Britain is No Longer a Major Military Power

[Blue Marlin]

I'm afraid he actually believes everything he says, there's plenty of them around. Attack the UK, fight two front wars, better technology than the F-35 and so on.



Yes apologies for that. I tried to give him time and I hoped he would stop trolling. Yes I did edit you post haha.



Yep, that's the one that's going to launch an assault once it enters the English Channel. Have you prepared your bomb shelter. I'm thinking of taking on a role in an AA battery. I don't fancy the idea of all those Migs swarming London. Our Typhoons and F-35's don't stand a chance.

i knew you deleted my post i was just waiting for the confirmation.

and yes im on you tube looking to build a Morison shelter and as for my role im wanna be front liner so id be in the trenches.

 

[MultaniGuy]

What about the rising economies? Like Brazil,China,Russia?

 

[Kyoto]

Britain's still massively powerful compared to its size both land mass and population wise. However, even when factoring the size of the British economy, we're still overpowered. We've sustained a lot of that power despite economic "decline", or rather the ascent of larger nations, the actual decline of empire. But we've sustained it largely by retaining high tech industry, maintaining a military industrial system at home, taking part in quite a few interventions and most importantly, augmenting our reach with the EU and the US, these two factors are what makes Britain really powerful and not to be underestimated. Although Brexit could soon alter than reality.

I think the UK is overrated. There is so much more poverty and mismanagement in the country compared to its European neighbours and even France to some extent. It is too dependent on imports and finance although it does still have significant military prowess. Whilst it is more dynamic than say France I dont see the UK maintaining itself especially if Scotland leaves.
It has already begun to lose its diplomatic power and is having to suck up to China and the US at the same time. The only hope in Europe is probably Germany if it wants to remilitarise.
If it manages to stay united and stay afloat after Brexit then maybe it could actually improve with its high growth rate compared to the rest of the region. But right now it is definitely not just another 60 million strong country in Europe.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

It has already begun to lose its diplomatic power and is having to suck up to China and the US at the same time.

The UK's increasing engagement with China is not on a military basis, but rather the UK government sees increasing ties with China as a way to boost the UK's economic growth, especially in a post-Brexit world.

China does not currently have power projection capabilities (that have been tested in battle) like the UK does.

China's blue water navy is still in the building phase, and it will almost certainly remain "untested" for a long time. Since all of China's possible war scenarios are right on our doorstep.

 

[KAL-EL]

What is Trident? Britain's nuclear deterrent explained

What is Trident?

Trident is Britain's nuclear weapons deterrent. It consists of four Vanguard-class submarines which can carry up to 16 Trident II D5 ballistic missiles, each armed with up to eight nuclear warheads.

At any time, one submarine is on patrol, one is undergoing maintenance, one is preparing for patrol and one has just come off patrol and is recovering.

Britain has had a Continuous At Sea Deterrence (CASD) since 1969. Trident is currently referred to (in defence speak) as Operation Relentless and is based in the Faslane area of Scotland.

How powerful is Trident?
No one knows exactly, but most nuclear weapons are approximately seven times more powerful than the atomic bomb which was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima in 1945.

Trident's ballistic missiles can hit a target up to 7,500 miles away and travel at speeds of more than 13,000 miles an hour.


What do we know about the submarines?
The UK's Vanguard-class submarines are called HMS Vanguard, HMS Vengeance, HMS Victorious and HMS Vigilant. They are huge - measuring more than twice the size of two Boeing 747s. Each contains a nuclear reactor which boils sea water and the steam is used to power them through the water.

The patrols are so secretive that only four among the crew of 135 know what route the submarine will take, on voyages lasting months.

View attachment 386740

The Royal Navy’s four Vanguard Class nuclear-powered submarines carry Britain’s Trident nuclear deterrent.

