Is United Kingdom a Superpower?

Shock Fist said:
I agree with UK being a world power. We've let alot of things drop since empire, HOWEVER, our Air force and i believe our Navy, are the second largest in NATO, and THE LARGEST in Europe. Our political clout is considered to be one of the hardest, simply out of respect, i don't know, but it still is.

On the subject of France having more nukes then the UK... WTH... What moron would deploy nukes at the distance between UK and France? The fall off would be swept to France, causing mass radiation poisoning for years to come. On that note, nukes aside, UK has more aircraft, a larger and soon to be better Equipped and capable Navy, and a (in most peoples opinion) a better trained Army. On the subject of SF's.... Frances best Special forces, arent even French, they just owe Allegiance to France. Third... we wouldn't fight with the French, in fact, we are actually working with them for better security of both nations.

On the subject of the US and its power projection capability. YES, it does have more power projection then china, however. US could not militarily threaten France without due reason, because whether it likes it or not, it couldn't afford a war with Europe if it did happen, which WOULD happen in the event of the US raising even one rifle in Frances direction. The US is limited by the fact that, it is powerful, and yet it needs to constantly be wary of how it uses it. The US uses the European market more then anyone else, and if that were to cut off, aswell as European exports, AND a war with Europe, which would consist of Germany aswell, the current largest Arms prducer in Europe.

Lastly, UK as a power during Empire, it had the largest empire in the world, and in known history. It's current state is a modern, manageable one, which had to come about due to freedom of nations from under Imperial rule, and Monitary concerns which grew from the resources thrown into WWI and WWII, of course, dont forget, if the US had been in the Wars from the start, and not come in 3-4 years later, then they would have lost as much as the rest of us, but they didn't, and they haven't. If the war had been on the US's doorstep, lets say a tooled up Mexico, which Germany had tried to conscript during WWI into a War with the US, which at the time only had Coast Guard / Militia forces, not even a full time army, the world would be so much different today.

Shock, 07

P.S. Sorry for the Necro....
Click to expand...


Sigh...you completely took a way too literal interpretation of the French example that was used.

I think you need to read your history again about the amount of time it took the US to enter both WWI and WWII. Also, WHY would the US have entered WWI from 1914 on anyways? Seriously...just because there is a crisis in Europe, does not warrant a crisis in the US. You seriously need to go back to school and learn about the reasons for both wars and then revise what you just wrote because it just reeks of ignorant speculation and a huge inferiority complex.
 
Is this a joke??? Britain is like a mosquito against an elephant when it come to Russia and China, specially Russia... 1vs1 against Russia I will put my money on Russia, it will be a slaughter on epic proportion, Russia will give it to UK like a pupercent teenager on an orgy... This topic must be a joke.... UKvs Russia come on anyone in their right mind knows this will be a total slaughter smh.
 
Justice said:
Is this a joke??? Britain is like a mosquito against an elephant when it come to Russia and China, specially Russia... 1vs1 against Russia I will put my money on Russia, it will be a slaughter on epic proportion, Russia will give it to UK like a pupercent teenager on an orgy... This topic must be a joke.... UKvs Russia come on anyone in their right mind knows this will be a total slaughter smh.
Click to expand...
And you, of course, are fully updated on Britain's capacity to wage war. :roll:
 
Justice said:
Is this a joke??? Britain is like a mosquito against an elephant when it come to Russia and China, specially Russia... 1vs1 against Russia I will put my money on Russia, it will be a slaughter on epic proportion, Russia will give it to UK like a pupercent teenager on an orgy... This topic must be a joke.... UKvs Russia come on anyone in their right mind knows this will be a total slaughter smh.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see you go one on one with one of our blokes, you'd be handed your arse before you can say "opps". Don't be an idiot all of your life, take a day off once in a while.

42RM said:
And you, of course, are fully updated on Britain's capacity to wage war. :roll:
Click to expand...

There's one in every litter 42RM.
 
Justice said:
Is this a joke??? Britain is like a mosquito against an elephant when it come to Russia and China, specially Russia... 1vs1 against Russia I will put my money on Russia, it will be a slaughter on epic proportion, Russia will give it to UK like a pupercent teenager on an orgy... This topic must be a joke.... UKvs Russia come on anyone in their right mind knows this will be a total slaughter smh.
Click to expand...

Both Russia and China do not have the capabilities to invade the United Kingdom and nukes will be answered with nukes.

