Britain is STILL the world’s second most powerful nation!

[Yaseen1]

u.k has small number of nukes and submarine as compared to russia russia has best airdefense than u.k and although russia may suffer loss but u.k will suffer more than russia due to less strategic depth

That may be so, but Britain also has massive second-strike nuclear capability that would make much of Russia uninhabitable for the next Thousand Years.

TBH don't know if it would really be a thousand years or not, but you get my point.

Remember, nuclear war between nuclear Powers is not a one-way War. So let's not pretend it would be.

 

[KAL-EL]

I don't know how much land or sea based nuclear deterrent the Brits actually have. But you calling them small is a bit naive imho.

Unlike a few here, I don't pretend to be a nuclear weapons expert. Hopefully one of those will chime in about the UK's nuclear depth

Only someone who lives in a fantasy world would think that the Russians wouldn't suffer severe losses with major cities gone etc etc.

But yes, Russia has an incredible strategic depth and would certainly come out the winner in the nuke Department. Although in an all-out nuclear war, there would be no real winners.

 

[Vergennes]

I don't know how much land or sea based nuclear deterrent the Brits actually have. But you calling them small is a bit naive imho.

Unlike a few here, I don't pretend to be a nuclear weapons expert. Hopefully one of those will chime in about the UK's nuclear depth

Only someone who lives in a fantasy world would think that the Russians wouldn't suffer severe losses with major cities gone etc etc.

But yes, Russia has an incredible strategic depth and would certainly come out the winner in the nuke Department. Although in an all-out nuclear war, there would be no real winners.

Britain might not have as much nuclear weapons as Russia does,however it has the capacity to bring any country with them in their fall...

 

[Cell_DbZ]

I don't know how much land or sea based nuclear deterrent the Brits actually have. But you calling them small is a bit naive imho.

The Royal navy has 4 Vanguard class Nuclear Balistic Missile Submarines (SSBN). If you take into account that many tasks like maintenance, crew training and so forth is divided between a relatively small fleet, it is unlikely that all 4 of them are on patrol at the same time.

The U.S. navy has now 14 SSBN (with 2 of them often in maintenance, lasting at least a year) and each sub does about 2.5 patrols a year with them lasting about 3 months. totalling roughly 175 days a year for one American SSBN (2012 figures).
Source: https://fas.org/blogs/security/2013/04/ssbnpatrols/

There's not much info about Royal navy submarine patrol at all.
But I found an article from 2013 that there have been 100 patrols from Vanguard class SSBN's.
Source: https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2013/july/26/130726-victorious-clyde

The Vanguard cass has been in service 33 years until that point, but only from 2000 all 4 of them have been in active service at the same time. Also you have to consider that after comissionsing, a submarine or surface ship won't get into complete active service straight away, having to complete final tests and thus likely wouldn't conduct a deterrence patrol right away.
The first Vanguard has been commissoned in 1993. (the second in 1995, third in 1996 and fourth in 1999). So only from 2000 4 SSBN's of the Vanguard class have been active.

A Vanguard has between 8 to 16 trident missiles with each up to 8 warheads so anywhere between 64 and 128 nuclear warheads at anytime could hit Russia. That's very damaging. If the Royal navy would have other SSBN's out there, it would be likely that any submarine base would be targeted by the Russians in case of nuclear war, destroying any stationed SSBN. So second strike capability of the Royal navy would be limited.

The Royal navy says there's always 1 SSBN out there, never all 4 at the same time to ensure continous deterrence
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/operations/global/continuous-at-sea-deterrent

If we assume that the Royal navy has constant deterrence and that a SSBN patrol last 3 months roughly, then that means that there's always 1 out but not more than 1 either.

Unlike a few here, I don't pretend to be a nuclear weapons expert. Hopefully one of those will chime in about the UK's nuclear depth

Defintely not an expert either.

I get most of my info from an U.S. navy sonar operator who has had a decorated career.
His Youtube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9bMgCQyFNaMPsK9GtzM5dQ

Only someone who lives in a fantasy world would think that the Russians wouldn't suffer severe losses with major cities gone etc etc.

But yes, Russia has an incredible strategic depth and would certainly come out the winner in the nuke Department. Although in an all-out nuclear war, there would be no real winners.

