7 ms·

UK defence secretary suggests US is no longer a superpower

21 points by m1 5y ago

Ambolia 5y ago
That's true, but the UK is barely a power at all.
- retrac 5y ago
  Yes, neither is Canada. In our case we're still inexorably bound to the US's interests and there's not much to do, really. It's not a measuring contest here. It's dealing with the new realities. The UK is not as nearly bound to the USA. If they wish to retain autonomy, security, and also influence in the 21st century despite their small stature, they may need a new strategy if the sun is setting on their closest ally's empire. Especially if said ally is prone to fits like recently happened regarding their dependability. (I still can't fathom why the the UK would choose to leave the EU at this delicate point where mid-sized democratic powers need every friend they can get.)
  - arethuza 5y ago
    There is also a fair chance that the UK in its current form won't exist in 10 years time. This creates a particular problem for the UK's nuclear deterrent - which is based in Scotland.
    - Veen 5y ago
      Any independence deal is likely to include an agreement to lease Faslane to the UK, at least for a while. The SNP won't like it, but there needs to be a pragmatic solution. If that doesn't work out, there are alternatives, but it would be hugely expensive.
      - arethuza 5y ago
        Yes, but I can't see any chance that it would be allowed to remain for more than 5 years, 10 years as at absolute maximum. Apparently bases elsewhere in rUK wouldn't be a great idea due to them being too easy to track submarines entering/leaving. Backup locations being considered for the Trident boats apparently include the US or even France.
        blibble 5y ago
        what do you mean allowed? if the UK wished to retain the bases it would make retaining the land a condition for granting independence, similar to Cyprus this isn't like Article 50 where after 2 years you're out: the nationalists only method to get what they want is by agreeing to Westminster's requiements, in full otherwise Scotland continues to remain part of UK
        arethuza 5y ago
        There is absolutely no way any Scottish government could agree to a long term presence on the Clyde.
        blibble 5y ago
        then it will remain part of the UK the nationalists have absolutely no leverage over the UK if you thought the Brexit negotiations were one sided: you've seen nothing yet
        Veen 5y ago
        The fact is the UK owns Faslane. An independence referendum doesn't change that fact. A yes vote for independence is not a magic spell that will create a Scottish nation and transfer ownership of UK property to it. There will be a lengthy period of negotiation and transition, and whether the Scots like it or not, they will be by far the weaker partner in those negotiations.
        arethuza 5y ago
        And people wonder why so many in Scotland want independence....
- dukeyukey 5y ago
  Well, compared to 95% of countries the UK is. You've got the US as top dog, an unproven China, and Russia able to act with impunity in their back yard but nowhere else. Then you've got the UK and France, able to project solid power anywhere that isn't landlocked, and quite a few that are.
- Veen 5y ago
  The UK is much less than a super power, but it is more capable of projecting power globally than most middle-ranking countries, largely because of the Royal Navy.
- detritus 5y ago
  Did you bother to read the article, or did you simply decide to take the headline here on HN personally and then respond snidely? Did that somehow improve matters? Did it help re-inflate the stature of your great land? "Wallace started by saying: “It is obvious that Britain is not a superpower,” before appearing to switch focus to the US." ... "a superpower that is also not prepared to stick at something isn’t probably a superpower either. It is certainly not a global force, it’s just a big power”.
- jfax 5y ago
  Yes. It takes one to know one, after all.
true_maybe 5y ago
The US spends more[1] and has greater production capacity[2] than any other country ever has. If it is not a superpower, then what is it? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_... [2]: https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297a/U.S.%20Defense%20Industry%20and%20Arms%20Sales.htm https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297a/U.S.%20Defense%20Indust...
- sschueller 5y ago
  The US is able to print more money than anyone else because it is the reserve currency right now. The rest of the world pays for it...
- Veen 5y ago
  Well, that position was held by the British Empire until the Second World War, and look where they are now.
- m1 5y ago
  This is exactly the point the article is making. > Those close to the defence secretary acknowledged that his remarks could be read as being aimed at the US. An insider argued that the British minister was emphasising the importance of political will as well as sheer military power. It now doesn't matter as much how much of GDP you spend on military but also political power as well.
- true_maybe 5y ago
  Ministers can redefine the word superpower, and you can downvote me, but with it being defined as, "A superpower is a state with a dominant position characterized by its extensive ability to exert influence or project power on a global scale."[1] the US still is in that set of countries with extensive influence. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower
hamburgerwah 5y ago
The US and Nazi China have already been in world war 3 since the Korean war. It remains to be seen how much longer we can last in it but it's not looking very good.
theonlybutlet 5y ago
The current government in the UK was more aligned to the worldviews of Trump's administration. They'll throw shade at the current US administration whenever and wherever they can in an attempt to bolster their own standing which has taken strain. The British public follow US politics very closely.
- Veen 5y ago
  This is absolute nonsense. First, it was Trump who originally negotiated the Afghanistan withdrawal, and the UK was not in favour then and they are not now. Second, the UK Conservative Party has very little shared ideology with the Trumpian worldview—with the exception of a resistance to identity politics, most Tories have far more in common with centrist Dems than with Republicans of any stripe, still less Trump-style republicanism. Third, although it's often been said, Johnson is not a British Trump—he's an altogether different character and his politics are far to the left of Trump's.
whoaisme 5y ago
These warmongers can get tarred by the mob as far as I'm concerned. Not prepared to stick to something?! We have been there 20 years blood and 300 million of gold a day. These rotten parasites who have been wrong for 20 years need to shut the hell up.