In my opinion the UK still has a very capable fighting force that is highly trained. No one is perfect but they have shown their abilities in different conflicts. I rather have them as friends instead of foe.

And last but not least, as an ally you can depend on them.
 
Man to man we could not match or hope to win against either Russia or China, yet again if there was a war we have thermo nuclear weapons and every one would lose.
A war like WW2 is a thing of the past thank goodness, but what we are going to have are endless little wars that Britain has been fighting since the end of WW2 and the only year that we have not lost a man in ACTION is 1968 so we have been fighting for 62 of the last 63 years, so all our troops are combat trained.

Check this site out http://www.britains-smallwars.com/main/index1.html
 
Last edited:
As it did during World War II, Britain recognized U.S. economic and military primacy, and it recognized it no longer could retain its empire. As an alternative, the British aligned themselves with the U.S.-dominated alliance system and the postwar financial arrangements lumped together under the Bretton Woods system. The British, however, added a dimension to this. Unable to match the United States militarily, they outstripped other American allies both in the quantity of their military resources and in their willingness to use them at the behest of the Americans.​

We might call this the "lieutenant strategy." Britain could not be America's equal. However, it could in effect be America's lieutenant, wielding a military force that outstripped in number, and technical sophistication, the forces deployed by other European countries. The British maintained a "full-spectrum" military force, smaller than the U.S. military but more capable across the board than militaries of other U.S. allies. ​

The goal was to accept a subordinate position without being simply another U.S. ally. The British used that relationship to extract special concessions and considerations other allies did not receive. They also were able to influence U.S. policy in ways others couldn't. The United States was not motivated to go along merely out of sentiment based on shared history, although that played a part. Rather, like all great powers, the United States wanted to engage in coalition warfare and near warfare along with burden sharing. Britain was prepared to play this role more effectively than other countries, thereby maintaining a global influence based on its ability to prompt the use of U.S. forces in its interest.​
 
42RM said:
As it did during World War II, Britain recognized U.S. economic and military primacy, and it recognized it no longer could retain its empire. As an alternative, the British aligned themselves with the U.S.-dominated alliance system and the postwar financial arrangements lumped together under the Bretton Woods system. The British, however, added a dimension to this. Unable to match the United States militarily, they outstripped other American allies both in the quantity of their military resources and in their willingness to use them at the behest of the Americans.​


We might call this the "lieutenant strategy." Britain could not be America's equal. However, it could in effect be America's lieutenant, wielding a military force that outstripped in number, and technical sophistication, the forces deployed by other European countries. The British maintained a "full-spectrum" military force, smaller than the U.S. military but more capable across the board than militaries of other U.S. allies. ​


The goal was to accept a subordinate position without being simply another U.S. ally. The British used that relationship to extract special concessions and considerations other allies did not receive. They also were able to influence U.S. policy in ways others couldn't. The United States was not motivated to go along merely out of sentiment based on shared history, although that played a part. Rather, like all great powers, the United States wanted to engage in coalition warfare and near warfare along with burden sharing. Britain was prepared to play this role more effectively than other countries, thereby maintaining a global influence based on its ability to prompt the use of U.S. forces in its interest.​
Click to expand...


Interesting... You are the first British person I ever seen write or say something like that. I usually come across Brits that seem to dislike any word that states they are right-hand man of U.S. I guess they don't see it the way you are seeing it though, in that it do benefit Britain in some ways.



Is this a joke??? Britain is like a mosquito against an elephant when it come to Russia and China, specially Russia... 1vs1 against Russia I will put my money on Russia, it will be a slaughter on epic proportion, Russia will give it to UK like a pupercent teenager on an orgy... This topic must be a joke.... UKvs Russia come on anyone in their right mind knows this will be a total slaughter smh.
Click to expand...
I actually laughed at this. Was one of the most unthought writings about U.K, Russia, and China's capabilities.

He seem to have forgotten niether of those countries can realistically invade one another. Not without years of planning and if such did occur, it would alarm region and world powers.
 
The reality is, that it´s a an alliance forged over the course of 70 years, from the beaches of Normandy to the battlefields of Afghanistan, although the Obama administration is not known for its pro-British track record.
 
World War II, broke Britain's power. Britain lost the war not to Germany but to the United States. It might have been a benign defeat in the sense that the United States, pursuing its own interests, saved Britain from being forced into an accommodation with Germany. Nevertheless, the balance of power between the United States and Britain completely shifted during the war. Britain emerged from the war vastly weaker economically and militarily than the United States. Though it retained its empire, its ability to hold it depended on the United States. Britain no longer could hold it unilaterally.