Length: 492 ft

Displacement: 15,900 tonnes

Crew: 132

Top speed: 25 knots

In service: 1993 to present

Armament: Spearfish torpedoes and up to 16 Trident II D5 nuclear missiles

Power: Rolls Royce PWR2 nuclear reactor

Boats: HMS Vanguard, HMS Vengeance, HMS Victorious, HMS Vigilant

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/21/what-is-trident-britains-nuclear-deterrent-explained/


So, every Submarine has 16 Ballistic missiles each with 8 nuclear warheads, that makes it a total of 16 x 8 x 4 = 128 x 4 = 512 nuclear warheads.. and that is just the naval branch!!! imagine the rest, meaning the army and the airforce..
So in many ways Britain is still a major military power after the US, Russia and China, since it can also project its power mainly through the sea..

PS: Note that this 512 nuclear warheads alone exceeds the 400 figure that the UK announces as its nuclear arsenal !!!

No expert on the UK's military capabilities. But that's some pretty serious second-strike capability Firepower.

The UK might not be the power it once was, but it's still force to be reckoned with.

That sub is quite impressive

 

[Jungibaaz]

I think the UK is overrated. There is so much more poverty and mismanagement in the country compared to its European neighbours and even France to some extent. It is too dependent on imports and finance although it does still have significant military prowess. Whilst it is more dynamic than say France I dont see the UK maintaining itself especially if Scotland leaves.
It has already begun to lose its diplomatic power and is having to suck up to China and the US at the same time. The only hope in Europe is probably Germany if it wants to remilitarise.
If it manages to stay united and stay afloat after Brexit then maybe it could actually improve with its high growth rate compared to the rest of the region. But right now it is definitely not just another 60 million strong country in Europe.

I agree with that, Britain's own internal political forces have long since started a decline and now they're accelerating it. Brexit is only one small example, neoliberal policy has helped damage the UK quite a lot already.

 

[SMS Derfflinger]

I'm afraid he actually believes everything he says, there's plenty of them around. Attack the UK, fight two front wars, better technology than the F-35 and so on.

But Waz, you are actually fighting a two front war, Afghanistan and us, btw, the last round had gone to us...

 

[Tshering22]

I think it would be very unwise to underestimate these old-world developed countries.

They industrialized over a century ago, while we are still finding our feet.

Their power projection means that they are currently engaged in fighting a war in another continent. Which is a trait of all the P5 members (USA, Russia, Britain, France...) all except China which is still a developing country.

Not really.

From what I read about Chinese government, you guys don't have any interest in fighting overseas battles. And why would you? You have suffered colonialism the same as we have.

Britain on the other hand thrived off naval combat and expeditionary forces.

Two totally different models of rule.

Germany if it wants to remilitarise.

Judging by the way Mr. Toupee is going about asking NATO countries to 'pay up', I guess Germans will have little option but to re-militarise fast so as to get rid of NATO and form a common EU Military.

 

[Vergennes]

@Piotr I hope this picture deosn't hurt.

British soldiers from The Light Dragoons,US soldiers and Polish soldiers united together.

The foreign troops received a warm welcome by the local Poles. @bobo6661

 

[Piotr]

No I don't believe Poles are leeches.

I like Polish folks.

So why do you like @Vergennes calling me "a pole" instead of "a Pole".

You seem to hate the English though.

Hate??? Is this how you call telling the truth? I'm not a hater like @Blue Marlin

No I don't believe Poles are leeches. I like Polish folks. You seem to hate the English though.

Oh yes war crimes, let's see.

On March 19, the Military District Court in Warsaw cleared of war crimes four Polish soldiers accused of killing civilians during their mission in Afghanistan in 2007. The five-judge court declared that “there was a lack of convincing proof that the war crime was committed.”

Court spokesman Tomasz Krajewski stated: “The court did not establish that the soldiers’ actions were deliberate. The shooting of the village was not on purpose; neither was the killing of the civilians.” Three troops were also charged with the lesser violation of improper execution of a command and the use of an incorrect type of weaponry, inconsistent with the rules implemented by the Polish military contingent in Afghanistan.

On August 16, 2007, a Polish squad from the 18th storm trooper battalion, a member of US-NATO forces, fired 24 rounds of mortar shells into a wedding party in the Nangar Khel (Sha Mardan) village in Paktika province of eastern Afghanistan, killing eight civilians. Six were killed immediately while two more died from their injuries at the hospital. Among the victims were the groom, children and women, one of them pregnant. Although an emergency C-section was performed, the baby died.

