Geostrategic Review: 15 most powerful countries 2014

BuilderPlumber · 17-01-2014 2:47pm

nesf wrote: »

Much of Iran's problem is that they'd get wiped out very fast in a large scale war with most of the countries on that list mainly because you couldn't fight just one country on that list, you'd be fighting them and many of their friends who are also on that list whilst Iran lacks any big ally to bring as whilst Russia and to a lesser extent China would work against any war with Iran they'd be unlikely to actually go to war with a major power over it.

That is true. Iran knows this and what does Iran really want? Apart from the manic depressive, paranoid elements that are on the wane since Hassan Rouhani came to power, what Iran really wants is to replace Saudi Arabia as the key power in the region. Yes, that means Iran wants to be a big US ally but still remains friends with China and Russia, and still remain independent.

Current supreme leader/Shah Ali Khamenei is often referred to in the propaganda press as a hardline, anti-Western leader. However, I doubt if he would have survived long in power in that role. He is cleverer than that and decided to side against the anti-West elements in 2013 because he knew they were driving Iran into a spiral of poverty and isolation that would spell an end to the current system and years of chaos. Khamenei is old enough to have witnessed the 1978-1982 chaotic period and indeed was the first president of Iran to actually last 2 terms without getting impeached or assassinated. Khamenei does not want to return to 1978-82 under any circumstances whereas Ahmadinejad (whose aim was for the military to overthrow Khamenei in the end) did.

Religiously, Iran also wants to move away from the negative 'Taliban voodoo' that the West often depicts Islam as. Any Islamic scholar (which most of Iran's leaders are) know that Islam was until very recently a moderate, tolerant, enlightened force very much at odds with medieval and renaissance era Christianity (Moorish Spain v Spanish Inquisition). Moderate Islam thrived in Iran for centuries. The current leadership of Iran have close relations with the Vatican and moderate Pope Francis is an important role model for those wanting to reform Islam and bring Islam back to its more moderate past. Taliban like movements came out of war and out of the depressive makeups of certain revolutionary leaders much moreso than out of the Koran. Over the top fanaticism has ruined many countries and Iran sees that its future prosperity lies in a much more pragmatic policy. It also is one of the few Middle Eastern countries that is still safe and peaceful and most of Iran's government and people want it to stay like this and prosper. It really is the only country in the region to rival the Saudis as the rest are all weak, at war, or too small. And both Rouhani and even Khamenei know this and want to take advantage of this opportunity.

Scofflaw · 17-01-2014 3:20pm

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

That is true. Iran knows this and what does Iran really want? Apart from the manic depressive, paranoid elements that are on the wane since Hassan Rouhani came to power, what Iran really wants is to replace Saudi Arabia as the key power in the region. Yes, that means Iran wants to be a big US ally but still remains friends with China and Russia, and still remain independent.

Current supreme leader/Shah Ali Khamenei is often referred to in the propaganda press as a hardline, anti-Western leader. However, I doubt if he would have survived long in power in that role. He is cleverer than that and decided to side against the anti-West elements in 2013 because he knew they were driving Iran into a spiral of poverty and isolation that would spell an end to the current system and years of chaos. Khamenei is old enough to have witnessed the 1978-1982 chaotic period and indeed was the first president of Iran to actually last 2 terms without getting impeached or assassinated. Khamenei does not want to return to 1978-82 under any circumstances whereas Ahmadinejad (whose aim was for the military to overthrow Khamenei in the end) did.

Religiously, Iran also wants to move away from the negative 'Taliban voodoo' that the West often depicts Islam as. Any Islamic scholar (which most of Iran's leaders are) know that Islam was until very recently a moderate, tolerant, enlightened force very much at odds with medieval and renaissance era Christianity (Moorish Spain v Spanish Inquisition). Moderate Islam thrived in Iran for centuries. The current leadership of Iran have close relations with the Vatican and moderate Pope Francis is an important role model for those wanting to reform Islam and bring Islam back to its more moderate past. Taliban like movements came out of war and out of the depressive makeups of certain revolutionary leaders much moreso than out of the Koran. Over the top fanaticism has ruined many countries and Iran sees that its future prosperity lies in a much more pragmatic policy. It also is one of the few Middle Eastern countries that is still safe and peaceful and most of Iran's government and people want it to stay like this and prosper. It really is the only country in the region to rival the Saudis as the rest are all weak, at war, or too small. And both Rouhani and even Khamenei know this and want to take advantage of this opportunity.