British strategy at the end of the war was to remain aligned with the United States and try to find a foundation for the United States to underwrite the retention of the empire. But the United States had no interest in this. It saw its primary strategic interest as blocking the Soviet Union in what became known as the Cold War. Washington saw the empire as undermining this effort, both fueling anti-Western sentiment and perpetuating an economic bloc that had ceased to be self-sustaining.

So the goal was to accept a subordinate position without being simply another U.S. ally. The British used that relationship to extract special concessions and considerations other allies did not receive. They also were able to influence U.S. policy in ways others couldn't. The United States was not motivated to go along merely out of sentiment based on shared history, although that played a part. Rather, like all great powers, the United States wanted to engage in coalition warfare and near warfare along with burden sharing. Britain was prepared to play this role more effectively than other countries, thereby maintaining a global influence based on its ability to prompt the use of U.S. forces in its interest.

Britain modified its strategy from maintaining the balance of power on the Continent to maintaining a balance between the United States and Europe. This allowed it to follow its U.S. strategy while maintaining leverage in that relationship beyond a wholesale willingness to support U.S. policies and wars. Britain has developed a strategy of being enmeshed in Europe without France's enthusiasm, at the same time positioning itself as the single most important ally of the only global power. There are costs on both sides of this, but Britain has been able to retain its options while limiting its dependency on either side.

The adjustment British Prime Minister Winston Churchill made in 1943 when it became evident that the United States was going to be much more powerful than Britain remains in place. Britain's willingness to undertake military burdens created by the United States over the last 10 years allows one to see this strategy in action. Whatever the British thought of Iraq, a strategy of remaining the most reliable ally of the United States dictated participation. At the same time, the British participated deeply in the European Union while hedging their bets. Britain continues to be maintaining its balance, this time not within Europe, but, to the extent possible, between Europe and the United States. The British strategy represents a classic case of a nation accepting reversal, retaining autonomy, and accommodating itself to its environment while manipulating it. All the while Britain waits, holding its options open, waiting to see how the game plays out and positioning itself to take maximum advantage of its shifts in the environment.

Britain has positioned itself superbly for a strategy of waiting, watching and retaining options regardless of what happens. If the European Union fails and the European nation-states re-emerge as primary institutions, Britain will be in a position to exploit the fragmentation of Europe to its own economic and political advantage and have the United States available to support its strategy. If the United States stumbles and Europe emerges more prominent, Britain can modulate its relationship with Europe at will and serve as the Europeans' interface with a weakened United States. If both Europe and the United States weaken, Britain is in a position to chart whatever independent course it must. It is a dangerous course, as Britain could lose its balance. But there are no safe courses for Britain, as it learned centuries ago.
 
England is no slouch.

China first:

1. The UK has a good size nuclear deterrent, comparable to China in Warheads. England has a differnt delivery system, and the big difference is England can launch sub-surface at will, over, and over, and over. China is having trouble with that.

2. China is also very far away from England, and China lacks transport for large numbers of troops going great distance.

3. England has allies in the same region as China. China's main ally, outside of North Korea, is perhaps Pakistan, which is still far away from England. Pakistan does not bring much to the table going up against Great Britain.

On to Russia - One word: NATO.

The UK is part of NATO and the WARSAW Pact is kaput.

Russia outnumbers England in just about everything... except Royals and really big Ferris wheels, but, for those who say England has fallen off the world stage because of lack of military might, consider that the USA could not take down Russia (or China for that matter) on our own... without using all our WMD... and perhaps striking first.
'tis why NATO was formed in the fist place.

Even without the USSR states, Russia is huge, has losts of people, and plenty of natural resources, and vast production capability.
England on her own would not stand a chance, but, in the world we live in the question itself is moot because England is not on her own in the World, whereas Russia very well could be on her own.
 
If the fight happened on continental Europe if you combine the French, Britsh and German conventional forces they still won't be able to stop the size of conventional force Russia can throw into battle and nothing will be able to stop Russian forces from reaching the English channel. Most of Europe's heavy armor and equipment have been it down since the end of the cold war, without U.S committing large forces into a Continental Europe battle nothing meaningful stands in the way, the force size is disproportionately in Russia's favor. Germany is the only one of the the big 3 European nations I mentioned that even has decent armor force worth mentioning, still they don't have nothing to stand against the 50,000plus heavy tanks not including armored vehicles and armored personnel vehicles that Russia can throw into battle.
 
