Permanent peace?

Should Japan seek Permanent seat at the U.N. Security Council?

(...It has taken a long time to research the topic! I still haven't known it well yet, though..)

I think Japan doesn't have to take a permanent seat at the U.N.Security Council.
The Japanese government has been seeking it for a long time, but in my opinion, the merits don't cover enough the demerits of seeking it because of the following reasons.

First, military contribution. If Japan becomes a "permanent seated" country, we will have to send the Self Defense Forces much more times to areas which have serious disputes. Basically, our constitution prohibits military operations, so being a one of the superpower countries does not suit our people's opinions.

Secondly, the veto issue. Even if Japan takes the permanent seat, specialists have said, it may be impossible to have the "veto." The permanent seated countries right now, such as Russia, America, China, the Great Britain, and France, have wanted to keep their power, so they are supposed not to give their original right to new comers.
If we can't get the veto, I can't think about the big merit about taking the permanent seat.

Thirdly, money. Japan has already paid much money to the U.N. Our payment is the second highest among the member countries of the U.N. Security Council. If we become a permanent-seated country, how much more should we pay? I heard the Japanese government has paid much money to lobby to get a permanet seat. I think they shouldn't waste our precious tax about it.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, has been trying hard to get the seat.
They said the Japanese status will raise much more if we can be, but I hope the government gives more attention to other important issues.