4 ms·

Interested in knowing who considers the UK a superpower in 1980s, never mind in 2020s... Argentina is a regional power. That a population of a tiny island much

by 627467 6y ago

Interested in knowing who considers the UK a superpower in 1980s, never mind in 2020s... Argentina is a regional power. That a population of a tiny island much closer to a single country than to any other landmass nearby would prefer to stay effectively isolated and dependent on a "foreign" power, says for to the appeal of being part of Argentina than to whatever deal the UK has been offering to the Islanders. Nothing like HK at all where majority of population actually doesn't mind (accepts) mainland rule

alexpotato 6y ago
The UK was, and still is, a nuclear power so I would argue it's closer to super than non. Plus, there is a great quote about the US vs the UK regarding nuclear weapons: - Everyone respects the US because they were the biggest NATO military and had nuclear weapons - Everyone feared the UK because due to their island mentality, if push came to shove they wouldn't hesitate to use those nuclear weapons whereas the US was seen as forever hesitant to use them again.
- pjc50 6y ago
  Official doctrine is that they're a second strike weapon; if they're used, then that implies that most of the UK's major cities are already smoking craters.
lmm 6y ago
> Interested in knowing who considers the UK a superpower in 1980s, never mind in 2020s... I don't know about "super", but they're one of maybe four countries with a credible second-strike nuclear capability, one of six that operate full-size aircraft carriers, maybe sixth on the list of global reserve currencies, G7 member...
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  It surprises me that although the Falklands War (and its anti-ship missiles) was last century, people are still eager to build full-size aircraft carriers. (I will start taking scots' independence noises seriously after someone puts forth a concrete proposal about what to do with HMNB Clyde.)
  - pjc50 6y ago
    What's the specific question as to why that means you can't take it seriously? The big problem is the nuclear material, but getting rid of that has long been an undercurrent of independence anyway. I suspect what would most likely be negotiated would be some kind of "treaty port" arrangement for non-nuclear vessels. Scotland would likely not be an Ireland-style neutral. The aircraft carriers are .. very much a "power projection" thing, like Trident, Britain buying itself international hard man status like a knuckle tattoo. On the other hand, there's no proven alternative to carriers for achieving air superiority away from land bases.
    - 082349872349872 6y ago
      Not that I can't take the idea seriously, just that if the english were to identify where they'd move the sub pens, it would be easier to classify as being in the "project" category rather than in the "proposal."
      - pjc50 6y ago
        It's apparent that England isn't going to plan for it any more than they're going to plan for Brexit. Whether it happens or not is kind of an orthogonal question to that. Although my personal opinion is that Irish reunification is more likely in the next decade, especially if the UK makes an EU-incompatible ag trade deal with the US.

by 627467 6y ago

alexpotato 6y ago

The UK was, and still is, a nuclear power so I would argue it's closer to super than non. Plus, there is a great quote about the US vs the UK regarding nuclear weapons: - Everyone respects the US because they were the biggest NATO military and had nuclear weapons - Everyone feared the UK because due to their island mentality, if push came to shove they wouldn't hesitate to use those nuclear weapons whereas the US was seen as forever hesitant to use them again.

pjc50 6y ago
Official doctrine is that they're a second strike weapon; if they're used, then that implies that most of the UK's major cities are already smoking craters.

lmm 6y ago

> Interested in knowing who considers the UK a superpower in 1980s, never mind in 2020s... I don't know about "super", but they're one of maybe four countries with a credible second-strike nuclear capability, one of six that operate full-size aircraft carriers, maybe sixth on the list of global reserve currencies, G7 member...

082349872349872 6y ago
It surprises me that although the Falklands War (and its anti-ship missiles) was last century, people are still eager to build full-size aircraft carriers. (I will start taking scots' independence noises seriously after someone puts forth a concrete proposal about what to do with HMNB Clyde.)
- pjc50 6y ago
  What's the specific question as to why that means you can't take it seriously? The big problem is the nuclear material, but getting rid of that has long been an undercurrent of independence anyway. I suspect what would most likely be negotiated would be some kind of "treaty port" arrangement for non-nuclear vessels. Scotland would likely not be an Ireland-style neutral. The aircraft carriers are .. very much a "power projection" thing, like Trident, Britain buying itself international hard man status like a knuckle tattoo. On the other hand, there's no proven alternative to carriers for achieving air superiority away from land bases.
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    Not that I can't take the idea seriously, just that if the english were to identify where they'd move the sub pens, it would be easier to classify as being in the "project" category rather than in the "proposal."
    - pjc50 6y ago
      It's apparent that England isn't going to plan for it any more than they're going to plan for Brexit. Whether it happens or not is kind of an orthogonal question to that. Although my personal opinion is that Irish reunification is more likely in the next decade, especially if the UK makes an EU-incompatible ag trade deal with the US.