The unprovoked attack was most likely revenge for the injury suffered by two Polish soldiers from a different unit when their vehicle hit a Taliban mine near the village earlier that day. According to the witnesses, the order carried by Lt. Col. Łukasz “Bolec” Bywalec, was issued by captain Olgierd “Olo” Cieśla, a commander of Charlie combat team at Wazi-Kwa base in Afghanistan, who told his men to “f--- over a couple of villages.”

Commander Maciej Nowak and Lieutenant Artur Pracki, who later served as witnesses for the prosecution, refused to follow the order and contacted the base with a request to stop the attack on the wedding party. It was also reported that the battalion members were wearing informal arm badges with a skull and crossbones on black background, a symbol of the Bielsko-Biała Delta platoon.

In 2009, the Warsaw Military District Court charged four officers and three privates with war crimes for the incident. All seven were acquitted in 2011 for lack of evidence of deliberate killing. The Military Supreme Court trial was reopened for four of them in 2012.

Lt. Col. Łukasz Bywalec, facing 12 years in prison, received a six-month suspended sentence. Warrant officer (reserve) Andrzej Osiecki, facing an eight-year sentence, was given a suspended two-year term. Platoon commander (reserve) Tomasz Borysiewicz, who used the mortar, received a two-year suspended sentence, while Private Damian Ligocki, who shot at the village with the machine gun, was not sentenced. All of the accused pleaded not guilty.

According to the prosecution, the attack on Nangar Khel was a deliberate crime, targeting a civilian population. It was not, as the accused and later the Polish Minister of Defense Bogdan Klich had claimed, a tragic accident during a mission to eliminate identified Taliban targets. The action of the soldiers was not a response to enemy fire, making the use of the mortar against residential buildings unjustified. “The accused acted with a deliberate intent”, stated prosecutor Konopka, “they at least agreed to the death of civilians.”

Defense attorney Witold Leśniewski argued the importance of acquitting the accused in the framework of the political atmosphere and the message a guilty verdict would send to the troops: “The accused are warriors, born soldiers,” he declared in his final statement. “Such people are needed in Poland.”

After the first acquittal, Radosław Sikorski, former minister of foreign affairs in the government of Donald Tusk, commented: “During the war mistakes occur, they always have, but today we can have satisfaction that it does not mean that the Polish soldiers are guilty.”

The announcement that the Nangar Khel massacre was not a war crime sends a very dangerous signal to the public, demonstrating the readiness of the Polish government to support the geostrategic ambitions of US imperialism while ignoring international law.

It is the first time in the history of Poland that its military forces have been openly accused of a violation of The Hague Convention and the Fourth Geneva Convention protecting civilians during armed combat. The court ruling also gives carte blanche to all those who are willing to engage in combat where “collateral damage” is allowed, as the consequences for committing such atrocities are minimal or none.

The Nangar Khel crime is just a tip of the iceberg of unlawful and barbaric actions of the US- and NATO-led war machine in the Middle East. According to a 2014 Amnesty International report, most of war crimes committed by US and NATO forces since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 have gone unpunished.

The report cited only six cases in which members of the military were criminally prosecuted, with only 10 defendants convicted of serious crimes, including in the 2012 case of US Staff Sgt. Robert Bales. In nine out of ten cases, eyewitnesses were not even interviewed by the military investigators.

The enormous scale of US-NATO operations in occupied Afghanistan was revealed in the 2010 disclosures of WikiLeaks, which posted 91,731 American military documents, including thousands of cases of reports of “friendly action” by US-NATO forces. The total number of civilian casualties is unknown, but it can be estimated at tens of thousands.

In 2014 alone, the UN documented 10,548 Afghan civilian casualties, 3,699 deaths and 6,849 injuries. These numbers are most likely higher as nobody bothers to count deaths from hunger and disease among the Afghan people, including refugees who were forced to flee areas affected by war.

From the very beginning Poland, acting as a proxy state, offered its support for US predatory military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its shameful involvement in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan began in March 2002, with the sending to Bagram of approximately 120 logisticians and combat engineers as well as soldiers from special operations unit GROM.

