To my knowledge this has never happened to a country that has nuclear weapons.
The resolutions have been enforced militarily in the past but only against countries without nuclear weapons. I sincerely doubt that would be the case for any nuclear armed country though. Libya is the obvious example.
Oh absolutely but the point is that it simply wouldn't have happened at all if it were nuclear armed. It is a factor that completely changes the outcome of these council resolutions.
Think DPRK as well. It genuinely doesn't matter what resolutions are made, the nukes change the result.
The resolutions on the US embargo on Cuba are made by the general assembly of the UN and explicitly non-binding. This is different:
So there's teeth to this, but it remains to be seen how sharp they are.
What has the historical precedent been for countries that break a binding resolution?
Sanctions and then invasion if it’s an enemy of the USA. If not, then sternly worded letter
Well, ah... Nevertheless!
To my knowledge this has never happened to a country that has nuclear weapons.
The resolutions have been enforced militarily in the past but only against countries without nuclear weapons. I sincerely doubt that would be the case for any nuclear armed country though. Libya is the obvious example.
Even in the case of libya nato went well beyond the mandate of the security council resolution.
Oh absolutely but the point is that it simply wouldn't have happened at all if it were nuclear armed. It is a factor that completely changes the outcome of these council resolutions.
Think DPRK as well. It genuinely doesn't matter what resolutions are made, the nukes change the result.