In fact, the United Kingdom is already an immense power. The world's 6th largest economy, Europe's leading military power, a permanent seat at the UN, nuclear weapons and global influence.
Do you think the UK can become a superpower again?
The question is actually a bit ambiguous. The term "superpower" was applied first to the USA and then the USSR in the immediate aftermath of World War II. The USA had a monopoly on the atomic bomb - which the USSR would within a few years also acquire - and the whole of the world was in flaming ruins in the wake of the war. In that context, the USA and a bit later the USSR had an overwhelming position such that they dominated the rest of the globe.
In fact, to no other power was the term "superpower" ever applied. Prior to 1945, there had been the "great powers." Those typically being prior to World War II, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Japan and the USA. (At other periods in history China, the Ottoman Empire, Spain, and Portugal, among others, were on the list.)
That being the case, the UK was never a "superpower," as that was a term applied in a very unique historical context. It was a great power and in fact still may be so regarded for some of the reasons cited in the question - among other factors. Grant that it is not where it was in 1900 at the height of the British Empire, when it was arguably the preeminent "great power."
So Britain may still be counted as a great power. As indeed, as an aside, may be France. The world's 7th largest economy, relatively large and modern armed forces complete with nuclear weapons and even - like the UK - some strategically located overseas possessions that give France (and the UK) a global reach. (Note the military exercises going on right now with the USA, Australia, and --- France. These taking place near the New Hebrides Islands - a French overseas "department.)
However, the truth is that all of these powers are, at a fundamental level, unlikely to retain their current "great power" status. The main reason being that the industrialized economies of the world are aging demographically. This meaning, over time, that their economies will shrink relative to other national economies in the world. In that context, their workforces - and therefore their tax bases - will shrink, this leaving less room to sustain their levels of defense spending and this leading to a decline in their military capabilities.
(This not just impacting defense spending. There will also be fewer future funds for infrastructure, new technologies, education, and other "sinews of power." In short, the things that make possible future economic growth and continued great power status will decline.)
As the old saw goes, "demographics is destiny," and that is a problem that ALL the Western powers - even the USA - is facing. (Right now, two of the traditional great powers - Japan and Italy - have the oldest and second oldest populations, respectively, in the entire world.)
Of course, powers like Russia and China are aging too. In fact, China - because of its' now discontinued "one child policy" - is actually aging faster than the Western states. It is just that the North American and European great powers (and Japan) began aging much earlier than China. Thus China, though aging faster, will take some time to catch up, so to speak.
Of course, there are other factors at play. As far as the UK is concerned, there has been less desire, in recent years, to sustain current levels of defense spending and there is a tendency to focus more on Europe. Thus, by choice, to some extent, Britain has chosen to play less of a global role.
Bottom line, though, Britain - which also retains enormous cultural influence due to the fact English is the world's lingua franca - remains a great power and will be so for the foreseeable future. However, in the long term, demographic factors will dominate and Britain - and the rest of the West - will diminish in global standing.
Let me clarify why I said "superpower". Because at the time of its domination it had the largest empire, it was the best trading power, it also controlled the trade routes , the only real power that could project its power all over the globe, and economic and cultural domination.
But of course, for a variety of reasons, it seems very complicated to find a status for the United Kingdom that would replace it at this level of power.
Yet it remains a considerable power if we compare it to most other nations in the world, add to the fact that it's an island with "only" 67 million inhabitants and it makes the UK's global position all the more incredible.
No, I wouldn't put France on the same level. According to one ranking, we've even become the world's 9th military power, and even Pakistan would be ahead of us. And when you see that we haven't even managed to stabilize the African countries where we were, like Mali or Niger for example, that's not a very good sign.
Yes, demographics are essential, but I've seen that, according to projections for the period up to 2050, the USA is the Western country that's doing best. In fact, by 2050, the USA will have a younger population than China and Japan. On the other hand, Europe, China and Japan will be facing extreme ageing of their populations. But the continent that will still have a very young population is Africa, and I wonder how the African countries will manage this demographic boom and youth.
Well, on the last part, you make a better case for the USA being the only remaining superpower. Yet these are relative readings and - as you will note - the USA is growing increasingly economically dependent on China for much of its' "supply chain." This making the demographic issue not one simply of the numbers, but how those numbers play out in a larger context.
(The reasons for the USA's interdependence on China are complex and I will - for reasons of space - not go into them here. Suffice to say, the USA won two ideological contests - World War II and the Cold War - by advocating a certain philosophical viewpoint. When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail and the problem here is the USA is applying a WWII/Cold War model to a world that is more like pre-WWI realpolitik.)