In another of those "what you see is what you don't get" twists geopolitics is so riddled with, Iran, with its moderate form of Islam, is on the 'axis of evil' list, while Saudi, with its ultra-conservative and militant Wahhabism, is a US ally, even though, of the two, Al Qaeda is associated with the latter, and the 9/11 guys were primarily Saudis, not Iranians. The increased radicalisation of Western Muslims is also associated with the madrassas the Saudis fund with their oil wealth rather than any Iranian endeavour.

Article in the Tehran Times:

Wahhabism, a great threat to Islamic civilization

For over 250 years, Wahhabism has posed a great threat to Islamic society. The ultra-conservative movement is allegedly based on the teachings of the Sunni jurist Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and the ideology was later revised by the Salafists.

http://www.tehrantimes.com/component/content/article/52-guests/108546-wahhabism-a-great-threat-to-islamic-civilization

Makes you wonder, really. Geostrategy makes for strange bedfellows, and even stranger politics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

WakeUp · 17-01-2014 4:06pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'd go more towards the US, Japan, the UK and Turkey as the main players in the next ten years. China's a red herring imo they'll never be a super power, they have too many people living in sub Saharan poverty and two very big bubbles (property and pensions) about to blow in their face.

The Chinese do have issues that need sorting out pensions is a big one though lack of arable land/ fresh water probably tops the list but I still think China will eventually become a superpower my question would be what kind of superpower will they be when this happens? US foreign policy is pivoting from the middle east to Asia I think Obama announced that when he was in Sydney a little while back if I remember correctly.

The sole purpose being to check Chinese blue water navy ambitions in the pacific and other attempts by China to project power outside of its borders. So we know the US are concerned and are acting accordingly. We can also say that the US have decided on a policy of military containment which isnt surprising its how they roll. Only need to look at the tensions surrounding the south China sea to see that the Chinese mean business. The Japanese are extremely concerned with Chinas growth and future expansion plans which they have. I think the seeds are being sown for a future collision between the US and China over regional hegemony of the Asian pacific which will draw in the likes of Japan and the Philippines and other US allies. China may well rise to the top as a result of a military confrontation or threat of thereof.

Like any empires of the past as Chinese power grows that power is inevitably projected to encompass immediate neighbours and over time geographical regions perhaps even continents. Chinas holy grail is control of the pacific basin and all that entails. To achieve dominance they must first displace the US this has years to run but I think we are seeing the begining of it now. The Chinese are coming is a question of when I believe.

gallag · 18-01-2014 3:17pm

WakeUp wrote: »

I would imagine some of the data used to compile the list is really difficult to measure quantitatively as its constantly changing and has to be taken in context. By 2030 China will be the most powerful country on the planet if predicted trends go to plan. They are struggling to find new fresh water supplies and have to import a lot of their food though the figures and trends still suggest they will take over from the States in the next few decades.

Most of the list seems reasonable enough except for Australia not sure how they calculated their position would like to see how they came to that conclusion. I would also put China above Britain. Britain being an island has a distinct advantage in a conventional war. Though throw in a nuclear exchange with say Russia or China and Britain becomes extremely vulnerable & weak with its smaller landmass and dense population centers. Britain may well be able to project its maritime power across the world but what would happen if they sent their navy to take on the Chinese in Chinese waters? Once they arrived they would lose plenty of ships to sunburn missiles and submarines and such and then what. If they used their tridents the Chinese would launch their ICBMs bye bye Britain. USA,China,Britain top three for me China taking second on behalf of its economic might and future potential though lists like these are always relative and need to be taken in context doused in realism when talking of "power".

The U.K is the No1 nuclear power in the world, also in first place are the U.S.A, Russia, China and France. There is no second place, mutually assured destruction (MAD). There is no difference between having 100 nukes and 1 million, the USA could not destroy Russia without Russia returning the favour and the same applies to all nuclear powers.

Your point about the UK being a smaller landmass and ergo easier to destroy is indeed correct but by the time someone has decided to destroy the UK the trident nuclear fleet living dark around the world would come close to the surface and completely wipe out any country or countries they choose, nothing can stop them.

There will be no winners in a nuclear exchange, everyone in the countries that launch nukes will die as a result, even massive countries would be devastated with a small amount of bombs, the ground would be radiated forcing the survivors to drink, eat and breath radiated material, no organised government/health care etc the lucky would be vaporised in the initial wave.

As to the list, it may seem strange to see the UK second but several years ago the UK had a strategic review, in 3-4 years they will have completed this plan resulting in the most advanced navel task force in the world, not the biggest, but a task force that could project power anywhere in the world and be pretty much invincible.

2x Queen Elizabeth carrier's. Each capable of carrying 40+ next gen F35's and apache helicopters.
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Fleet/Ships/Future-Ships/Queen-Elizabeth-Class.

6 type 45 destroyers. Simply the most advanced ships on the water, each capable of shooting down something as small as a cricket ball travelling three times the speed of sound. During war games the Americans had to ask for the Sampson radar to be deactivated as it was To advanced.
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Fleet/Ships/Destroyers/Type-45-Destroyers

7 Astute class nuclear submarines, again the most advanced subs in the world.

Astute will never need refuelling. Her sonar can track ships 3,000 miles (4,830km) away and her missiles have a target range of 1,200 miles (1,930km) - with accuracy measured in metres.

Not only that, Naval Command in Britain can reprogramme the missiles in mid-flight and aim for another target, even if the submarine is thousands of miles away.

The Astute class has stowage for 38 weapons and would typically carry both Spearfish heavy torpedoes and Tomahawk Block IV cruise missiles, the latter costing £870,000 each.[39] The Tomahawk missiles are capable of hitting a target to within a few metres within a range of 1,240 miles[40](2,000 km). The Astute class will also be able to fire the new "tactical Tomahawk" currently under development. The Astute Combat Management System is an evolved version of the Submarine Command System used on other classes of British submarine. The system receives data from the boat's sensors and displays real time imagery on all command consoles. The submarines also haveAtlas Hydrographic DESO 25 high-precision echosounders, two CM010 non-hull-penetratingoptronic masts—in place of conventionalperiscopes—which carry thermal imaging and low-light TV and colour CCD TV sensors.[41] The class also mounts a Raytheon Successor IFF system.

For detecting enemy ships and submarines theAstute class are equipped with the sophisticatedThales Underwater Systems Sonar 2076, an integrated passive/active search and attack sonarsuite with bow, intercept, flank and towed arrays. BAE claims that the 2076 represents a "step change" over previous sonars and is the world's most advanced and effective sonar system.[42]

In 2012, during simulated battles with the United States Navy's latest Virginia-class submarine (theUSS New Mexico), it was reported that the Americans were "taken aback" by Astute's capabilities. Royal Navy Commander Ian Breckenridge was quoted saying: “Our sonar is fantastic and I have never before experienced holding a submarine at the range we were holding USS New Mexico. The Americans were utterly taken aback, blown away with what they were seeing.”

4 vanguard class nuclear ballistic submarines. Deployed around the world, never need to refuel, strengthened bridges to punch trough ice, they can sit in the north pole and rise to launch over 100 nuclear war heads. It says on the royal Navy's site " submarines are the UK's ultimate shield and sword, as the Navy's 'bombers' carry the nation’s strategic nuclear deterrent in the shape of Trident nuclear missiles. One of these four big submarines is always on patrol somewhere in the world's oceans, a round-the-clock insurance policy for the country."

Scofflaw · 18-01-2014 4:07pm

We may have crossed the line there between geostrategic considerations and military porn...

cordially,
Scofflaw

gallag · 18-01-2014 4:19pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

We may have crossed the line there between geostrategic considerations and military porn...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Is discussing the UK's capabilities not relevant to discussing it's seemingly high place on this list? Could you expand on your point anymore or should it just be taken as a sarcastic swipe?

