1, 2018 at 13:51 | comment | added | Graham | @CJDennis But I was specially responding to the question (by Thanos/MaskedMan) of what would happen if all those countries left the UK. | |
| Jul 1, 2018 at 13:41 | comment | added | CJ Dennis | @lly I disagree. The UK is a democracy, and the people are listened to, e.g. allowing Scotland to have a referendum about staying a part of the UK. The Welsh and Northern Irish would have been very unhappy if they weren't listened to had Scotland left. Most likely, "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" would have changed to "The United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland". | |
| Jul 1, 2018 at 13:29 | comment | added | lly | @CJDennis They wouldn't get a choice in the matter. The United Kingdom is the union of England and Scotland; Wales is just a principality united to the English crown and Ireland is lost. They could always come up with a different moniker. | |
| Jul 1, 2018 at 13:22 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jul 1, 2018 at 15:00 | |||||
| Jul 1, 2018 at 12:13 | comment | added | CJ Dennis | @Graham The United Kingdom is a country whose member states are also countries: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. If Scotland left, that still leaves three member countries. I wonder how Wales and Northern Ireland would like being called England? It would also be confusing having two entities both legally called "England". | |
| S Jun 28, 2018 at 0:11 | history | suggested | smci | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
clarification
|
| Jun 27, 2018 at 21:58 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jun 28, 2018 at 0:11 | |||||
| Jun 27, 2018 at 16:29 | comment | added | Graham | @Jamespic Of course this is hypothetical. But the Czech and Slovak population were only spilt 10m versus 5m. England on its own has 55m of the 65m people in the UK, which is pretty clearly an overwhelming majority. And that's before we consider that much of the world uses "UK", "Britain" and "England" interchangeably. | |
| Jun 27, 2018 at 13:58 | comment | added | James_pic | @ceejayoz The pro-independence campaign intended to de-nuclearise Scotland, and would have sought to repatriate the nukes back to the United Kindgom. | |
| Jun 27, 2018 at 13:53 | comment | added | James_pic | If the UK had split more signficantly, it would likely be similar to the split of Czechoslovakia, where neither of the states were recognised as successor states. All the resulting countries would be new countries, and treaties would only remain in force by special arrangement. | |
| Jun 27, 2018 at 13:41 | comment | added | ceejayoz | @Graham I wonder who'd keep the nukes currently sited in Scotland, though. | |
| Jun 27, 2018 at 7:15 | comment | added | Graham | @Thanos Then most likely the surviving entity would rename itself to England. But since England has 84% of the UK population, and the capital city and most of the administrative infrastructure are sited in England, then England would undoubtedly pick up the "UK" position in the UN. | |
| Jun 27, 2018 at 5:16 | comment | added | Masked Man | "if Scotland had left the UK" Out of curiosity, if Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland simultaneously secede from the UK, who gets to keep the MacGuffin? | |
| Jun 26, 2018 at 22:54 | comment | added | jcaron | And a ton of nukes probably helps as well. | |
| S Jun 26, 2018 at 14:44 | history | suggested | Lightness Races in Orbit | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixed comma splices
|
| Jun 26, 2018 at 14:24 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jun 26, 2018 at 14:44 | |||||
| Jun 26, 2018 at 11:33 | comment | added | Matthieu M. | I suppose agreeing to take on the debt is a great way to get creditors to back up your claim! | |
| Jun 26, 2018 at 10:10 | history | answered | SleepingGod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |