Should new permament members to the Security Council have the same veto power as the original 5 permanent members (China, France, Russia [replacing the USSR], the UK, and the US)?
The argument against extending the veto is that this would increase obstructionism in the Security Council.
But that assumes a one-play game. In a repeat-play game, an increased power of obstruction might, counterintuitively, increase the odds of cooperative outcomes. If the 5 original members faced new members with a similar power, the five original members might be reluctant to wield their veto, knowing that the new members might retaliate through future obstruction.
This is at least a possibility worth inquiring into further. It depends in part on the identity of the new players--especially whether they are themselves likely to be the target of Security Council sanctions.
Dissenting view: For the Pakistani government's arguments against expansion of the permanent membership, see here.
Free association: Does this link satisfy Cass Sunstein's suggestion in Republic.com that websites be mandated to link to contrary views?