Scofflaw · 18-01-2014 5:01pm

gallag wrote: »

Is discussing the UK's capabilities not relevant to discussing it's seemingly high place on this list? Could you expand on your point anymore or should it just be taken as a sarcastic swipe?

It wasn't intended as sarcastic, but, sure, it can be expanded. The details of UK naval power you're pasted aren't really all that relevant unless you're prepared to similarly paste details for each and every other country in the list*, because the point here is relative geostrategic power (of which naval power is just one element). I suspect that a recitation of French, US or Russian naval forces would be equally excitingly military, and probably a good deal longer too.

As such, the recitation of just how impressive the new RN ships are (never mind how few they are) just looks like Union Jack willy-waving.

cordially,
Scofflaw

*NB. don't do this

gallag · 18-01-2014 6:03pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

It wasn't intended as sarcastic, but, sure, it can be expanded. The details of UK naval power you're pasted aren't really all that relevant unless you're prepared to similarly paste details for each and every other country in the list*, because the point here is relative geostrategic power (of which naval power is just one element). I suspect that a recitation of French, US or Russian naval forces would be equally excitingly military, and probably a good deal longer too.

As such, the recitation of just how impressive the new RN ships are (never mind how few they are) just looks like Union Jack willy-waving.

cordially,
Scofflaw

*NB. don't do this

At this point you can drop the cordially, what an ignorant post, I was responding to the post I quoted, my post was completely relevant to discussing the UK's seemingly high place on that list, you have an obvious agenda to take a completely on topic post and lower it to "union jack willy waving" .

The U.K is a few years away from completing the modernisation of their fleet and it is using some ground breaking and leading edge equipment, you are wrong that every other country is also doing this.

I find your post needlessly confrontational and not acceptable for a mod.

nesf · 18-01-2014 8:00pm

gallag wrote: »

At this point you can drop the cordially, what an ignorant post, I was responding to the post I quoted, my post was completely relevant to discussing the UK's seemingly high place on that list, you have an obvious agenda to take a completely on topic post and lower it to "union jack willy waving" .

The U.K is a few years away from completing the modernisation of their fleet and it is using some ground breaking and leading edge equipment, you are wrong that every other country is also doing this.

I find your post needlessly confrontational and not acceptable for a mod.

The UK is unusually miliarised compared to most countries, the exceptions are also on that list, e.g. Germany and France. I don't see the need to bang the drum too much anyone with any understanding of modern warfare and national armies would rank the British along the other European countries I mentioned near the top of any list. Where they would get annhilated would be in a WWII style land war with someone like Russia or China but since everyone worth talking about military wise either has nukes or has a very close alliiance to someone with nukes this is irrelevant to the discussion. We're not going to be seeing any large scale conventional warfare between major powers any time soon.

Regardless, it's pretty pointless to pick any one country out of the list on geostrategic considerations. The UK's strength is not just her armies and fleets but her alliances. Considering a war with the UK would be a war with the UK, the EU, the US, Canada and others it doesn't even make much sense to talk about just the UK in a war, you couldn't attack it without starting World War III and then we're back to nukes again.

Scofflaw · 18-01-2014 8:11pm

gallag wrote: »

At this point you can drop the cordially, what an ignorant post, I was responding to the post I quoted, my post was completely relevant to discussing the UK's seemingly high place on that list, you have an obvious agenda to take a completely on topic post and lower it to "union jack willy waving" .

The U.K is a few years away from completing the modernisation of their fleet and it is using some ground breaking and leading edge equipment, you are wrong that every other country is also doing this.

I find your post needlessly confrontational and not acceptable for a mod.

Shrug. A pasted detailed recitation of the UK's strength in a single category of the list isn't all that useful - but there wasn't ever any plan to stop you, so you can unbunch and move on.

cordially,
Scofflaw

gallag · 18-01-2014 9:44pm

nesf wrote: »

The UK is unusually miliarised compared to most countries, the exceptions are also on that list, e.g. Germany and France. I don't see the need to bang the drum too much anyone with any understanding of modern warfare and national armies would rank the British along the other European countries I mentioned near the top of any list. Where they would get annhilated would be in a WWII style land war with someone like Russia or China but since everyone worth talking about military wise either has nukes or has a very close alliiance to someone with nukes this is irrelevant to the discussion. We're not going to be seeing any large scale conventional warfare between major powers any time soon.

