I think there will be more permanant mebers of the UNSC, instead of the UNSC giving up any veto righ

There is a fine line in the UN where 5 nations control it through their Security Council vetoes, these vetoes are the equivalent of an 'ATLAS' level security system, where any UN resolution that threatens the stability of any of the 5 is vetoed in hopes that next time a more responsible resolution can be passed.

However there are up and coming powers who deserve seats permanently in order to address the imbalance of power. Brazil, Germany, Japan, and India are pushing to have their own permanent seats, the veto power that comes with it would give them enhanced geopolitical powers.

The General Assembly elected Azerbaijan, Guatemala, Morocco, Pakistan and Togo to serve as non-permanent members of the Security Council for two-year terms starting on 1 January 2012. The newly elected countries will replace Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Gabon, Lebanon and Nigeria.

www.un.org...

These smaller nations do deserve the political power of being on the UNSC, it's supposed to be the armed forces of the World and any nation should have a voice in it, to be heard.

The veto is like a censor, a silencer of dissent when it comes to the 5 Permanent members.

ATS, I'm sure you're educated about these things, tell me your opinions on UNSC reform. Will there be more Permanent Members or will the vero go away and democracy rise?

I think India should be one of the first to get a Perm seat, not to anger China and Russia but they do deserve a larger say when it comes to these affairs, they are after all representing a billion people of this world.

One day maybe Britain and France give up their seat to the EU, allowing Germanys claim to a permanent seat to slide away into the night due to the fact the three of them share one. Perhaps that extra fifth seat can be Indias?