India has nuclear weapons and more economic power than the UK.

And yet the UK has a veto, and India does not.

Also, only one of the P5 powers had nuclear weapons when the UN Charter was signed.

The UN was created when india was a subservient colony of britain. When veto powers were being given out, india didn't exist as an independent country. That's why the UK has veto power while india doesn't.

There definitely needs to be a rebalancing of power within the UN but none of the P5 want their power diluted. And they have the all powerful veto power.

We've switched who has veto powers before. Soviet Union to Russia and the Republic of China to the People's Republic of China.

There is no reason we can't replace another government.

Both of those cases involve the dissolution of the state holding the veto power. While dissolving the UK would be hilarious, I imagine they would veto it.

> Both of those cases involve the dissolution of the state holding the veto power

The Republic of China did not dissolve.

The Republic of China is still around. The country we generally refer to as Taiwan is actually the Republic of China.

India is way larger both population and geographically than the UK just like the People's Republic of China is compared to the Republic of China so it seems like there is a precedent to do it.