Regardless, it's pretty pointless to pick any one country out of the list on geostrategic considerations. The UK's strength is not just her armies and fleets but her alliances. Considering a war with the UK would be a war with the UK, the EU, the US, Canada and others it doesn't even make much sense to talk about just the UK in a war, you couldn't attack it without starting World War III and then we're back to nukes again.

Completely agree with all your points, a lot of people would be surprised that the U.K was no2 on that list and since the U.K was near completing an unprecedented overhaul and putting together the most advanced navel task force in the world I thought it deserved mention, don't know why it caused upset.

gallag · 18-01-2014 9:52pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Shrug. A pasted detailed recitation of the UK's strength in a single category of the list isn't all that useful - but there wasn't ever any plan to stop you, so you can unbunch and move on.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It wasn't all "pasted" you are usually the one shouting for citation so I was posting references to back up my claim that the UK will have the most technologically advanced task force in the world. You say this was not useful but for people who couldn't understand why the UK were two on that list it might have been interesting, again you have to reduce your post to childish insults, the "unbunch" comment really should be beneath you.

Scofflaw · 18-01-2014 10:12pm

gallag wrote: »

Completely agree with all your points, a lot of people would be surprised that the U.K was no2 on that list and since the U.K was near completing an unprecedented overhaul and putting together the most advanced navel task force in the world I thought it deserved mention, don't know why it caused upset.

I'm not sure either, since my original comment was extremely mild and also intended flippantly. I'm not even arguing that the UK is anything other than a major military power (on the contrary, I always think people hugely underestimate it) - I just don't think a detailed list of UK naval mil-tech tells you anything useful about its comparative position without a similar review of every other country in the list, and as such, it really does seem like flag-waving (if you prefer that term).

On the other hand, if the thread were to turn into a Jane's trading card game, that would be an issue.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf · 18-01-2014 11:29pm

gallag wrote: »

Completely agree with all your points, a lot of people would be surprised that the U.K was no2 on that list and since the U.K was near completing an unprecedented overhaul and putting together the most advanced navel task force in the world I thought it deserved mention, don't know why it caused upset.

I think people get confused because they're still thinking of WWII and large infantry armies supported by tanks fighting inch by inch across continents. Wars involving major powers aren't fought like this anymore. In WWII terms the British aren't a big military power, most of the bigger countries would just outlast them in the field and people still think of armies in this way when now, eh, a well placed precision munition does the job that used to take 2 months and 50,000 men.

WakeUp · 19-01-2014 3:05am

gallag wrote: »

The U.K is the No1 nuclear power in the world, also in first place are the U.S.A, Russia, China and France. There is no second place, mutually assured destruction (MAD). There is no difference between having 100 nukes and 1 million, the USA could not destroy Russia without Russia returning the favour and the same applies to all nuclear powers.

Your point about the UK being a smaller landmass and ergo easier to destroy is indeed correct but by the time someone has decided to destroy the UK the trident nuclear fleet living dark around the world would come close to the surface and completely wipe out any country or countries they choose, nothing can stop them.

There will be no winners in a nuclear exchange, everyone in the countries that launch nukes will die as a result, even massive countries would be devastated with a small amount of bombs, the ground would be radiated forcing the survivors to drink, eat and breath radiated material, no organised government/health care etc the lucky would be vaporised in the initial wave.

As to the list, it may seem strange to see the UK second but several years ago the UK had a strategic review, in 3-4 years they will have completed this plan resulting in the most advanced navel task force in the world, not the biggest, but a task force that could project power anywhere in the world and be pretty much invincible.

2x Queen Elizabeth carrier's. Each capable of carrying 40+ next gen F35's and apache helicopters.
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Fleet/Ships/Future-Ships/Queen-Elizabeth-Class.

