We should allow the g4 states into the UN Security council

" A security council permanent member is a nation that proves itself to be a world super power, capable and willing to carry out UN mandates"And Japan, India, and Brazil dont qualify as ANY of those things. 1) Japan"Believe it or not, countries have employed a thing called a embargo. This embargo can bleed a countries wealth dry. "If youre going to be a wise guy then I assume that youve lost faith in the rest of your arguments. .. .. . "You would be surprised what some countries would do if they couldn't get there cheap Japanese cars and video games"Not a lot of countries import cars and video games from Japan genius. .. .. Including India, Brazil, and about 95% of countries in the Middle East and Eastern Europe"Japans economy allows it to be able to afford expensive mandates, even with some wiggle room. "Except they dont, Japan's debt to GDP ratio is actually three times as bad as the US. .. . . http://247wallst.com...Japan is about as economically sound as Greece right now, they sure as hell cannot become big spenders regarding UN activities. "For the moment It's well ahead of France,Russia, and the UK. Even if my opponents predictions are true, that's decades away. "Being a member on the UN Security Council though requires long term consideration for how strong a country can stay, and Japan isnt exactly as bullet proof as other nations on the Security Council have shown to be, and the same is massively true for India and Brazil. " I didn't do a HDI rating for Brazil and India, because I already knew there's was low. I had other reasons I felt still made them edgible. "You cant cherry pick arguments for why each of the other nations should be on the Security Council. .. . Not only is Japan not as strong as Sweden or Norway according to your index, but Brazil and India dont even rank in the top half of other world countries in terms of develeopment. "A stable and uncorrupted government is a pretty big requirement though, don't you think? "Hell no, because stable and uncorrupted governments can be found just about anywhere you look. If having an uncorrupt government is one of the only arguments you have in support of Japan for why they should be on the G4, then that really shows how there arent that many good reasons for them to be there. 2 - India " I reasoned that they had a strong navy and a modest air force. "They have fought four wars with Pakistan, located right next door to them, and they have stalemated every war every time. If they cant even beat Pakistan then its clear that India couldnt beat anybody else. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Military size has a huge impact on the seat. Trust me, few countries want to deal with the horde. Especially one this size. " Oh please. .. . If a nation as messed up as Pakistan has the balls to go to war with India and its 'horde' FOUR TIMES in the span of half a century and not lose any of them, then its safe to say that many other nations also couldnt care less about India's massive army. As large as it may be, they are still a horrendously bad fighting force that any insurgency can stall. .. ..3 - Brazil"The only argument I can offer is that only a country in South America would know what's best for South America. "The UN isnt trying to do what is best for South America, they are trying to so what is best for the WORLD, and giving some mediocre level country like Brazil the power to veto any proposal that ACTUAL superpowers have drafted is not something that would be best for the world. "Is it not true that the USSR in it's heyday was filled to the brim with famine and hunger? Yet they were still considered a superpower. "Thats because despite their setbacks they still managed to fight an informal stand off with the United States and participated in numerous international operations all over the world over a span of 40 years. .. Including the invasion of Afghanistan, organization of East Europe, arms deals to North Korea and North Vietnam during those respective wars, and turning several countries communist such as China and Cuba. .. .. What has Brazil done? (Nothing)"The reason why so many people want Brazil in the council is to ensure a quick end to any south American disputes"Putting Brazil on the council though =/= quick end to South American disputes. .. . If Brazil invades an adjacent nation and commits war crimes, then they could veto any resolution condemning them for war crimes that the UN proposes. Its the exact OPPOSITE of ensuring a quick end to South American disputes by putting Brazil on the council. "The whole point of the security council is to give countries power in international politics. "Again, no its not. .. .. The point of the Security Council is to let countries who already have enormous influence in the world be able to use their influence to settle disputes that do arise in the world, not try to divy it out to other nations. .. "Think of how many more can be solved with new members. "Adding more nations though doesnt increase the odds of solving a problem in the world, it actually shoots those odds down since those nations basically gain diplomatic immunity for themselves and their allies regarding any operations they commit in the world. .. .. ================================================================Pro's arguments are based on completely arbitrary standards of what makes a country powerful, and a very bad interpretation of what the entire point of the UN and the Security Council even is. .. .. While Germany has demonstrated a sizable ability to be a force in international affairs while having a tremendously stable economy, Japan, Brazil, and India have shown to be international nobodies who would only be a liability to the already crappy efficiency of the UN. In addition to that, Brazil and India have shown to be socially backwards and very under-developed for them to be considered to be added to the Security Council.