3 ms·
> but they probably don't really have an army, and I'm sure US has still quite a few military bases there. After all, they've only been a country for 25 years.
by brazzy 12y ago
> but they probably don't really have an army, and I'm sure US has still quite a few military bases there. After all, they've only been a country for 25 years.
"Probably"? "I'm sure"? How about not making bald-faced assertions based on wild-ass guesses that are spectacularly wrong?
Germany has been a country since 1949, It has had an army since 1955, which is currently considered the 7th or 8th most powerful in the world. And the USA has military bases all over the world; by that standard, the UK is not independant either.
- pjc50 12y agoThe USA has military bases all over the world, correct. But how many countries have military bases in the US? That's the real indicator of power. The UK's independence from the US has been weak since Suez. It's not entirely clear whether we can independently launch our nukes, for example. And the bases have been locally controversial (e.g. Greenham Common). The last independent military action the UK took without US approval was the Falklands War. I'm not sure we'd be capable of winning it again, although there was a lot of good and bad luck involved the first time.
- gsnedders 12y agoI'd be very doubtful if the Falklands were overrun tomorrow (though that's probably less likely with the base there[1]). Lack of aircraft carriers surely must eliminate any realistic chance of air superiority, and there are no bombers remaining (the closest thing being the Tornado GR4, whose range is pitiful in comparison to the Vulcan's, and that was a logistical challenge itself[2]). [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_Falkland_Islands http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_Falkland_Island... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Black_Buck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Black_Buck