6 type 45 destroyers. Simply the most advanced ships on the water, each capable of shooting down something as small as a cricket ball travelling three times the speed of sound. During war games the Americans had to ask for the Sampson radar to be deactivated as it was To advanced.
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Fleet/Ships/Destroyers/Type-45-Destroyers

7 Astute class nuclear submarines, again the most advanced subs in the world.

Astute will never need refuelling. Her sonar can track ships 3,000 miles (4,830km) away and her missiles have a target range of 1,200 miles (1,930km) - with accuracy measured in metres.

Not only that, Naval Command in Britain can reprogramme the missiles in mid-flight and aim for another target, even if the submarine is thousands of miles away.

The Astute class has stowage for 38 weapons and would typically carry both Spearfish heavy torpedoes and Tomahawk Block IV cruise missiles, the latter costing £870,000 each.[39] The Tomahawk missiles are capable of hitting a target to within a few metres within a range of 1,240 miles[40](2,000 km). The Astute class will also be able to fire the new "tactical Tomahawk" currently under development. The Astute Combat Management System is an evolved version of the Submarine Command System used on other classes of British submarine. The system receives data from the boat's sensors and displays real time imagery on all command consoles. The submarines also haveAtlas Hydrographic DESO 25 high-precision echosounders, two CM010 non-hull-penetratingoptronic masts—in place of conventionalperiscopes—which carry thermal imaging and low-light TV and colour CCD TV sensors.[41] The class also mounts a Raytheon Successor IFF system.

For detecting enemy ships and submarines theAstute class are equipped with the sophisticatedThales Underwater Systems Sonar 2076, an integrated passive/active search and attack sonarsuite with bow, intercept, flank and towed arrays. BAE claims that the 2076 represents a "step change" over previous sonars and is the world's most advanced and effective sonar system.[42]

In 2012, during simulated battles with the United States Navy's latest Virginia-class submarine (theUSS New Mexico), it was reported that the Americans were "taken aback" by Astute's capabilities. Royal Navy Commander Ian Breckenridge was quoted saying: “Our sonar is fantastic and I have never before experienced holding a submarine at the range we were holding USS New Mexico. The Americans were utterly taken aback, blown away with what they were seeing.”

4 vanguard class nuclear ballistic submarines. Deployed around the world, never need to refuel, strengthened bridges to punch trough ice, they can sit in the north pole and rise to launch over 100 nuclear war heads. It says on the royal Navy's site " submarines are the UK's ultimate shield and sword, as the Navy's 'bombers' carry the nation’s strategic nuclear deterrent in the shape of Trident nuclear missiles. One of these four big submarines is always on patrol somewhere in the world's oceans, a round-the-clock insurance policy for the country."

Yep, agree with your comments about nuclear weapons there are no winners everyone loses though militarily , nukes excluded , Britain is no threat to China and the only way they could hope to dominate China in a fight would be to nuke them which would be the end of Britain. I read a paper well some of it to cut a long story short it was a study on the implications of a Russian first strike on the US involving between 300 and 350 thermonuclear weapons. The Russians have the best missile tech in the world in my opinion, the likes of their S400 (non-nuclear) system is at least 15 years ahead of everything else it has no equal. They came to the conclusion that within the first half an hour 95 million people would die. Within two years half of the remaining population would also be dead and that is without population centers being direct first targets as they would go after military infrastructure first. Britain is roughly the same size as the state of Oregon and even a minimal nuclear strike would cripple and destroy them whereas they would need to launch everything they have to return the favour so to speak.

With regard to the current/future British navy and the US and other European navies they are yet to be truly tested and until then I will reserve judgement on their actual capability in a proper fight. During the Falklands war Argentina possessed 5 French made exocet anti-ship missiles. All five were fired, 2 missed 3 hit their targets two ships were sunk one of them a destroyer and one ship was damaged and taken out of action. Had Argentina more of these missiles they could have in theory sank the entire British fleet and history may well be different.