As to your first point, yes, the UK was the dominant great power, but - as the pre-World War I rivalry with both France in the 1800s and Germany in the early 1900s demonstrates - it was not an invincible position.
By contrast, in the immediate years after World War II, the USA was all but untouchable and no power or combination of great powers could touch it. A large and modern military. A massive economy and, of course, until 1949 a monopoly on the atomic bomb.
Thus the USA was a superpower. Something that none of the other great powers, even in combination, could touch. Later the USSR acquired the atomic bomb and it became the second superpower, but again, not Britain, nor France - which both had massive empires until the 1960s - nor any other "great power" nor combination of great powers could defeat it. Only the other superpower - the USA - had the potential to defeat the USSR.
Finally, give your country credit. In terms of the numbers, France is smaller than it was but the comparison of numbers is not the sole measure of great power status. France has a massive economy - by global standards - a modern military with advanced weapons and superb training and, of course, nuclear weapons. This places France well above Pakistan and many other countries like it - see also North Korea, Iran, etc.
Besides, I hear that they don't listen to rap in Pakistan. This gives France a HUGE advantage as I hear there are big rap fans there!!!
There are several reasons which can explain this American position in the world after the Second World War, in particular that the Europeans had had massive losses and destruction with the two world wars, with demographic, economic and therefore military consequences.
For the rest, from the end of the Seven Years' War onwards, no nation could rival the United Kingdom on the sea, and as for a combination of powers, they all proved a failure, and she was able to exercise her dominance throughout the 19th century without any serious rivals to maintain her position.
Yes, no power could rival Britain at sea, but several could - and did - rival it on land. See also Napoleonic France, see also Germany, see also Russia/later USSR.
By contrast, again, from 1945 on - and even for a time into the 1950s - no power could rival the USA on land or sea (or in the air.)
Yes, there were circumstances that made that possible. Thus it will always be and ever has it been.
"Great power" status and "Superpower status," and "Third World status" and all the rest are relative terms. A matter of measuring absolutes in a fluid - and often changing - context. These are not absolutes as in the laws of physics, for example.
To repeat, Britain was arguably the biggest of the great powers at one point. However, the term "superpower" was not applied to it contemporaneously nor even after the fact. The geopolitics of the world in Britain's hey day were different than they were post-WWII - and that is the point of the distinction.
P. S. By the way, this does no dishonor to the UK. (You know I am an Anglophile.) Indeed, in many respects, it makes the UK's accomplishments all the more impressive. With somewhat less of an edge over its' rivals, it accomplished much not only in material terms, but even cultural terms. That is impressive.
Rivalised but not winning in the end is pointless. And yes, it makes the UK's success all the more impressive.
At the end of Waterloo, a Swiss diplomat wrote: "Wellington's glory will last for centuries. His victory is too important for anything to weaken it. Posterity will say that it was from this day, June 18th, that French power was truly annihilated. [...] The English, by land and sea, are now the leading nation. They have the glory of having twice toppled the French colossus.
It took a combination of factors for the UK to lose its place as the dominant nation, but even at the end of the Second World War, the UK remained one of the world's top 3 powers.
So, yes, the word "superpower" has been used to describe the USA. But the level of power achieved by the UK is no less impressive.
And according to the criteria adopted, doesn't the Mongol Empire deserve the title of superpower? No power in their time could match their power, demographics and size. What's more, they also dominated the seas, as many people forget, but the Mongols had the most powerful navy and used it against China, for example.
On your last point, yes, the Mongol Empire would have qualified at the time.
As to the quote on the Wellington, as a military accomplishment it was historic. As a political accomplishment, Wellington's victory lasted about a century - until 1914. Rinse and repeat.
Best to recall Disraeli's famous line, "Finality is not in the vocabulary of politics."
Not sure what "rivalized but not winning in the end is pointless." Well, note Disraeli's point above. Note Mongolia in the 13th century as opposed to now.
"Winning" in the international arena is ALWAYS relative to some extent. Such is the nature of human affairs. It comforts us - not to mention simplifies things - to speak in absolutes, but in the matter of power relations in the international arena, all life is practiced on a slippery slope.
You are right about it taking a combination of factors to cost the UK its' position, but such are the ways of the world. There is never one answer and the classification of the great powers is always - ALWAYS - a relative measurement that changes with time and circumstance. Which was my point.
I agree. I wanted to say that yes the UK has had other nations that have competed with it on land, but in the end the UK won see France from Louis XIV to Napoleon, and finally Germany, it was useless for them to compete because in the end they failed. The UK Although in the end they had to give up their dominant position, it wasn't in a military defeat.