U.K:
*PERSONNEL

*Total Population: 62,698,362 [2011]
*Available Manpower: 29,164,233 [2011]
*Fit for Service: 24,035,131 [2011]
*Of Military Age: 749,480 [2011]
*Active Military: 224,500 [2011]
*Active Reserve: 187,130 [2011]


*LAND ARMY

*Total Land Weapons: 11,630
*Tanks: 420 [2011]
*APCs / IFVs: 4,347 [2011]
*Towed Artillery: 138 [2011]
*SPGs: 120 [2011]
*MLRSs: 42 [2011]
*Mortars: 2,563 [2011]
*AT Weapons: 4,000 [2011]
*AA Weapons: 653 [2011]
*Logistical Vehicles: 16,011

*AIR POWER

*Total Aircraft: 1,663 [2011]
*Helicopters: 606 [2011]
*Serviceable Airports: 505 [2011]

*LOGISTICAL

*Labor Force: 31,450,000 [2011]
*Roadway Coverage: 394,428 km
*Railway Coverage: 16,454 km

*FINANCIAL (USD)

*Defense Budget: $73,746,170,000 [2011]
*Reserves of Foreign Exchange & Gold: $66,720,000,000 [2011]
*Purchasing Power: $2,173,000,000,000 [2011]

*GEOGRAPHIC

*Waterways: 3,200 km
*Coastline: 12,429 km
*Square Land Area: 243,610 km
*Shared Border: 360 km


*NAVAL POWER

*Total Navy Ships: 99
*Merchant Marine Strength: 527 [2011]
*Major Ports & Terminals: 10
*Aircraft Carriers: 1 [2011]
*Destroyers: 6 [2011]
*Submarines: 11 [2011]
*Frigates: 13 [2011]
*Patrol Craft: 23 [2011]
*Mine Warfare Craft: 15 [2011]
*Amphibious Assault Craft: 10 [2011]


Russia:
*PERSONNEL

*Total Population: 138,739,892 [2011]
*Available Manpower: 69,117,271 [2011]
*Fit for Service: 46,812,553 [2011]
*Of Military Age: 1,354,202 [2011]
*Active Military: 1,200,000 [2011]
*Active Reserve: 754,000 [2011]


*LAND ARMY

*Total Land Weapons: 91,715
*Tanks: 22,950 [2011]
*APCs / IFVs: 24,900 [2011]
*Towed Artillery: 12,765 [2011]
*SPGs: 6,000 [2011]
*MLRSs: 4,500 [2011]
*Mortars: 6,600 [2011]
*AT Weapons: 14,000 [2011]
*AA Weapons: 4,644 [2011]
*Logistical Vehicles: 12,000

*AIR POWER

*Total Aircraft: 2,749 [2011]
*Helicopters: 588 [2011]
*Serviceable Airports: 1,213 [2011]

*LOGISTICAL

*Labor Force: 75,550,000 [2011]
*Roadway Coverage: 982,000 km
*Railway Coverage: 87,157 km

*FINANCIAL (USD)

*Defense Budget: $56,000,000,000 [2011]
*Reserves of Foreign Exchange & Gold: $483,100,000,000 [2011]
*Purchasing Power: $2,223,000,000,000 [2011]

*NAVAL POWER

*Total Navy Ships: 233
*Merchant Marine Strength: 1,097 [2011]
*Major Ports & Terminals: 7
*Aircraft Carriers: 1 [2011]
*Destroyers: 14 [2011]
*Submarines: 48 [2011]
*Frigates: 5 [2011]
*Patrol Craft: 60 [2011]
*Mine Warfare Craft: 34 [2011]
*Amphibious Assault Craft: 23 [2011]
 
Justice said:
If the fight happened on continental Europe if you combine the French, Britsh and German conventional forces they still won't be able to stop the size of conventional force Russia can throw into battle and nothing will be able to stop Russian forces from reaching the English channel. Most of Europe's heavy armor and equipment have been it down since the end of the cold war, without U.S committing large forces into a Continental Europe battle nothing meaningful stands in the way, the force size is disproportionately in Russia's favor. Germany is the only one of the the big 3 European nations I mentioned that even has decent armor force worth mentioning, still they don't have nothing to stand against the 50,000plus heavy tanks not including armored vehicles and armored personnel vehicles that Russia can throw into battle.
Click to expand...

