United Nations Security Council

Annual Military Training

   To improve their relationship and overall effectiveness, the five primary members of the Security Council should be required to conduct military exercises with each other on an annual basis. This will encourage greater cooperation among them, and hopefully, improve their handling of international matters.

Demerit System

   Security Council members are expected to maintain a higher level of standard than other nations due to their stature and representation of the council. However, there may be a number of situations where a particular member may end up behaving in an unethical manner due to various reasons (e.g., strict handling of a domestic uprising, favoring economic growth rather than pollution control, etc.).

   To prevent unfavorable conduct, a demerit system should be imposed upon the Security Council to ensure that higher standards are being met at all times. Examples of earning a demerit may be: dereliction of duty (not participating in an approved measure), human rights violations (both domestically and internationally), failure to uphold certain ideals as a nation (unfair trade practices), etc.

   If the number of demerits exceeds a certain limit then that member may be temporarily dismissed until they are able to reestablish themselves once again. If they fail to do so in a reasonable timeframe then the dismissal may be final and they will be replaced by another that is willing to assume their duties.

Nuclear Weapons Restriction

   The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was established to prevent the possibility of nuclear war between nations. However, the agreement as it exists today is not restrictive enough to prevent future conflicts since a nation may withdraw from it to develop nuclear weapons making the accord ineffective.

   Since the treaty started both India and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons as well as North Korea, Israel, South Africa, and nearly Iran. With the latter possibly causing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. In truth, the treaty has failed to discourage nations from developing nuclear weapons, which places the safety of the entire world at risk.

   It may be better for the United Nations to consider a tougher stance on the matter and impose a more restrictive policy that only the five primary members of the Security Council may possess nuclear weapons. Other nations may complain that this would leave them at a distinct disadvantage, however, there are other ways to develop an advanced military than the use of nuclear weapons (e.g., stealth technology, laser weapons, robotics, space-based delivery systems, etc.).

   The reason why the five primary members of the Security Council should be the only nations that are allowed to have nuclear weapons is due to the need for such armaments in resolving international situations. For example, nuclear weapons may be necessary to destroy an underground/underwater/space-based facility that conventional weapons wouldn't suffice.

   Another reason that the Security Council may utilize nuclear weapons would be to resolve certain conflicts in a more civilized manner for the sake of saving lives. As a final measure for offending nations to comply with international mandate.

   For example, which option would be better to resolve a past conflict like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Either repeat what had happened where large international forces engaged in the conflict that caused a great loss of life, or warn Iraq to leave Kuwait or one of their cities like Baghdad would be nuked by the Security Council (with advanced notice given to evacuate the city beforehand). If successful, no loss of life would result from the action but only the destruction of the city itself.

   So, which would be better: use conventional forces and cause a great loss of life, or resolve the situation with a nuke without any life loss on either side?