Actaea

So, you think the Council can't influence a country that isn't a member of the Council?

Pretty obvious, isn't it? )

Firstly, the statement "they wouldn't use chemical weapons anyway" is quite debatable. Governments change, and no one can guarantee anything for the future. Especially in retaliation.

Well, yes, you can imagine many different scenarios, but in most cases, it will be like that.

Secondly, the Council can require its members to eliminate chemical weapons, and force non-members to do the same. No one is saying that the Council will tolerate chemical weapons in the case of, say, the Steel Men, and even less allow them to use it and put their own countries in a disadvantageous position.

What does "force" mean? The Steel Men are not part of the first Security Council. They are told: "Stop developing chemical weapons." The Steel Men's response (I'm omitting or replacing the profanity): "What? Who are you?" They are told: "We are the Security Council, and we have decided that the countries of Antara must..." The response: "We don't care at all, we are not part of your Security Council. Tell your wife how to cook borscht." "But what about security, blah blah blah?" "Go away!"
And, what's most amusing, the legal right and, in some ways, morality are on the side of the Steel Men. I would say they are absolutely right.)

I don't see much difference between the first and the second.
All problems are solvable.

Well, the Mushroom People have started to solve some problems. There, no one is solving anything. If you promise to put resolutions to a vote at the first Security Council (at least put them forward, although they have a good chance of being adopted) to admit countries and so on, then yes, then it makes sense to disband the second one. Of course, in my humble, subjective opinion, the second one is organized better (it's essentially an improved version of the first, with some unpleasant moments smoothed out, for example, the right of veto – it's normal that a couple of countries have it. Moreover, it's normal when the right of veto is held simultaneously by countries that are "not friendly" with each other. This slows down decisions a bit, but prevents the adoption of some stupid ones, some of which could even lead to a global war). And yet, the need for the second one will be greatly reduced, enough to disband it.