Geopolitical impact of Brexit

[Steely Glint]

Not sure why we're comparing the size, quality matters much more than quantity. But go on.

Because, again, you used the word smaller.

As for quality, the Germany and Japan are just not that far behind the UK. Germany uses exactly the same aircraft that we do. Japan uses aircraft which are functionally equivalent to various American 4th generation fighters, i.e comparable to the typhoon.

Germany has more in quantity in this, but just this.

Leopard 2 is about the same as the Challenger 2.

UK 856 > Germany 698

Amount of actual warplanes are basically the same.

No I did not. Try pressing Ctrl+F and finding the post where I said that. I did say smaller which is an adjective that refers not just to size.

If you were trying say they were 'smaller powerful', 'smaller effective' or 'smaller capable', I suggest you go back to grammar school: the world you'd be looking for is 'less'.

How does a lack of quality not negate the influence and hypothetical issues.

Because the quality gap simply isn't that great. Some of the best kit the Royal Navy has outperforms the Japanese stuff and the British Army obviously has a hefty chunk of combat experience neither of the other two has, but otherwise they are basically the same.

A willingness to use your strength also matters

If we're playing that card, you should think about the UK willingness or even ability to use it's strength without US support - I am not convinced of UK ability to project it's power successfully against somewhere like Turkey or Egypt if it was acting entirely alone, without allies.

I'm not actually convinced that size is really what lends prestige to a military. Yes, size is part of it, but sophistication and readiness is also a big chunk. The PLA is enormous but doesn't really command much prestige. Even more so for the DPRK forces. Etc.

But, as I said to Randblade, the gap just isn't that big. Germany and the UK even use a lot of the same equipment.

[RandBlade]

Amount of actual warplanes are basically the same.

A warplane with a pilot without any training or experience is about as likely to be used as a nuke.

The RAF pilots have far more experience, have flown in many hostile environments and the reason our plane total is so much higher is because of our training planes. I would not for one second exclude those from any comparison as the fact that our pilots are better trained is a good thing not something to be excluded.

If you were trying say they were 'smaller powerful', 'smaller effective' or 'smaller capable', I suggest you go back to grammar school: the world you'd be looking for is 'less'.

No thanks as I'm not a pretentious grammar Nazi.

Because the quality gap simply isn't that great. Some of the best kit the Royal Navy has outperforms the Japanese stuff and the British Army obviously has a hefty chunk of combat experience neither of the other two has, but otherwise they are basically the same.

Right lets just exclude the "hefty chunk of combat experience" and the training planes, and the reservists who've seen action, and this and that and the other and then they're pretty much the same.

If we're playing that card, you should think about the UK willingness or even ability to use it's strength without US support - I am not convinced of UK ability to project it's power successfully against somewhere like Turkey or Egypt if it was acting entirely alone, without allies.

We have fought wars without the Americans, rarely but that's because we're allies so if one goes in the other generally does too. I don't see how that's a bad thing.

[Hazir]

Falklands war rings a bell?

[RandBlade]

Well I wasn't going to bring it up but since you did yes we whooped the Argies arse without the Yanks intervening. Decisive British victory that led to the fall of General Galtieri.

[Aimless]

Good thing they attacked prematurely and without sufficient force, and good for you that you received US assistance. *pat pat*

[RandBlade]

What US assistance?

[Steely Glint]

The RAF pilots have far more experience, have flown in many hostile environments and the reason our plane total is so much higher is because of our training planes. I would not for one second exclude those from any comparison as the fact that our pilots are better trained is a good thing not something to be excluded.

Source on RAF training being superior to Germany and Japan?

What US assistance?

Satellite intelligence mostly. I don't think the Falkland's War is terribly relevant either way, the cold war was still on and the British military was a lot larger back then, as were the militaries of potential opponents (Argentine being a prime example)

[wiggin]

What US assistance?

In addition to intelligence assistance, the US expedited delivery of Sidewinders to the Brits and apparently contemplated lending them a flattop in the event a carrier was knocked out. The US airbase at Ascension was also employed extensively in support of the operation.

A variety of countries employed economic sanctions as well. IIRC some NZ or Aussie ships were deployed to free up more RN ships for the fight.


As for the rest of this argument, it's clearly silly so I'll leave it at that. Yes, the UK military is one of a small handful that is oriented towards global operations. It is also relatively small and not particularly larger than other Western militaries that do not have global aspirations. They have different capabilities, but it's not obvious that they are uniquely superior. Whether or not that warrants a permanent place on the UNSC is largely irrelevant to reality.

[RandBlade]

Indeed the US did supply back-end support, we permanently share intelligence with each other and not just uniquely due to the conflict. We were not needing to use American ships, planes, marines etc was my point. Though I was not the one to bring up the Falklands into the debate as I thought it was silly myself but since someone else (Hazir) brought it up we may as well resolve that one.

Absolutely the notion of whether or not a place on the UNSC is warranted due to our raw power today is irrelevant as the fact is we have one and it isn't going anywhere any time soon. However again Hazir was the one who started this argument implying the UK lacks any raw power. We'll never match the likes of the USA, USSR [we may plausibly overtake Russia] or China now that its developing but that doesn't matter. For a nation with just under 1% of the world's population we punch well above our weight still.

The fact it is more often than not in co-ordination with our American allies is not a problem, it is a good thing. It allows us to be even more effective by utilising American goodwill (and being utilised in return).