This is an excerpt from a declassified NATO report on a Russian exercise in 2011.

-- The exercises demonstrated that Russia has limited capability for joint operations with air forces, continues to rely on aging and obsolete equipment, lacks all-weather capability and strategic transportation means, is not able to conduct network centric warfare, has an officer corps lacking flexibility, and has a manpower shortage.

-- NATO IMS concluded that Russian armed forces were: able to respond to a small to mid-sized local and regional conflict in its western region; not able to respond to two small conflicts in different geographical areas simultaneously; not able to conduct large scale conventional operations; and still relying on the use of tactical nuclear weapons, even in local or regional conflicts.

Russia has a large arsenal of equipment. Really huge arsenal. But the problem is, a lot of those weapons are indeed outdated. Reality is though. Their airforce is outdated. That is why they are pushing for more Su-34, Su-35 and upgrades. That is why they are pushing for more T-90A's and upgrades to that. That is why they are pushing for more modern ships and anti-air defense systems. They upgraded a fair chunk of them, but not the whole armed forces. As for lack of personnel, well, they are currently undergoing cuts and various other things.

And it's not about numbers of equipment and manpower. It's about being able to move it and maintain it in a conflict.
 
Justice said:
If the fight happened on continental Europe if you combine the French, Britsh and German conventional forces they still won't be able to stop the size of conventional force Russia can throw into battle and nothing will be able to stop Russian forces from reaching the English channel. Most of Europe's heavy armor and equipment have been it down since the end of the cold war, without U.S committing large forces into a Continental Europe battle nothing meaningful stands in the way, the force size is disproportionately in Russia's favor. Germany is the only one of the the big 3 European nations I mentioned that even has decent armor force worth mentioning, still they don't have nothing to stand against the 50,000plus heavy tanks not including armored vehicles and armored personnel vehicles that Russia can throw into battle.
Click to expand...


I am not sure if I agree with this. While Russia do have a lot of equipment, the big 3 (Germany, UK, and France) have a considerable advantage in quality.
 
Justice said:
If the fight happened on continental Europe if you combine the French, Britsh and German conventional forces they still won't be able to stop the size of conventional force Russia can throw into battle and nothing will be able to stop Russian forces from reaching the English channel. Most of Europe's heavy armor and equipment have been it down since the end of the cold war, without U.S committing large forces into a Continental Europe battle nothing meaningful stands in the way, the force size is disproportionately in Russia's favor. Germany is the only one of the the big 3 European nations I mentioned that even has decent armor force worth mentioning, still they don't have nothing to stand against the 50,000plus heavy tanks not including armored vehicles and armored personnel vehicles that Russia can throw into battle.
Click to expand...

In order to take advantage of your heavy armor you need air superiority. Without that your armor wont get far. Ask the Iraqis who lost an armored column on april 2, 2003 to .....one B-52 within minutes.
 
Hitler learned very well how sometimes quality can be overcome by sheer quantity.... How having 1,500 tiger tanks can be beating by having 20,0o00 T-34 tanks..... Russia will not have problem maintaining air superiority over the big 3 because Russia has 281 Su-27s air superiority fighters, 116 Tu-22M bombers, 63 Tu-95 bombers, 16 Tu-160 bombers, 45 Su-30 fighters, 55 Su-35 fighters, 226 MiG-29 fighters, 672 Su-24 ground attack, 241 Su-25 ground attack, 198 MiG-31 interceptors, 40 MiG-25 recon, 8 Ka-50 attack helicopters with 20 current Ka-52 in service and 140 Ka-52 in line by 2015, 620 Mi-24 & Mi-35 attack helicopter with 49 Mi-35M due in service by 2014, 44 Mi-28 attack helicopter with another 97 due by 2014, 600 Mi-8 & Mi-17 transport helicopters, 35 Mi-26 transport helicopters, 39 Ka-226T transport helicopters..... That is just the up to date fleet of first line, with hundreds and thousands more fighters, bombers, ground attack, and helos in second and third line back up...... Anyone that can't see Russia is the bear that will claw at the German eagle, the British bulldog and the French Gallic rooster is blind to current reality.... Russia will have no problem being in the English channel in matter of weeks due to the overwhelming conventional superiority that it can bring to bear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top