From 2006, as part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), Poland assumed responsibility for the Ghazni Province, where it stationed about 2,600 soldiers and army civilians along with a reserve of 400 soldiers. Despite his pre-election promises of withdrawing troops from Afghanistan by 2012, President Bronisław Komorowski, backed by the Tusk government, offered to send an additional contingent of 2,500 soldiers.

Although Poland’s involvement in the Afghan war officially ended in 2014, the country is still taking part in the Resolute Support Mission that began in January 2015, with about 150 personnel currently stationed in Afghanistan.

In total, more than 28,000 Polish soldiers and army civilians served in Afghanistan: 45 of them died in combat and 866 were wounded, 361 seriously. Materiel losses included three Mi-24 helicopters, three unmanned reconnaissance vehicles and eight Rosomak armored vehicles, among others. The general cost of Polish involvement in Afghanistan is estimated at PLN 5,908.6 billion (approximately US$1.5 billion).

As with the war in Iraq, Poland’s military involvement in Afghanistan was highly unpopular among Poles, with only 17 percent supporting the country’s military operations, according to a 2011 poll taken shortly after the first trial of the soldiers.

Despite the popular opposition to war, the Polish government continues to blindly follow the US lead, committing more funds to revamp its military forces and using conflict in Ukraine as a pretext for a push for war with Russia. Recently, minister of defense Tomasz Siemoniak announced plans to acquire Tomahawk cruise missiles, 1000-mile-range first-strike weapons suited for precise strikes on distant high-value targets.

Last Thursday’s verdict serves to legitimize imperialist war crimes. It is not only the soldiers directly responsible for deaths of eight Afghan civilians who should have received guilty verdicts, but such a judgment should have been extended to all those responsible for the devastation of Afghanistan, from commanders and officers of the Polish army all the way up to President Komorowski, the commander in chief.


https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/03/25/poli-m25.html

Polish solders killed 8 civilians. The English killed tens of millions of civilians.
BTW I've allways been against Poland's participation it US war against Afganistan.

@Piotr I hope this picture deosn't hurt.

British soldiers from The Light Dragoons,US soldiers and Polish soldiers united together.

View attachment 387319

The foreign troops received a warm welcome by the local Poles. @bobo6661

I'm waiting for you to sincerely apologize for calling me "a pole" instead of "a Pole" in other thread.

 

[313ghazi]

The empire was never built on military power, it was built using "foreign investment" (people like East India Company) and by "securing it's interests" (using militias like Blackwater). They relied in traitors in the local people to gain influence. It's only once they had bought a country they'd roll in the British army for maintenance. They were a superpower only when they had the technological advantage of Rail to transport fighters and goods faster than tribals could. They used bullets against spears and swords, that was the super power.

 

[pakdefender]

The English are too shrewd , even when no more kings themselves they find ways make and break kings

Not quite over and done I would say

 

[Blue Marlin]

So why do you like @Vergennes calling me "a pole" instead of "a Pole".



Hate??? Is this how you call telling the truth? I'm not a hater like @Blue Marlin



Polish solders killed 8 civilians. The English killed tens of millions of civilians.
BTW I've allways been against Poland's participation it US war against Afganistan.



I'm waiting for you to sincerely apologize for calling me "a pole" instead of "a Pole" in other thread.

i never said i hated all poles, some are nice .

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

3 more exocet missiles and they would have lost the falklands.

No, Britain would have won even if the 3 missiles hit. Basically the US wanted the British to get their islands back. Even though our hands were tied due to defence treaties with South America we would have done what it takes behind the scenes to make sure the outcome was the same. If that means backing the UK in cutting some sweet deal with the rest of Europe to temporarily hand them 5 ships for every 1 they lost it would have been done.

 

[Pakistani E]

Britain is no longer a major military power? Maybe. Can it still project a strong force way beyond its' border and achieve military objectives? Yes. How many other other countries in the world that can do that?

I am sorry, but reservists in the British Army are better trained, equipped and led than most professional armies of the world. I can tell you that.

Keep dreaming folks. Some nations haven't even caught up with the 18th century Industrialize growth experienced by the U.K yet and they are dreaming of being major powers themselves.

What a bloody farce of a thread.