[Hazir]

Yeah, you're so full of raw power that your government didn't know how to publicly climb down fast enough after one of our civil servants showed being annoyed by the Bozo the Clown you have for a minister of foreign affairs. No amount of face saving words can hide the fact that Barnier demanded the statement, and that Davis deivered.

When you talk about the UK's status in the world, especially in relation to the US all you do is bring back memories of Grand Fenwick; you count when everybody else has taken a day off.

[RandBlade]

RIP CETA: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-i...source=twitter

Don't worry Canada once we're free from the shackles of socialist protectionism we'll be free to do a deal.

[Aimless]

CETA is already in effect on a provisional basis. Italy wants to make a show of standing up to the elites by delaying ratification but this is likely to be temporary, just like the last time everyone said RIP CETA.

[RandBlade]

Possibly yes, possibly no. But either way it seems Europe is spiralling into an ever more protectionist mentality - that we're talking about Canada and CETA when we should have been speaking about TTIP by now says it all.

[Hazir]

Why are you obsessing over our trade policies?

[RandBlade]

Because they're currently our policies.

[Hazir]

You expected ratification before you bugger off in 9 months?

[RandBlade]

No but people are still arguing over whether we made the right move or wrong one leaving your bloc. In case you hadn't put 2+2 together I'd have thought this sentence would provide some context: Don't worry Canada once we're free from the shackles of socialist protectionism we'll be free to do a deal.

[Khendraja'aro]

No but people are still arguing over whether we made the right move or wrong one leaving your bloc. In case you hadn't put 2+2 together I'd have thought this sentence would provide some context: Don't worry Canada once we're free from the shackles of socialist protectionism we'll be free to do a deal.

Yeeeees, because "protectionism" is sooooo "socialistic".

Do you even know what the words you're using actually mean?

Also, before you use the word "socialistic" as an insult you might consider the politics of the country you want to trade with, you idiot.

[RandBlade]

Yeeeees, because "protectionism" is sooooo "socialistic".

Do you even know what the words you're using actually mean?

Also, before you use the word "socialistic" as an insult you might consider the politics of the country you want to trade with, you idiot.

For one I didn't use that word.

[Khendraja'aro]

For one I didn't use that word.

Wut?

RIP CETA: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-i...source=twitter

Don't worry Canada once we're free from the shackles of socialist protectionism we'll be free to do a deal.

Going full Trump now, eh?

[RandBlade]

Wut?

I didn't use the word "socialistic" as you put in quote marks twice. I don't think I've ever used that word.

Going full Trump now, eh?

If "full Trump" is seeking more free trade I think you need to get out more.

[Khendraja'aro]

I didn't use the word "socialistic" as you put in quote marks twice. I don't think I've ever used that word.
If "full Trump" is seeking more free trade I think you need to get out more.

Dude, if you want to play the role of a sophist you first should make damn sure that the words you're using refer to what you think they're referring to.

"Socialist" and "socialistic" are equivalents, you numbnut.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialist

Oh no, I added an 'ic' to the word which makes it mean exactly the same! How dastardly insidious of me! It's pretty telling that your strongest argument consists of: "But you didn't spell the word in the same way!"
That's sub-Kindergarten-level.

[RandBlade]

If you're going to use quote marks then the least you can do is make sure the quote is actually what was written. Don't blame me for your mistake. Its interesting that all the examples on your link spell the word the same as I did and not with the extraneous letters you added. The word socialist is itself an adjective so adding "-ic" to it to make it an adjective is utterly redundant.

I know what the word "socialist" means and I stand by it. The EU thanks to the likes of France and Italy has too much socialist protectionism and the sooner we are rid of it the better. Oh and Canada is not socialist in comparison - it may be compared to the USA but the EU is not the USA.

As for your claim that "protectionism" is sooooo "socialistic" yes it can be. Its not always though but in this case it is which is why I added the adjective. Not all cars are red but some cars are including my own, if I refer to my car as a red car then that doesn't mean "cars" are soooooo "red" it means the car I'm referring to is red. Similarly the protectionism I'm referring to is socialist.

[Khendraja'aro]

Dude, you realize that those thingies (") are not exclusively used for quotations, right? Don't try to tell me that you've never run across this figure of speech where someone tells you that you're using a term in the wrong way?

'Sooo, tell me more about those "socialists" of yours...'

In any case, you are obviously incapable of recognizing of when one should stop digging. And this sophistry about "ic" when I just linked to fucking Merriam-Webster is purely moronic. Let's propose a new rule: Whenever someone's sole argument becomes about spelling then he basically just conceded the argument. "Oh my god! You misspelt the word I was using and replaced it with another one with the exact same meaning, thus changing the argument not one iota at all!"

And Canada is not "socialist protectionist" (or whatever terms float your boat, you pedant dimwit)? Right. Have you looked at their dairy industry lately? Also, you realize that their official opposition party (i.e. the strongest one) is a social democratic party?

[RandBlade]

You know those 'thingies' have a name right? They're called quotation marks.

Though you seem to be torn into a split personality unable to accept me referring to the EU as overly-socialist while simultaneously insisting that Canada is socialist. Which is your position, the EU isn't socialist or that Canada is? Or both.

[Khendraja'aro]

The problem is you using words without knowing if they actually apply.