We should allow the g4 states into the UN Security council

1) Japan"Japan has the 3rd largest nominal GDP and is the second largest contributor to the UN budget"You cant and shouldnt be able to just buy your way onto the Security Council, and its unknown if Japan will stay at 3rd place in the future either. Given their very small size and massive aging problem, its possible that Japan could slide down a few places within the next few decades. "The HDI is a number created by comparing a countries average education,life expectancy,quality of life,etc. Japan has the 10th largest HDI in the world"Theyre behind Norway, Sweden, and even Ireland in this index, that suggests that theyre influence is far lower then you are suggesting that it is... India and Brazil meanwhile are horrendously behind on this index as well, which suggests even they shouldnt be in the Security Council. "Japans government should at least be taken into notice in it's battle for a council seat."Call me crazy, but getting onto the Security Council should have tougher standards and requirements then just having a stable and relatively uncorrupt government....2) India"India's Military is the is the 3rd largest on earth, consisting of 1.3 million actively serving personnel"You know who's in 4th? North Korea. Does that mean they should be on the security council since they have a large military? http://en.wikipedia.org...Military size shouldnt and currently have any impact on whether or not a nation makes it onto the security council....."India represents it's fair share of Muslims,Hindus,Buddhists, and other religions. None of these groups are currently represented in the UN and many believe it's important that they are."You know how I said that having a stable government isnt a good enough qualification to be on the Security Council? Having a diverse number of religions is an even worse qualification to have for getting onto the Security Council.... Its completely arbitrary, and the point of being put onto the Security Council shouldnt be to fulfill an arbitrary and useless quota like this one. 3) Brazil"Brazil is neck and neck with France for 5th largest. Brazil is most certainly a economic super power."10% of the entire country lives on less than 2$ a day, I wouldnt call that an 'economic super power' in a million years.... http://en.wikipedia.org...^ India is even WORSE on that list, with a MASSIVE 68% of people living there living on less than $2 a day as well. "Brazil has a huge military for a South American country"The UN though doesnt reside solely in South America. Brazil's military doesnt even rank in the top 15 of nations in terms of active military, and I already argued that size of military is a bad standard for judging which nations to put on the Security Council. ========================================================================Nations that get put on the Security Council are nations that play or have played a tremendously large role in INTERNATIONAL politics.... Which is something that the US, France, England, Russia, and China have done in the past and continue to do in the present.... Nations that are on the security council should be nations that play a massive and undeniable role in international politics, negotiations, etc, and some of the G4 nations certainly do not meet this role. India has absolutely had no impact on international matters despite the fact that they are located 2 countries over from an active war zone, and located next door to the country that Osama was hiding in (Pakistan). India has had no role at all in international politics, which is something that nations on the Security Council are required to do..... India has had no impact, Brazil has had no impact, and Japan also has done nothing in International politics. In the War in Afghanistan, all three of those countries (Japan, India, Brazil) played NO ROLE in providing forces to the conflict. Only Germany was on the list of belligerent nations in the conflict (Which you can see on the right hand side of the page when you scroll down), the other G4 nations played a role so minor that its not even commendable. http://en.wikipedia.org...(2001%E2%80%93present)If you look at just about every international invasion, occupation, or incident or event in the last 50 years: Brazil, Japan, and India have had almost no influence in those matters at all. To be on the Security Council means to always have a say in international matters, and that is something that India, Japan, and Brazil have absolutely no experience in dealing with. If anything, the Security Council should consider jettisoning nations from the Security Council who are not as influential as they were in the past (Such as Russia or France), not adding even more nations to the Security Council who have even worse qualifications to be there then the nations whose usefulness on the Security Council is questionable.