Originally Posted by Shock Fist

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....

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.

You were the superpower but now your not....

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.

Originally Posted by Justice

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.

And you, of course, are fully updated on Britain's capacity to wage war.

Originally Posted by Justice

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 42RM

And you, of course, are fully updated on Britain's capacity to wage war.

There's one in every litter 42RM.

Originally Posted by Justice

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.

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

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.

Good explanation 42RM.

Originally Posted by 42RM

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.

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.

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.