21 points by m1 5y ago

Ambolia 5y ago

That's true, but the UK is barely a power at all.

retrac 5y ago
Yes, neither is Canada. In our case we're still inexorably bound to the US's interests and there's not much to do, really. It's not a measuring contest here. It's dealing with the new realities. The UK is not as nearly bound to the USA. If they wish to retain autonomy, security, and also influence in the 21st century despite their small stature, they may need a new strategy if the sun is setting on their closest ally's empire. Especially if said ally is prone to fits like recently happened regarding their dependability. (I still can't fathom why the the UK would choose to leave the EU at this delicate point where mid-sized democratic powers need every friend they can get.)
- arethuza 5y ago
  There is also a fair chance that the UK in its current form won't exist in 10 years time. This creates a particular problem for the UK's nuclear deterrent - which is based in Scotland.
  - Veen 5y ago
    Any independence deal is likely to include an agreement to lease Faslane to the UK, at least for a while. The SNP won't like it, but there needs to be a pragmatic solution. If that doesn't work out, there are alternatives, but it would be hugely expensive.
    - arethuza 5y ago
      Yes, but I can't see any chance that it would be allowed to remain for more than 5 years, 10 years as at absolute maximum. Apparently bases elsewhere in rUK wouldn't be a great idea due to them being too easy to track submarines entering/leaving. Backup locations being considered for the Trident boats apparently include the US or even France.
      - blibble 5y ago
        what do you mean allowed? if the UK wished to retain the bases it would make retaining the land a condition for granting independence, similar to Cyprus this isn't like Article 50 where after 2 years you're out: the nationalists only method to get what they want is by agreeing to Westminster's requiements, in full otherwise Scotland continues to remain part of UK
        arethuza 5y ago
        There is absolutely no way any Scottish government could agree to a long term presence on the Clyde.
        blibble 5y ago
        then it will remain part of the UK the nationalists have absolutely no leverage over the UK if you thought the Brexit negotiations were one sided: you've seen nothing yet
        Veen 5y ago
        The fact is the UK owns Faslane. An independence referendum doesn't change that fact. A yes vote for independence is not a magic spell that will create a Scottish nation and transfer ownership of UK property to it. There will be a lengthy period of negotiation and transition, and whether the Scots like it or not, they will be by far the weaker partner in those negotiations.
        arethuza 5y ago
        And people wonder why so many in Scotland want independence....
dukeyukey 5y ago
Well, compared to 95% of countries the UK is. You've got the US as top dog, an unproven China, and Russia able to act with impunity in their back yard but nowhere else. Then you've got the UK and France, able to project solid power anywhere that isn't landlocked, and quite a few that are.
Veen 5y ago
The UK is much less than a super power, but it is more capable of projecting power globally than most middle-ranking countries, largely because of the Royal Navy.
detritus 5y ago
Did you bother to read the article, or did you simply decide to take the headline here on HN personally and then respond snidely? Did that somehow improve matters? Did it help re-inflate the stature of your great land? "Wallace started by saying: “It is obvious that Britain is not a superpower,” before appearing to switch focus to the US." ... "a superpower that is also not prepared to stick at something isn’t probably a superpower either. It is certainly not a global force, it’s just a big power”.
jfax 5y ago
Yes. It takes one to know one, after all.

true_maybe 5y ago

The US spends more[1] and has greater production capacity[2] than any other country ever has. If it is not a superpower, then what is it? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_... [2]: https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297a/U.S.%20Defense%20Industry%20and%20Arms%20Sales.htm https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297a/U.S.%20Defense%20Indust...

sschueller 5y ago
The US is able to print more money than anyone else because it is the reserve currency right now. The rest of the world pays for it...
Veen 5y ago
Well, that position was held by the British Empire until the Second World War, and look where they are now.
m1 5y ago
This is exactly the point the article is making. > Those close to the defence secretary acknowledged that his remarks could be read as being aimed at the US. An insider argued that the British minister was emphasising the importance of political will as well as sheer military power. It now doesn't matter as much how much of GDP you spend on military but also political power as well.
true_maybe 5y ago
Ministers can redefine the word superpower, and you can downvote me, but with it being defined as, "A superpower is a state with a dominant position characterized by its extensive ability to exert influence or project power on a global scale."[1] the US still is in that set of countries with extensive influence. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower

hamburgerwah 5y ago

The US and Nazi China have already been in world war 3 since the Korean war. It remains to be seen how much longer we can last in it but it's not looking very good.

theonlybutlet 5y ago

The current government in the UK was more aligned to the worldviews of Trump's administration. They'll throw shade at the current US administration whenever and wherever they can in an attempt to bolster their own standing which has taken strain. The British public follow US politics very closely.

Veen 5y ago
This is absolute nonsense. First, it was Trump who originally negotiated the Afghanistan withdrawal, and the UK was not in favour then and they are not now. Second, the UK Conservative Party has very little shared ideology with the Trumpian worldview—with the exception of a resistance to identity politics, most Tories have far more in common with centrist Dems than with Republicans of any stripe, still less Trump-style republicanism. Third, although it's often been said, Johnson is not a British Trump—he's an altogether different character and his politics are far to the left of Trump's.

whoaisme 5y ago

These warmongers can get tarred by the mob as far as I'm concerned. Not prepared to stick to something?! We have been there 20 years blood and 300 million of gold a day. These rotten parasites who have been wrong for 20 years need to shut the hell up.