Fast forward to today and we have the sunburn missile which in my opinion is the most lethal missile in existance today the Americans call them carrier killers. Russia, China and Iran have thousands of them. This missile is the reason why the US and their allies are yet to attack Iran and its why the Iranians are so brazen about their capabilities. Hezbollah took an Israeli ship out of action in 2006 using a sunburn they only fired one and it hit its target. Israel was at war at the time though they claim the ship had its advanced radars switched "off" when hit. Yeah right. The ships defences were defeated. The US and British surface fleets are yet to be truly tested by a worthwhile opponent and in the sunburn they have more than met their match I certainly would not want to be anywhere near a ship being blitzed by these badboys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbPFEpJSRT8

gallag · 19-01-2014 2:29pm

WakeUp wrote: »

Yep, agree with your comments about nuclear weapons there are no winners everyone loses though militarily , nukes excluded , Britain is no threat to China and the only way they could hope to dominate China in a fight would be to nuke them which would be the end of Britain. I read a paper well some of it to cut a long story short it was a study on the implications of a Russian first strike on the US involving between 300 and 350 thermonuclear weapons. The Russians have the best missile tech in the world in my opinion, the likes of their S400 (non-nuclear) system is at least 15 years ahead of everything else it has no equal. They came to the conclusion that within the first half an hour 95 million people would die. Within two years half of the remaining population would also be dead and that is without population centers being direct first targets as they would go after military infrastructure first. Britain is roughly the same size as the state of Oregon and even a minimal nuclear strike would cripple and destroy them whereas they would need to launch everything they have to return the favour so to speak.

With regard to the current/future British navy and the US and other European navies they are yet to be truly tested and until then I will reserve judgement on their actual capability in a proper fight. During the Falklands war Argentina possessed 5 French made exocet anti-ship missiles. All five were fired, 2 missed 3 hit their targets two ships were sunk one of them a destroyer and one ship was damaged and taken out of action. Had Argentina more of these missiles they could have in theory sank the entire British fleet and history may well be different.

Fast forward to today and we have the sunburn missile which in my opinion is the most lethal missile in existance today the Americans call them carrier killers. Russia, China and Iran have thousands of them. This missile is the reason why the US and their allies are yet to attack Iran and its why the Iranians are so brazen about their capabilities. Hezbollah took an Israeli ship out of action in 2006 using a sunburn they only fired one and it hit its target. Israel was at war at the time though they claim the ship had its advanced radars switched "off" when hit. Yeah right. The ships defences were defeated. The US and British surface fleets are yet to be truly tested by a worthwhile opponent and in the sunburn they have more than met their match I certainly would not want to be anywhere near a ship being blitzed by these badboys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbPFEpJSRT8

Agree, but I think that is why the UK's strategic review went smart, the type 45 is a game changer in missile defence, a carrier protected by 2-3 of these would be very hard to penetrate, they can destroy a cricket ball sized target travelling at 3 times the speed of sound 70 miles away. That's why I believe a task force comprising of 2 Queen Elizabeth carrier's with 100 F35's , 6 type 45 destroyers and a few Astute class nuclear submarines would be to much for Russia or China to deal with, but I also agree what's the point? The U.K may be able to project power better than the Russians or Chinese and have a better blue water navy but they would never be able to actually invade those countries without getting their ass whooped, and then if it gets to the point of needing type 45's shooting down Russian or Chinese missiles it's probably going to escalate to nukes and we would all be screwed anyway.

I suppose a lot of this equipment is pointless, what real threats are there to the U.K? The Falklands? Spain taking Gibraltar? I would imagine one type45 of the Falklands would do, probably just the UK trying to remain important to America? Personally I would ditch most of the carriers, destroyers etc and increase the trident nuclear fleet and just have a foreign policy of leave us alone and we will leave you alone!

nesf · 19-01-2014 3:14pm

gallag wrote: »

Agree, but I think that is why the UK's strategic review went smart, the type 45 is a game changer in missile defence, a carrier protected by 2-3 of these would be very hard to penetrate, they can destroy a cricket ball sized target travelling at 3 times the speed of sound 70 miles away. That's why I believe a task force comprising of 2 Queen Elizabeth carrier's with 100 F35's , 6 type 45 destroyers and a few Astute class nuclear submarines would be to much for Russia or China to deal with, but I also agree what's the point? The U.K may be able to project power better than the Russians or Chinese and have a better blue water navy but they would never be able to actually invade those countries without getting their ass whooped, and then if it gets to the point of needing type 45's shooting down Russian or Chinese missiles it's probably going to escalate to nukes and we would all be screwed anyway.