Yes, that is correct. To repeat, "Great power" status and "Superpower status," and "Third World status" and all the rest are relative terms. A matter of measuring absolutes in a fluid - and often changing - context.
Military defeat was not necessarily the cause. Although in some cases defeat - and even victory - can be indicative of the underlying conditions and circumstances that define - or mark a change in - the status of a great power or superpower.
Actually no, it does not surprise me. You love your country - as we have discussed before. However, I have also seen that you have a capacity to look objectively at issues and people and make reasoned judgments.
Let's face it. Look here. I am the Anglophile and yet you were pushing harder to define Britain - France's ally sometimes and rival other times - as a superpower than I was.
So tip of the hat to you. You do not allow your biases to be the father to your thoughts. Except of course when it comes to rap music. Cannot understand that!! (Yes, that was a joke.)
Julie, you should be less harsh on France. I read an article today in an English newspaper that talked about France and explained that despite the difficulties encountered, France is doing better than most European countries.
As for the rest, yes, you've lost out to the UK, but France has been a tough opponent.
And Churchill wrote about France “All my life I have been grateful for the contribution France has made to the culture and glory of Europe, and above all for the sense of personal liberty and the rights of man which has radiated from the soul of France…. Show me a moment when I swerved from this conception, and you will show me a moment when I have been wrong”
When one of the greatest men in Western history talks like that about your country, it means a great things.
Thank you very much for your very kind comments about my country. But in the end we lost to the UK and history only remembers the winners lol. Who still remembers Carthage?
@Matthias345 That is an almost Europe-wide problem since the world wars. You see it especially in Germany - and to a lesser extent Italy - where expressions of patriotism are seen as almost vulgar. France has typically not been quite that extreme - with periods of rising patriotism as under DeGualle.
However, as you can tell from @julie4's answer - and she is a lovely lady by the way - they tend to focus on their failings. The American tendency toward patriotism - "with all thy faults I love thee still" - has not quite filtered into French culture.
@nightdrot Yes, and it's understandable after the trauma of two world wars that Europeans feel so distant from patriotism.
However, don "t you have the impression that patriotism is making a comeback in Europe, with more and more Europeans complaining about the EU and voting more and more for patriotic politicians?
@Matthias345 Yes, absolutely. Particularly among the younger generation that did not experience the wars nor their aftermath. However, at least for the time being, again particularly in Germany and Italy, there is a certain recalcitrance about patriotism - which is also often mistakenly conflated with nationalism.
@nightdrot Yes, but in Italy there is Meloni, who I think proves a certain return of patriotism in Italy. Although I understand that the Italians are a rather peculiar state, in the sense that patriotic feelings are fairly recent in their history, because before there was no Italian nation.
As for Germany, I don't know if they'll manage to return to patriotism. As you say, perhaps with the new generations we'll even see a return to patriotism in Germany.
Eastern Europe still seems anchored in patriotism and traditional values. Yet they've had their share of traumas. I think that there are often tensions within the EU between the states of Western and Eastern Europe.
I don't know much about all these subjects and my knowledge is limited, but that's what I personally understand.
Italy has tended to be divided by regional loyalties. Northern and southern Italians don't get along culturally. (Speaking also from personal experience as my mother's side of the family had both.)
Eastern Europe is far more patriotic. Indeed, because, in part, it was de facto occupied by the USSR = as Russia then was. In part because it is reacting to the transnationalism that was Communism. Which appealed to class over narrower national loyalties.
Anyhow, I would say that for not "knowing much," you seem to be VERY well read.
The UK is 21st in oil production. 21st in natural gas production. 47th in coal production. They don’t have the energy. Energy use and GDP are positively correlated… It’s not possible for the UK to have economic might on the scale of a superpower. Furthermore they can’t finance a military that can project power and exert global influence nor can they man it’s ranks because they are 22nd in population… Nor do they have the landmass to expand said population or to grow agricultural products to feed said army. To maintain global power you need manpower… To supply that manpower you need food, fuel, energy, clothing (uniforms), medical supplies, and construction material. You need an economy to finance it. You need industry to out produce your enemies. The UK doesn’t have any of that. They aren’t even major producers of precious medals. They are 66th in silver production and 60th in gold production. Thus they can not truly afford a mercenary army to fight on their behalf. Where do you think this power would come from?
