|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 12 new of 36 responses total. |
gelinas
|
|
response 25 of 36:
| 
Nov 18 16:10 UTC 2003 |
(They were made permanent members before they got nuclear weapons.)
|
twenex
|
|
response 26 of 36:
|
Nov 18 16:11 UTC 2003 |
On your last point, agreed.
Russia has internal problems that mean it has not yet got it's act together
on the superpower front, although of course if it could get its act together
it would dwarf the uk about as much as the us does. China has its own problems
which mean that for the foreseeable future it is not going to be able to
project its military power much beyond Asia, although with the us interests
in the region it will of course still be of importance to the us, and its
possession of nuclear weapons will cause many nations to pussyfoot around it.
germany is still hesitant about any large-scale deployment of its military.
until the early 1990s most west germans considered it unconstitutional for
west german troops to operate outside of german. even now a decision by the
german constitutional court has limited german military activity to being
within the bounds of nato actions.
India is a regional superpower at best; while the numbers in each of these
cases might be larger, the fact is that uk forces have a larger field of
operations than most of them, which was my original point. The uk continues
to be responsible for the defence of all of its remaining colonies (many of
which have chosen to remain colonies by way of referndum inrecent years), and
for its protectorates and those states which it represents in foreign and
defence capabilites, such as Isle of Man, Oman, etc. I believe that Nepal also
relies on Britain for its defence.
|
twenex
|
|
response 27 of 36:
|
Nov 18 16:19 UTC 2003 |
Joe slipped in at 25.
|
gull
|
|
response 28 of 36:
|
Nov 18 18:57 UTC 2003 |
Having a large army doesn't make you a superpower unless you have the
technology and funds to exercise its strength far outside your borders.
The U.S.'s Air Force and Navy give it the ability to bring a lot of
force to bear anywhere in the world.
|
twenex
|
|
response 29 of 36:
|
Nov 18 20:38 UTC 2003 |
Which we do, although successive Labour governments conspire to make sure we
don't. Training of officers and men also goes a long way.
This is perhaps one of the reasons why we were able to win the Falklands War
(which may have actually been previously mentioned in another item).
|
bru
|
|
response 30 of 36:
|
Nov 18 20:39 UTC 2003 |
as do the british Navy and Air Force.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 31 of 36:
|
Nov 18 23:55 UTC 2003 |
re #23: Close, but no Pinot Grand Fenwick for you..
It was "the Duchy of Grand Fenwick", not "the Grand Duchy of Fenwick."
|
lk
|
|
response 32 of 36:
|
Nov 19 04:03 UTC 2003 |
But for short, let's just call it Micronesia.
Or perhaps I should say: "Federated States of Micronesia".
Soon to replace France as a permanent member of the UN SC....
It's armed forces are surprisingly large for a country with 702 sq km
and a population the size of Ann Arbor. Its defensive capability is
exactly as powerful as the US....
|
sj2
|
|
response 33 of 36:
|
Nov 19 06:02 UTC 2003 |
Hmm ... Yes, I agree that a nation needs to have enough deep pockets
to fund military operations. But the world more looks like US and UK
vs Germany and France (and Russia??) with UK behaving more like US's
you-know-what. That doesn't do any good to its status of a world-
power.
Maybe realpolitik requires that UK's best defence against
German/French hegemony in Europe is to side with US.
It was also interesting to watch the reactions of people at Harvard
university to Bush's visit to UK (on BBC). While some thought US
shared a special relationship with UK, others openly called UK as US's
pooch and 51st state.
|
gull
|
|
response 34 of 36:
|
Nov 19 15:12 UTC 2003 |
I think it's a bit unfair to refer to the UK that way. It depends
entirely on the government that's in power there. It's true that Tony
Blair is Bush's lap dog, but not every PM has acted that way.
|
twenex
|
|
response 35 of 36:
|
Nov 19 17:20 UTC 2003 |
Agreed mostly with #33, entirely w/ #34. I think apart from the fact that
Blair seems to be Bush's pal, a lot of the way he has been acting has been
trying to appease the anti-Euroean section of society, who see him as too
pro-European. Unfortunately, it's now back-fired, as I don't think he has
either appeased the anti-Europeans, or pleased the pro-Europeans, who see him
as too pro-Bush.
|
willcome
|
|
response 36 of 36:
|
Nov 27 09:38 UTC 2003 |
prore, here.
|