I suppose a lot of this equipment is pointless, what real threats are there to the U.K? The Falklands? Spain taking Gibraltar? I would imagine one type45 of the Falklands would do, probably just the UK trying to remain important to America? Personally I would ditch most of the carriers, destroyers etc and increase the trident nuclear fleet and just have a foreign policy of leave us alone and we will leave you alone!

The equipment on both sides isn't there because they expect a war with one of the other major power blocs soon, it's there a) to make it obvious that any conventional war with them will be extremely costly and b) to allow them to operate in smaller war theaters either through arming puppets or direct action. The British aren't worried about Soviet fired Sunburns, they're more worried about Soviet made Sunburns. That said, the lack of massive investment in these kinds of missiles by pretty much everybody does underlie just how good anti-missile defense has gotten since the Cold War. We're almost approaching a WWI type situation where defensive technologies have made almost everyone want to be the defender tactically.

One problem perhaps with the analysis that was done is that the US and UK naturally can project their power more than Russia and China simply because Russia and China protect their interests in ways other than sending troops (excluding land neighbours).

Eggy Baby! · 19-01-2014 7:10pm

Not surprised at all that Russia and China are 3rd and 4th on the list. In a list of pure military capability, it would be USA - China/Russia - UK. I think its also amazing how Russia has come so far up the list....ten or fifteen years ago it wouldn't even have been in the top 10.

Secondly, its impossible to measure power, particularly cultural power. Military power is much easier to measure because you can count tanks, troops, jets, ships etc. Even then, why does cultural power factor into this index? Diplomatic power essentially includes cultural power... and it is to my understanding that the Americans didn't invade Iraq with hamburgers and apple pie, nor did the Russian assert the autonomy of Abkhazia and South Ossetia by bombarding the Georgians with balalaikas and matryoshka dolls.

2x Queen Elizabeth carrier's. Each capable of carrying 40+ next gen F35's and apache helicopters.
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Flee...lizabeth-Class.

6 type 45 destroyers. Simply the most advanced ships on the water, each capable of shooting down something as small as a cricket ball travelling three times the speed of sound. During war games the Americans had to ask for the Sampson radar to be deactivated as it was To advanced.
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Flee...-45-Destroyers

Lastly, Scofflaw is right, your post is Union Jack willy waving. Reminds me of that silly show "Future Weapons" hosted by Generic Ex-Navy SEAL No. 467 where they said "Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide" to describe everything.

Plus, who would want to fire a cricket ball at a ship?

(And the F35 is a white elephant project. The whole thing has been plagued by overruns and ballooning development costs, similar to the F22. The only reason these projects have been commissioned is because the American government and the defense industries are involving in a massive trillion dollar circlejerk.)

Scofflaw · 20-01-2014 12:04am

nesf wrote: »

One problem perhaps with the analysis that was done is that the US and UK naturally can project their power more than Russia and China simply because Russia and China protect their interests in ways other than sending troops (excluding land neighbours).

That would be the problem with a purely military analysis, but the analysis wasn't purely military, and the US and UK also protect their interests in such ways.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf · 20-01-2014 2:45am

Scofflaw wrote: »

That would be the problem with a purely military analysis, but the analysis wasn't purely military, and the US and UK also protect their interests in such ways.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Indeed, but it's far easier to count ships than influence unless you've access to a super power's intelligence logs for the evening.

My point was more that the way the scoring was split inflates the US and UK scores somewhat while diminishing those of China and Russia compared to how much actual violence they can create far from their borders in their interests.

Phill Ewinn · 20-01-2014 5:51am

Most of the countries onthat list are Asian/ on the continent of Asia. Thats the benefit of collaboration through the last 15 years. A massive arms build up in the region has raised no eyebrows it seems.

Germany is still the no.1 European Power.

Phill Ewinn · 20-01-2014 5:56am

Speaking specifically about weapons the recent 3 stage Russian cruise missile is tough to defend against. Its final stage accelerates to mach5? India and China are making copies or improvements to this design.

Again. A game changer on the Asian continent.

Geostrategic Review: 15 most powerful countries 2014

Comments