Yeah, I agree, while Russia has a larger SSBN fleet and more nuclear weapons. Having an all out nuclear with any country with nukes is going to be devestating no matter who destroyed the other 'more'. Let alone that it would never stay between Russia and the U.K. at all... (USA, Nato,...)

 

[Sanchez]

LOL

 

[Awan68]

That may be so, but Britain also has massive second-strike nuclear capability that would make much of Russia uninhabitable for the next Thousand Years.

TBH don't know if it would really be a thousand years or not, but you get my point.

Remember, nuclear war between nuclear Powers is not a one-way War. So let's not pretend it would be.

A conventional scenario with Russia looks even more uglier for Britain mate...

 

[925boy]

I don't know how much land or sea based nuclear deterrent the Brits actually have. But you calling them small is a bit naive imho.

Unlike a few here, I don't pretend to be a nuclear weapons expert. Hopefully one of those will chime in about the UK's nuclear depth

Only someone who lives in a fantasy world would think that the Russians wouldn't suffer severe losses with major cities gone etc etc.

But yes, Russia has an incredible strategic depth and would certainly come out the winner in the nuke Department. Although in an all-out nuclear war, there would be no real winners.

But why does my internal gut feel tell me Britain fears a war against Russia that she fights alone? But UK does have nuclear weapons, so lets not forget what that means.

 

[FuturePAF]

If seen in totality, soft power+hard power+economic power are the measure of a nations total power. By this Measure, Nations have spheres of Influence. China's is expanding by at different amount in different regions. The memory of the British Empire is fading and so is the influence. China has taken the place of the Soviet union as the eastern power for nations that don't want to fit into the western power structure.

Due to their economic development, China will start to be the most powerful nation to many countries sooner rather than later. It already is for the central asian nations, and is becoming the most powerful in south Asia.

One measure to watch is trade. How much Trade does China do with these countries, especially exports to China from these countries. When China overtakes America as their largest trading partner, then you will know China is #1 for that specific country. So by this measure China will not be the second most powerful country among Europeans but if you calculate by each nations GDP and How much China accounts for their GDP/Trade, then you will see who holds the gold and who makes the rules.

China is already India's Largest trading partner and it has a government that can control bilateral trade. If India messes with China, China can decline to accept raw materials from India or export certain key products needed for Indian development. India needs to keep prices down to stay competitive in Global trade, so India needs to remember which side its Naan is buttered.

Currently India Exports more to the US, but if the Chinese Domestic market develops, and India an China reconcile key issues. China may allow greater imports from India (such as over the Nepalese rail link) or overland through Assam. Ultimately changing the calculus that India sees now, where it exports $52.8 Billion to the EU, $48.8 Billion to the US, and nearly $28 Billion to China and Hong Kong (China).

https://www.news18.com/news/busines...f-100-billion-by-2020-xi-to-modi-1773725.html

 

[DejanSRB]

Britain might not have as much nuclear weapons as Russia does,however it has the capacity to bring any country with them in their fall...

Uk cant bring US or Russia with them in nuclear total war.

Why?

1) Size of nuclear arsenal 300 vs 10000. It is like a fight between nine year old girl and greco roman wrestler.
2) Nuclear technology - Russia is most powerful and advanced country when it comes to nuclear weapons. Yars and Sarmat would pierce British shield like nothing.
3) Size of country - UK is very populated country. 66 million people live ON NEARLY 2 % OF SIZE OF RUSSIA.
4) Russia can wipe out 90% of British population. Britain never had that capability, dont have and never will due to Russian nuclear arsenal and its immense size.

 

[Tshering22]

Hardly.

While UK may remain a newly crowned regional power, its power projection is limited to Northern Europe. Conducting some missions in Somalia unilaterally or deploying SAS for random, isolated military objectives is more of a habit from its colonial remains than anything else.

Commonwealth nations today are nothing more than a champagne-and-snacks party of already stout politicians, seeing which business deals they can do with each other. Most of the countries in Commonwealth, treat it like a diplomatic conference and can exit anytime they want and still retain a lot of diplomatic options through the UN or BRICS or ASEAN+ dialogue or anything else.

UK retains a technological edge but to say that they are ahead of Russia and China is nothing but empty chest-thumping.

