Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
wonder where we will be in 2050
The UK still has delusions of grandeur, we made 2 giant aircraft carriers when we barely have the resources and manpower to fund and operate the stuff we already have lol
See my other post, this kid is stupid.
Using nuclear weapons on Iran a non nuclear state would be morally questionable. I thought we had 2 Supercarriers "HMS Prince of Wales" and "HMS Queen Elizabeth"
*morally questionable and political suicide
A Nuclear Submarine doesn't mean it uses Nuclear Weapons.A Nuclear Submarine is a Submarine Powered by a Nuclear reactor.A Hunter Killer Sub is a Submarine that takes on other ships.They do have Nuclear Submarines that Possess Nuclear Missiles but those are Ballistic Missile Subs
Don't forget New Zealand
Byron: I'm guessing that once Brexit takes place, it will be even more difficult to manage two aircraft carriers.
Byron" I think it will be more difficult to manage two aircraft carriers, as the UK will likely have more financial difficulties after Brexit.
Manpower is the main issue, not enough troops to man this stuff... an American carrier has 3000 sailors, a British carrier has 700 sailors (forcing more automation). The EU never really accepted us :/ in the past back in 2010-2013 EU officials even said that we are not European in their eyes... is it because we are not connected to the continent? is it because we are Anglo English? sad. Kinda racist when you think about it. Australia and New Zealand get the same type of treatment when they join Asia only organizations (they are technically Asian).
Byron: None the less, an aircraft carrier is a very expensive proposition, whether it be the American style or the British style. And it seems to me, that part of the reasons continentals didn't fully accept the British, was because of centuries of Britain being different, and considering themselves different, from continentals. Centuries of difference, takes time to change. Particularly, when many Britons maintained they were different from continentals.
A lot of the UK public still think they are different from continentals, when people think "Europe" they think France, Germany etc i dont think many people think UK. Heck some foreigners dont even know that the UK is European lol. The relationship with the EU was never amazing politically... strange that other continents dont try to push any kind of unity, you never hear "North American Unity" or "South American Unity" or "African Unity"... why does Europe push for continental unity so much when no one else does? I have never heard a Mexican a Canadian or an American say "im proud to be North American" lol
Byron: I'm guessing because Europe is more industrialized, is made up of many smaller countries. North American countries are larger. African countries are not industrialized, but still, many are larger countries compared to Europeans countries. Asia is dominated by China, and to a lesser extend India. But the driving force in European unity seems to be economic, to make better economic opportunities by combining smaller, formerly competing states with tariffs, etc., that inhibited trade.
The UK was one of the few countries in the EU that didn't depend on Russian resources too, with us gone Russia gains more control and influence in the EU. The EU depends on America for defense, China for trade and Russia for resources lol, can't do a thing alone
Byron: The UK has it's traditional advantage of being an island, thus being less prone to fast invasion. The continent has no such advantage. The UK also has a lot of natural gas, which few of the continental countries have. The UK has also relied on the U. S. for defense. It would likely not have won either world war if the U. S. hand't stepped in, in a big way. And even today, if Russian decided to attack the UK, they could not hold out on their own. That is not a criticism, but simply a matter of population, industrial power, technology and size, being advantages of the Russians. It takes a large, powerful country, to stand up to another large powerful country. Or a very good coalition of smaller countries, which hasn't happened that many times in history.
Maybe, although we do have the largest military budget in Europe (i think... we go back and forth with France depending on the year) plus an independent nuclear deterrent
Byron: The nuclear deterrent, and I think you have some nuclear subs, I'm sure would give Russia some pause. But if Russian took over Europe, they would have a lot of sway over the UK, simply because of proximity and trade. Just as the U. S. would have to give in some areas, if Russian took over Canada.
Russia dont even spend THAT much more than us on defense... they only spend 5 billion more or so
That brings me back to the question, how are Russia barely spending more than us but they have a far more capable armed forces? where is all our money going?
Sorry, just want to point out that as far as I'm aware we have never been 'rescued' by the USA or any members of the Commonwealth. We've fought alongside them all on equal terms, but they've not rescued us in any conflict, nor have we rescued them.(not sure if you're referring to WW2, in which case although the US command was given to D-Day it was a joint operation and we were responsible for a lot of the success of the later stages of a war that the US entered late anyway, not to mention the Soviets were the ones to finally take down the Nazis, reaching Berlin well before any of the western front forces managed to break through...)Also, apologies there. It's just always been a sore point with me whenever someone suggests the US or anyone else 'rescued' the UK when the historical record shows otherwise.
@WalsallGuy90 You forgot to mention the military aid America gave Britain and the Allies during and before entering WW2 after Pearl Harbor. What is your definition of "rescued?"
@Xyline789 You're referring to Lend-Lease, yes? It was useful aid, true, and I'm not disputing that, I agree with you that a lot of help was given to the Allies (not just to the UK) by the Americans and I'm grateful for that.But what I'm referring to is the pervading idea that seems to be an element of US jingoism that somehow American troops after Pearl Harbour were the sole reason why we were able to beat back the Nazis and that the UK would have rolled over in submission if the US troops hadn't turned up, which is most definitely a fantasy and completely ignores things like the Battle of Britain, British naval dominance in the Channel, and the superiority of British code breakers at Bletchley Park.Don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing what you're saying if you are referring to Lend-Lease, and that was valuable aid that significantly helped the Allies in general.
Your under American protection, you have thousands and thousands of American troops and bases in Germany so you dont need a strong German armed forces, we dont have that luxury... heck not long ago they stole our ship lol
To be honest... if i could i would throw them all out. I dont need them, germany dont need them, i think no one need them exept of the US i mean who should attack us or any other european country?
@ByronArclight - just to point out, yes they did steal our ship, after we stole theirs, except our case was a lot more justified (EU sanctions being upheld in EU waters). But we could very likely take it back militarily, without needing to send ships in (a strike force from the SBS would probably be enough). But there's no way to do that without risking a war starting which as I pointed out in my original comment would be difficult for us to win because of other, non-military, factors (the mountainous terrain being one of the biggest, but another example being the damage the Iranians could do to the world economy as they control a massive amount of the world's oil supply).Hence the requirement to deal with the situation on diplomatic terms.
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!