LOL, not a chance. The empire is gone, and it's never coming back. The "superpowers" of the future will be China and India, with other major powers being Brazil and (possibly) the E. U. if it can get its act together and successfully integrate itself into a single nation over the next few decades.
doesn't the UK crown the monarchy have some huge influence and like ownership thingy in countries like Australia, Canadq, African countries tbh i really am not sure but if the influence is very strong then they're more powerful than the US
10.8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
assuming superpower refers to the way it was in the early 1900s and prior to that... no. They lost most of their colonies which was the foundation of their power. They still own tons of lands and territories but they are unable to capture the kind of money those economies generated that boosted the funds of the country and crown.
the reality is the age of the superpower is slowly going to fizzle. any remaining superpowers are going to be countries with the ability to export mass amounts of products (see China, USA and Russia). But i wonder over time if that will change too
This would b a question from an American? Why do Americans think that they are the ONLY super power? If the USA and the UK went to war - who would win? NEITHER OF THEM because that would be a stupid thing to do. When America waged theri illegal wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq they asked Australia and the UK to HELP them in their illegal wars (not sure whether AUS helped in the korean war) Why would they need to do that if the USA was so powerful? Incidentally, they LOST every one of those wars. EVERY ONE. They quit the korean war and left it with a truce that has lasted for a long time but the war was not decided in any countries favour. They quit in the Vietnam war after finding out that the only way they could ever win would be to kill every Vietnamese person and lay the whole country to waste and they tried damned hard to actually do that. They failed in Afghanistan and Iraq as well After killing hundred of thousands of people in those countries and detroying the infrastructure they quit the war and left and now both of those countries are back in pretty much the same situation as they were BEFORE the war. All the war accomplished was killing lots of innocent people.
As you point out the UK remains a strong power with a permanent seat on the UN security council, a substantial economy and the major military power of Europe with nuclear weapons. I have read that the EU leaned on the UK diplomatic power but have no way of judging the truth of that. France isn't so far away from Britain in those respects of course.
In a lot of ways we are seeing the power and influence with Ukraine. UK was a strong supporter from the get go and changed what weapons Ukraine got as a first mover. UK gave tanks and then other European countries gave tanks. UK made treaties with Finland and Sweden as an interim measure till their accession to Nato. UK gave training to Ukraine soldiers. UK gave long range weapons prompting others to do so. UK has no F16's but is giving training on simulators.
Britan has scarcely faded into the night. AUKUS is not insignificant.
Have you heard of CANZUK Julie? Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom. There is a longstanding move for greater unity. The distance between the constituent parts are too great to support a trade block. But as countries with a large combined GDP that usually take similar stances on international issues there is some capacity there.
To be a super power requires a super power GDP and Britain is simply not there and unlikely to be. If CANZUK did form it would have the 3rd largest military budget and 4th largest GDP.
The geopolitics of cricket shouldn't be ignored. The Australian Prime Minister got a generous reception when he went to watch a cricket match with Modhi. India very much needs England (yes England in this instance) and Australia to play cricket with. So in time I think cricket will lead India into being necessarily aligned.
Yes, and in spite of all the assistance that the so-called Anglosphere is providing to the Ukraine, they're still losing the war. AUKUS actually IS insignificant, because apart from a perceived, but not actually real, threat from China (which is what AUKUS is all about) those nations don't have a reason to form such an alliance. As for your mention of cricket... oh dear, I just hope you weren't actually serious about that :D
@Siri137 Yes Ukraine is losing the war but not as badly as Russia is losing the war. The point of AUKUS is, of course, to make conflict less likely. Threats are not so much perceived but issued by China and it has acted to grab the exclusive economic zones of other countries. During the depths of covid it launched border assaults on India. These are very much NOT perceived threats of territorial grabs but actual grabs against smaller countries. So I hope that clears up your miss-perception for you.
New Zealand has long given up any pretense of a defense force and given NZ's isolated geographical position that is possibly sensible for it. Don't inflict your geography on us however, that is sheer effrontery on your part. In recent times a Chinese PLA ship fired upon a RAAF patrol plane.
My comments on cricket were somewhat tongue in cheek but only partly so. Cultural connection cannot be ignored in international politics is the over-riding point. India's constitution says it is a socialist country and it's political elite have certainly taken a non-aligned stance and sourced much of it's military hardware from the USSR. Russian has shown it's ability to produce military hardware is, at it's best, impaired and India is looking more to it's own indigenous capabilities and elsewhere now.
