5 ms·

The "exorbitant privilege" usually belongs to a government with a vast military, and/or substantial colonial possessions -- something that allows force to be us

The "exorbitant privilege" usually belongs to a government with a vast military, and/or substantial colonial possessions -- something that allows force to be used in an emergency. There is a reason why the US dollar, but not the Swiss franc, is an international reserve currency.

nradov 4y ago
The UK Pound is still considered an international reserve currency by virtue of being incorporated into IMF special drawing rights, even though the UK no longer really has a vast military or substantial colonial possessions.
- jeffdn 4y ago
  They still have the ability to put nuclear warheads anywhere on the globe, by virtue of their ballistic missile submarines and the nuclear warheads those ballistic missiles carry. The Trident D5 missiles have a range of more than 7,500 miles, and the submarines move. That, in and of itself, is worth a lot -- potentially even more than having a large military.
  - dr_dshiv 4y ago
    I saw a trident missile launch once in 2017. Didn’t know it at the time. Everyone should know about those missiles—they are the reason we don’t have “real” war. They are so unbelievably powerful it blows my mind.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    'They still have the ability to put nuclear warheads anywhere on the globe' I think most of UK public would consider that a prime minister that plans using nukes in offensive capacity belong in a padded cell.
    - jeffdn 4y ago
      I completely agree, I was just responding to the parent commenter's assertion that the UK didn't have the offensive power to have "exorbitant privilege"
- davidgay 4y ago
  > ... even though the UK no longer really has a vast military https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/military-spending-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/military-... At #5 world-wide by expenditure this may be a bit over-stated. Or else "vast military" is just a standin for "US or China".
  - nradov 4y ago
    Expenditures don't mean much. Look at purchasing power parity, and actual capabilities. The UK military lost the ability to conduct large-scale independent operations without US support decades ago. Capabilities are minimal in many crucial areas including logistics, aerial refueling, strategic bombing, amphibious lift, ballistic missile defense, and space dominance. Even their nuclear deterrent is completely dependent on the US military-industrial complex.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > the UK no longer really has a vast military Beyond the nukes another comment mentioned, the UK is also a permanent UN Security Council member, a founding NATO member and a productive member of the Five Eyes and AUKUS [1]. And it still has the world's fifth most powerful navy [2]. > substantial colonial possessions No, but they have overseas military installations in Gibraltar and on Cyprus, the Falkland Islands and Diego Garcia. Smaller installations at Ascension Island, in Singapore and Brunei "provide important staging posts and logistical support facilities for British and allied forces passing nearby" [3]. In terms of practical force projection radius, they're in a very small club of nations. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Armed_Forces#cite_note-europarl-15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Armed_Forces#cite_note... [2] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/largest-navies-in-the-world https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/largest-n... [3] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/dv/sede300309studype407004_/SEDE300309StudyPE407004_en.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/...

nradov 4y ago

The UK Pound is still considered an international reserve currency by virtue of being incorporated into IMF special drawing rights, even though the UK no longer really has a vast military or substantial colonial possessions.

jeffdn 4y ago
They still have the ability to put nuclear warheads anywhere on the globe, by virtue of their ballistic missile submarines and the nuclear warheads those ballistic missiles carry. The Trident D5 missiles have a range of more than 7,500 miles, and the submarines move. That, in and of itself, is worth a lot -- potentially even more than having a large military.
- dr_dshiv 4y ago
  I saw a trident missile launch once in 2017. Didn’t know it at the time. Everyone should know about those missiles—they are the reason we don’t have “real” war. They are so unbelievably powerful it blows my mind.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  'They still have the ability to put nuclear warheads anywhere on the globe' I think most of UK public would consider that a prime minister that plans using nukes in offensive capacity belong in a padded cell.
  - jeffdn 4y ago
    I completely agree, I was just responding to the parent commenter's assertion that the UK didn't have the offensive power to have "exorbitant privilege"
davidgay 4y ago
> ... even though the UK no longer really has a vast military https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/military-spending-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/military-... At #5 world-wide by expenditure this may be a bit over-stated. Or else "vast military" is just a standin for "US or China".
- nradov 4y ago
  Expenditures don't mean much. Look at purchasing power parity, and actual capabilities. The UK military lost the ability to conduct large-scale independent operations without US support decades ago. Capabilities are minimal in many crucial areas including logistics, aerial refueling, strategic bombing, amphibious lift, ballistic missile defense, and space dominance. Even their nuclear deterrent is completely dependent on the US military-industrial complex.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> the UK no longer really has a vast military Beyond the nukes another comment mentioned, the UK is also a permanent UN Security Council member, a founding NATO member and a productive member of the Five Eyes and AUKUS [1]. And it still has the world's fifth most powerful navy [2]. > substantial colonial possessions No, but they have overseas military installations in Gibraltar and on Cyprus, the Falkland Islands and Diego Garcia. Smaller installations at Ascension Island, in Singapore and Brunei "provide important staging posts and logistical support facilities for British and allied forces passing nearby" [3]. In terms of practical force projection radius, they're in a very small club of nations. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Armed_Forces#cite_note-europarl-15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Armed_Forces#cite_note... [2] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/largest-navies-in-the-world https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/largest-n... [3] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/dv/sede300309studype407004_/SEDE300309StudyPE407004_en.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/...