From a military perspective, Russia of today would chew on the Britain of today. Russian soldiers are as battle-hardened as British and outnumber them by a massive margin. This is not even comparing the massive arsenal difference of conventional military assets that the two have.

China is leagues ahead of UK and if it came to a pure China vs UK today; God won't be able to save the Queen.

Without USA and 25 other European countries, UK would not last more than maybe 2 weeks, if it came to a full-blown war between the two countries.

 

[UKBengali]

Uk cant bring US or Russia with them in nuclear total war.

Why?

1) Size of nuclear arsenal 300 vs 10000. It is like a fight between nine year old girl and greco roman wrestler.
2) Nuclear technology - Russia is most powerful and advanced country when it comes to nuclear weapons. Yars and Sarmat would pierce British shield like nothing.
3) Size of country - UK is very populated country. 66 million people live ON NEARLY 2 % OF SIZE OF RUSSIA.
4) Russia can wipe out 90% of British population. Britain never had that capability, dont have and never will due to Russian nuclear arsenal and its immense size.

UK does not need to wipe out 90% of Russian population.

It can however, wipe out Moscow, Leningrad and other large Russia cities with ease - this is enough to destroy Russia as a functional state.

In a nuclear war between UK and Russia, UK will be wiped out but Russia will cease to be a functional state with the destruction of it's largest cities. No one wins in the end.

 

[Mrc]

Actually its not.... Its forces are too few in numbers and technology advantages does not exist any more... And may even have reversed with regards to china. .


This kind of false assumptions resulted in brexit in first place

 

[UKBengali]

But why does my internal gut feel tell me Britain fears a war against Russia that she fights alone? But UK does have nuclear weapons, so lets not forget what that means.

Actually RN would be able to beat the Russians out in the open ocean and that is the only realistic scenario likely.
UK has better SSNs, destroyers and frigates and so Russian numerical superiority would not help them that much.

Russian airforce would be no match for RAF as their Migs and Sukhois would be eaten alive by the Meteor equipped Eurofighters.

Only area that Russia would beat UK is in Army but that is not realistic scenario as the two do not share a land border.

 

[nahtanbob]

u.k has small number of nukes and submarine as compared to russia russia has best airdefense than u.k and although russia may suffer loss but u.k will suffer more than russia due to less strategic depth

if Moscow, Petersbug, Volgograd are hit by thermonuclear devices rest of Russia will survive. But Russia will never be the same

Actually RN would be able to beat the Russians out in the open ocean and that is the only realistic scenario likely.
UK has better SSNs, destroyers and frigates and so Russian numerical superiority would not help them that much.

Russian airforce would be no match for RAF as their Migs and Sukhois would be eaten alive by the Meteor equipped Eurofighters.

Only area that Russia would beat UK is in Army but that is not realistic scenario as the two do not share a land border.

Russian army could not get to UK in any way

Hardly.

While UK may remain a newly crowned regional power, its power projection is limited to Northern Europe. Conducting some missions in Somalia unilaterally or deploying SAS for random, isolated military objectives is more of a habit from its colonial remains than anything else.

Commonwealth nations today are nothing more than a champagne-and-snacks party of already stout politicians, seeing which business deals they can do with each other. Most of the countries in Commonwealth, treat it like a diplomatic conference and can exit anytime they want and still retain a lot of diplomatic options through the UN or BRICS or ASEAN+ dialogue or anything else.

UK retains a technological edge but to say that they are ahead of Russia and China is nothing but empty chest-thumping.

From a military perspective, Russia of today would chew on the Britain of today. Russian soldiers are as battle-hardened as British and outnumber them by a massive margin. This is not even comparing the massive arsenal difference of conventional military assets that the two have.

China is leagues ahead of UK and if it came to a pure China vs UK today; God won't be able to save the Queen.

Without USA and 25 other European countries, UK would not last more than maybe 2 weeks, if it came to a full-blown war between the two countries.

what are battle hardened Russian soldiers going to do ? They cannot reach British soil
they cannot reverse the effects of nukes on Russian cities

 

[Tshering22]

what are battle hardened Russian soldiers going to do ? They cannot reach British soil
they cannot reverse the effects of nukes on Russian cities

I am talking about a conventional warfare scenario.

With nukes no one wins.