India's legal system, as does New Zealand's & Australia's & many other countries, lies in English roots. That is a highly significant cultural compatibility. As an Indian friend said to me, 'cricket is the only sport we have' and so is also important. You may not be a sports person but Australian identity was forged on the cricket field in 1877. Our sporting record is important to us. NZ is a bit different because it took you till 1983 to record a win.
After many years of working with Indian people in an Indian company my observation is that most are more western aligned than their political elite. And yes after work they go across to the park and play cricket.
"The point of AUKUS is, of course, to make conflict less likely." Military alliances tend to make conflicts more likely though, not less, a good example of this being the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria, and originally Italy) vs. the Triple Entente (Britain, France, Russia) that was a leading cause, along with an out-of-control arms race, that led directly to World War One. You cannot have peace as your ultimate goal when you're in an arms-race, or are supplying one side in an active conflict (ex. Ukraine). That's not how it works.
@Siri137 Capitulation doesn't work either. Remember 'Peace For Our Time'?
It is hard to see how you think that will work any better in our time then it did then. It certainly won't be achieved by being unable to resist military aggression. Peace works by making the alternatives be too expensive to contemplate.
By the way on your prior comment on cricket diplomacy, the following looked like cricket diplomacy to me.
As a non sports person you may not be aware that the initial rapprochement between the US and China was started with Kissinger's ping pong. So yes sports have a role in diplomacy. In the ancient Olympics there was a truce so there is a hallowed tradition
@Siri137 None of this is relevant to the hypothetical of could the UK become a superpower again. If you want to discuss how it is 1914 but not 1939 in 2023 then put up a question about that rather than hijacking a question.
You're talking in terms of politico-economic and therefore military terms. The UK can't, simply because a superpower in the UK's sense would be based on a high GDP capita AND a population of more than a few hundred million, giving it a massive overall GDP to rival the US. Well, that can't happen, cause we simply don't have enough people. I mean, with the way immigration is going, well, actually, I correct myself, maybe it is a possibility...
Politics is dirty anyway. The UK punches well above its weight in terms of art and culture. We probably rival that of the US and we're like a 5 of its size. The amount of bands and artists that come from here, for such a small island, is nothing short of miraculous. But let's not dirty ourselves thinking about politics.
Yes, we have a highish GDP per capita. However, it's total GDP overall in world terms that would make a country a superpower. So for the UK our population would have to be 200 or so million. That's really how artificial the basis of superpower is. And why China and India will rise in power as their populations are 1 billion or so each, their gdp per capita was relatively low.
I know it's a bit more complicated than that, but not much...
Now if we all block together and France Germany and the UK form kind of union then maybe... oh wait...
The country is already dead, sadly. It's pretty awful to live here, now. It's sad, because even 20 years ago it wasn't so bad. Culturally it is drying up, too. I can't think of any comedy we've produced of merit in the past 10 to 15 years.
It is just GDP that counts and not population now. Britain rose to preeminence because of the industrial revolution but long before WW1 it was being overtaken by the US and Germany.
With robotics, there doesn't need to be a proletariat workforce putting square pins in square holes but you can import guest workers if you want. Conceptually countries are liberated from having to have large populations.
You do need a large population that is willing to buy shit and is where a large domestic population does help but it is not mandatory. A large domestic population is a useful economic flywheel is all.
I think we are over-stating the significance of a large population.
Well with the English language now available in most known nations. Also distributing English cultural arts. They don't need to because England already has such a thriving economy with its very huge international market.
Many believe that the monarchy under King Charles III is pointless, should be abolished. But the monarchy is a decorative symbol to their economy. So no they again already achieved everything that's why England gave Canada one of the first nations independence. Last year gave the Barbados independence where it's current Governor-General became the new independent nations first President.
The British Empire would always be in the history books.
Nope. That tiny island doesn't have the population or resources. It would have lost both world wars if not for the U. S. But it can't stop thinking it's great and longing for the old colonial empire.
At this point, it is still dependent on the U. S., just like Israel. And the U. S. is fading.
Never say never. Britain still holds massive influence. Stirling is a stronger currency than the Euro or Dollar for international trade in many countries and English is still the most widely spoken international language. The only reason more individuals speak mandarin Chinese is the size of the country. It's the language of air traffic control.
Europe's leading military power? 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Most they have is on paper. Poland have passed or about to pass most western militaries in Europe because the war in their doorstep.
uk is a horrible country raciest the food is awful everyone is poor. people are making there wealth out of others basic needs such a housing and food. it will only get worst trust.
Nope, they're still led by donkeys. Brexit was a predictable disaster, the NHS is a shadow of its former self, you can't get an ambulance if you've just lost a finger.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
+1 y
+1 y
