Something that's been bugging me about the UN P5 nations

As we're all aware, the UN P5 consist of; America, Britain, Russia, China and France. What would happen to the UNSC if they went to war? Say, the US does something to seriously infuriate the other 4, would they gang up and kick them out? Or more likely, Russia does something to anger the others. Would THEY kick them out? Would said member that committed an atrocity be replaced? Or would the UN or the Security Council just collapse and cease to exist?

Sorry if this is in the wrong place, feel free to move it to the appropriate forum. I figured it would be much simpler to ask away here than go seek out some other forum where the people/members there are more than likely brainwashed and/or very ignorant. Some answers or well-educated guesses would be very much appreciated indeed! Thanks!

Sorry for the trouble.

a reply to: Davian The p5 should be and probably is not going to be where decisions are made to kick out any of the other members .Unlike the g7 or 8 or the g20 . I don't know much about the group and what sort of a function it is in a real sense .Aside from the Nation states the represent ,what power could they have over the others ,unless it's to go home and try and convince the Corporations to go along to get along . Thats my 1/2 cent but that may be a inflated amount ....peace

Well I'm not incredibly politically knowledgeable but I would say that if one were to seriously rebel some sort of reciprocation would occur. Whether it be war, or some sort of trade ban, or something else, would depend on which nation and what rebellious act was. Some nations are more prone to war than others, while others may just be pissed but still turn a blind eye and keep that action in mind if something more serious comes up down the road. For example if China was offended by something the Brits did, ignored it and years later Britain had some huge financial crisis, China might refuse to send aid because of what ever offense occurred years before.

In my opinion, it's like a card game. You may not like the players but it really depends on how the cards are dealt. You keep the "good cards" which are the ones you think may help you later on in the game, and you toss around some of the other cards small enough to not have any real positive or negative effects but still be reminded that your playing a larger game.

a reply to: Davian
The first thing that popped into my mind: Who cares?? It's not like they matter anyway. They're just a bunch of self-important big-shots.

It'll be just like Georgia. They Security Council will move a resolution and the bad actor will veto, and everyone will go home and say, "We tried." and feel good about themselves. It ultimately absolves everyone of responsibility for anything.

If you haven't figured out the UN is largely a toothless body of complainers that only gets anything done of one of the large nations decides it wants to do something about it, then you're behind. It's really just a large, scam bureaucracy that keeps pretending it's going to take over the world and until one of the really big nations actually does take over the world and puts the UN nominally in charge as a figurehead to a make everyone else feel better about it, it will never have much real power.

I believe the UNSC would meet and pass a resolution to avoid war.

originally posted by: ketsuko
It'll be just like Georgia. They Security Council will move a resolution and the bad actor will veto, and everyone will go home and say, "We tried." and feel good about themselves. It ultimately absolves everyone of responsibility for anything.

If you haven't figured out the UN is largely a toothless body of complainers that only gets anything done of one of the large nations decides it wants to do something about it, then you're behind. It's really just a large, scam bureaucracy that keeps pretending it's going to take over the world and until one of the really big nations actually does take over the world and puts the UN nominally in charge as a figurehead to a make everyone else feel better about it, it will never have much real power.

So the UN wouldn't side with one or the other? They'd all get drug along with said antagonist nation... basically, if Russia really did get out of control, they'd have to go along with it, and pretend everything's fine. In other words, petty things like the annexation of Crimea warrant serious (PR) condemnation and sanctions. Full blown military invasion means the nation being invaded deserves it and is in the wrong. Like Iraq...

I could see the US suddenly pulling a 180 as soon as Russia does militarily invade the Ukraine, and then all of a sudden the media of US, UK, France and the EU is all about 'the Nazi ultranationalist scum have been exposed to be the result of a coup! We must help Russia overthrow the Ukrainian Nazi regime! (It wouldn't be like that word-for-word, but you get the point)...' With how hypocritical our government and the systems they are involved in operate, it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

The Security Council, as the UN in general, is a place to meet and solve problems. The UN does not kick out members unless they no longer control the nation they represent (see the RoC and PRC change). The lesson was learned with the League of Nations that kicking people out serves no purpose other than giving them more freedom to cause more trouble. What happens when the a P5 member goes to war with each another? Nothing, they continue on. China (and covertly the Soviet airforce) was at war with the US/UK/France during the Korean conflict. The role of the Security Council in that was to be a place both sides could talk about finding peace. So that is what happens. Of course the most of the world wants to the P5 expanded to include some or all of the following Brazil, South Africa, India, Japan and Germany. While all the P5 give lip service to expanding none of them really want to so it remains a dead issue.

A permanent member cannot be removed from the UNSC as far as I'm aware.

I'm guessing here but... If it came to war between NATO and Russia (as an example) then the UN would go the way of it's predecessor - the League of Nations.

originally posted by: Elysarian
A permanent member cannot be removed from the UNSC as far as I'm aware.

I'm guessing here but... If it came to war between NATO and Russia (as an example) then the UN would go the way of it's predecessor - the League of Nations.

That's kinda what I was feeling too.