Is United Kingdom a Superpower?
Whispering Death
Active member
That is all besides the point. You can argue the pros/cons of being a superpower and how well the United States has done in that position all you want, but that's another thread. But it still stands that England is not a superpower.
KC72
Active member
the only way Britain will be a superpower again is through a unified single state Europe, which if were being honest will never happen. We have an exellent army, suberb air force and a more than experienced navy, the problem the UK as though is the " projection of power" which we cannot do without the allience with the USA. Our SF (imo) are thre finest in the world, as are our marine`s, our nuclear capability is in actual fact quite small with only submarine capability. So in summary the uk has a very good econamy, a very good military and very good (again in iho) political system.
godofthunder9010
Active member
Without a doubt, way back before the term "Superpower" was coined, the British Empire was a Superpower.
Doppleganger
Active member
TBA_PAKI said:
I would argue with you that China enjoys 4 or that it is ahead of the UK in all but 1. It has the potential to have a stronger economy and be an industrial giant but it is not there yet. There is no way that China enjoys massive political impact over the world. It's never had that even when it was the strongest power on Earth which it was for hundreds of years in the past.
China and India will both probably become superpowers in some way if they can overcome their political systems which threaten to hamper growth and stability. But it will be a few years yet before another nation is able to project power all over the world like the USA currently can.
Let me tell you a few things about China.Doppleganger said:
USA was not able to touch North Korea due to extreme pressure from China. This shows the political influence of this nation in Pacific Region.
China has a huge army and it is under process of modernization since a decade now. Even the US military admits that defeating China in war is out of options now and UK cant even afford a tussle with China let alone its Military might. This is the projection power of China in Military based situations and because of China, US has yet not considered Taiwan as a separate nation.
Even Russia lags behind much in terms of military strength compared to China.
If a war breaks out between China and Taiwan then Taiwan is toast for sure despite of all the weaponry that US gave to it.
China has the second strongest economy in the world after USA with 6.5 Trillion USD GDP after 10.5 Trillion USD GDP of US.
China is now the largest steal producing nation in the world and it even has vast OIL reserves and it is main exporter of cheap good around the world. These achievements symbolize its massive economic growth.
It is a VETO power in UN.
What else do you expect?
Doppleganger
Active member
TBA_PAKI said:
You've demonstrated that China is a very powerful regional power, which is well known already. What China can't do is project its influence beyond its own region.
China may have the 2nd biggest economy in the world, but given its resources that really is no great shakes. Large parts of the Chinese economy are massively in need of restructure and it could all go belly-up if needed political reforms do not go through within the next 10 years.
I'm not sure what point you are making regarding military power. Russia's armed forces have been in decline for years and there is no practical way that the US and China could even seriously war unless it was global nuclear.
China has the potential to be the next Superpower but I still don't believe it will be able to project power like the US currently can. That involves not least building up a naval infrastructure that will never be politically acceptable unless China chooses that most extreme of foreign policy decisions. War.
Whispering Death
Active member
SAINT said:Then the question is -- why and how did the UK decline from being a former superpower within such a short time?
:roll:
Some ******* Americans and a wrinkly old bastard named Ghandi
Shadowalker
Active member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Suez_War
The 1956 suez crisis saw the shift in power from european countries to american and USSR. The loss of the empire meant britain didnt need a militart anywhere near as big.
The 1956 suez crisis saw the shift in power from european countries to american and USSR. The loss of the empire meant britain didnt need a militart anywhere near as big.
LeEnfield
Active member
In 1956 Britain had a million men in the forces, most of these where National Servicemen who took on a whole range of tasks, from pilots of jet aircraft, Naval Officers, and every level in the Army, yet they were only paid half the regulars soldiers pay for the two years that were serving. Now this to say the least caused a lot of bitterness from the rank and file, now as a National Service man you knew you had to do this service but it really mucked up your life and when you are still a teenager two years is a long time. Also it must be remembered that the National Servicemen comprised the baulk of the forces in Malaya, Korea, Kenya, Suez and Cyprus, they were in fore front of all the fighting. It was this bitterness from them that had voting age changed from 21 down to 18 as they reckoned if you fight and die for your country then you should be able to say who is going to run it. The Government could not keep the lid on this so in 1960's they decided to bring National Service to an end, so now to attract people to the forces that would have pay a proper wage, and as the government does not like paying for large standing armies the forces have cut back time and time again just to keep the costs down. Well it is not that the Forces can go on strike or hold a protest meeting like the civil servants, and there are now more civil servants running the Army than there actual members of the Forces. This is the main reason that our forces are now so small, yet still effective.
Shadowalker
Active member
Cadet Seaman said:
Thats only a military superpower though and should also include it must have nukes and probably ballistic missiles.
Superpowers in my view should also have political clout in every country in the world such as america does but china doesnt. The ability to stand alone in situations without the need for allies both politically and militarily...
Whispering Death
Active member
Shadowalker said:
Dudes, we already went over this in the first page of the thread.
Whispering Death said:
Whispering Death said:
Agree, if we are talking about a "military superpower" but I think the word superpower is more encompassing than that. The economic power of a country is a big consideration, and the two together are what make China a superpower today.
The Chinese economy is a freight train at the moment and for most intl companies, the topic is how you either defend against or take advantage of the Chinese market. Up until recently, China has been a net importer but it is rapidly changing to a net exporter - and thats hurting traditional industries particularly in the United States. And its going to get worse.
So, just because China is not flying its jets over Europe doesn't mean its not a world superpower - its just flexing its muscles in a much different way than the Soviet Union did. Besides, a superpower doesn't have to actively influence (militarily) the rest of the world - its just has to have the means to do it, which China certainly has.
Whispering Death
Active member
Rich said:
I certainly disagree. China is still a regional power but it is a growing power. It has absolutely no ability to project it's millitary power beyond a few hundred miles from its boarders. It can't even take care of Taiwan which is supposed to be part of its country. It's economy is on the up-swing but, again, not significant enough to to be labled as a superpower.
In a fictional scenario let's just say that in case 1 China was angry at France, in case 2 america is angry at france. In case 1 France doesn't get it's cheaply manufactured products, inflating prices somewhat as companies seek more expensive countries to manufacture in. In case 2 America blockades all of it's technology and resources from France, it exerts preassure on other close countries like Japan to also prevent its electronics, cars etc. from being sold to France. Oh boy, I wouldn't want to be in the market for a new TV in France in Case 2! And if it came to all out hatred all China could do is sit and brood in their country hopeing they could use the only weapon that could hit France from China, the nuclear ICBM. Whereas America could use its bases and 12 aircraft carriers to pummell France into a rubble that hasn't been seen since WW2. This is the difference in capability between a superpower and a regional power.
Now why doesn't China have the same millitary power? Because its economy isn't as strong... it can't afford to build huge carriers with smart bombs stationed all around the world. But, it is growing and may one day become a superpower, as might England. But the future is speculate and the present is factual.
LeEnfield
Active member
England has been a super power and has paid the price in blood over the years. Now just why do we need a huge standing Army when all have to really protect is our own borders. Okay are troops are still spread all over the world on one task or another, also we have a full range of weapons and the methods of delivering them to their targets. I know this does not make us a super power, yet we still have a large amount of power in the military sense.