Quite a speech there. Unfortunately none of it means anything. First of all, I like how you mention "15 other countries". Scrapster didn't say UK and 15 other countries > USA, he said UK>USA. Second of all, do you know what it means to project military force? That basically describes the capabilities of a country to bring the fight to the enemy. There is not another single country country on the world that has the power to project like America does. To put that into perspective, America has 19 aircraft carriers (compared to UK's 1), 75 submarines (compared to UK's 10), 62 destroyers (compared to UK's 6), and over 2,000 fighter air craft (compared to UK's 91). Without even putting a soldier on the ground, America could surround the UK and in older terms, salt the earth. You say we can't handle underdeveloped countries? Why, because we have not killed every last enemy in the desert? That will never happen. Unless you bomb every town and kill all the civilians, there will always be another generation to pick up arms. What we have done is turned a once sizeable force into a group of people riding around in the back of 80's Toyota's blowing themselves up with outdated rocket launchers. We could do the same to the UK. You may not call that a stomping, but I do. It would never happen though, as UK and 'murica are good buddies. Added: I like how you say the world will help Britain rebuild while America is isolated. You are assuming that America is the ass hole here and decided to bully the UK. You are also forgetting that we have allies too.
I mentioned 15 countries because the militaries of those countries are still under the control of the British Monarch, which means they could basically be considered an extension of Britain's military power. You go on to talk about the ability to project military power and incorrectly number British assets, 91 fighter jets? There's more than double that but let's not discuss that as its not that important. True, without even putting a soldier on the ground you could "salt the earth", but let's be realistic. Do you think you could do such damage to another nuclear nation without the majority of your population wiped off the face of the earth? That isn't stomping. I say you can't handle underdeveloped nations because it's the truth. The Korean War was a stalemate, you got your ass handed to you by Cuba when the CIA attempted the bay of pigs, you were obliterated in Vietnam, the American led coalitions in Iraq and Afghanistan have both been massive failures. Americans modern war record speaks for itself in regards to America's inability to fight against guerrilla warfare. Now, let's stop being stupid and pretending that any country could "stomp" another nuclear nation no matter who they are.
Lol! You don't actually think that Australia and Canada would go to war against USA because an old lady from very far away ask them to do it, do you?
Ah, the sweet smell of ignorance. The bay of pigs was a Cuban force, not american. Trained by the CIA, but not an american military force. Vietnam was a political loss and nothing else. American deaths were around 50,000 while north Vietnamese were what, around 1 millon? 20x our death rate, sounds like we handled them pretty well military wise. As I said previously, our current war in the desert has turned a sizeable force into a bunch of rabble. Also as I said, no war ends up with everybody on one side dying. You apparently do not comprehend this. You also act as if either one of our countries would go nuclear, which makes me believe you are more ignorant than I thought. Neither of us live in north Korea. Our leaders would like our countries to still exist, so neither would go nuclear. So yes, I still maintain that if it came down to it, America would roll over the UK. UK may top us on some things, but they are not in the same league as America military wise.
Another fun fact. Just in case the UK got fed up with the stomping they were receiving and did decide to go nuclear, they have a little over 200 nukes, while the USA has just shy of 7,000. The USA would be crippled, but the UK would cease to exist.
To touch on that... 1. In an eventually when the uk used nukes on the USA, we would invariably already know we were going to be toasted. 2. 200 nukes would cripple the USA for decades, if not forever in the right places, possible death total of well over 150m (that's well over twice the population of the U.K.) 3. The U.K. Very rarely misses, you guys would probably hit Sweden or Russia.
It takes 12 nuclear warheads detonated at the right place and time to destroy the planet. You have 52 states I nuke per state is plentiful. 2 Britain and America are allies and trading partners. Despite people that gloat about killing 20,000,000 as if its something to be proud of. They will remain that way. If you want to create WW3 out of ignorance, how about you do a different thread that actually discusses the stupidity of proposed nuclear wars were everyone dies because some idiot somewhere thought it was ever a good idea to press that little red button Seriously bragging that millions were killed in a war That you as a nation could destroy an allied nation. Thank god you. Lot have no say whatsoever and you never will have anything more than a ridiculous opinion on a forum on a tap tap game. This is a referendum thread. Try and stay on topic.
I've seen yesterday. English never miss because...they run lol. Acting like champs running like girls.
Wake up. Stop dreaming. British Empire is dead since long time ago. Canada and Australia have their own paths.
You do realise these armies swear allegiance to this old last and not their governments, you also realise that this old lady can dissolve the parliament of these countries? TNT, you talk about death rates but that doesn't decide the outcome of a war. The Russian death rate in ww2 was massive but I never hear anyone say that Germany won the war cause of that. What matters is achieving your objective. The objective in Vietnam was to stop the spread of communism and keep south Vietnam capitalist, you failed. The bay of pigs may of been Cuban exiles but it was an American planned operation and it was due to the CIA that it failed, another American loss. Afghanistan and Iraq have both been failures, they are just as dangerous now as they were before we went there, in the case of Iraq it is more dangerous. Objective failed. Do I really think the UK would use nukes? When you talk about salting the earth of the UK then yes I do think those nukes will be used. You act like the nuke count really matters, yes you have 7000 nukes but 200-250 nukes is still more than enough to destroy every major city in America. Also if you fire 7000 nukes at this tiny island nation you'll probably destroy half of France meaning you'll probably have their 300 nukes fired at you in response. Let it go, a war with another nuclear nation isn't possible. America would never go to war with another nuclear nation because it knows the outcome is a loss for both countries.
Is everyone that stupid here? Jesus shut up, the entire planet ceases to exist with 10-20 nukes. Yes America has more military power than the uk. But no one cares. Get back on topic. This isn't about how the uk and USA could destroy the planet with 10 nukes, it's about the uk leaving the EU. Stop comparing sizes.
Yeah sure...australians or canadians love the old lady so much...they can't wait to go to die for her? Dissolve parliments? Nobody will take her serious lol. Next day those countries will be independent. Simple. That's the problem with "leave" supporters. "We have been great before EU! We are going to be great if we leave EU". British Empire is dead. In few years Great Britain will be only England and Cornwall. Actually I think Cornwall might get bored aswell of Great Britain.
@vlad.. If the English had of ran in ww2, Europe would be entirely German or Russian right now. Also, the queen owns far more land than anyone else on the planet, she may not be able to use it realistically, but for example, Canada is made up of 89% crown holding lands- held by the government in the name of the queen. This referendum is not about getting the empire back, the empire is dead. It has been dead for a long time and it should stay dead. The referendum is about not being ruled by someone else, that we only vote for 10% of. It's about stopping our welfare state that we evolved into after ww2 from going under due to strain on public services, yes there are good reasons for immigration, ofcourse there is, but it needs tightening, inside and outside of the EU.
I said in my first post on this topic that I won't discuss the "independence" argument. Independence worth any worse in my opinion. I was talking only about economic arguments. "We did great before EU, we are going to do great after EU"... is that really so? Things has changed because as you agreed, the empire is dead. An economy needs resources, UK has nothing left. Therefore UK will be needed to buy raw materials...with the pound going downhill the imported raw materials will become more expensive. Yes, a weak pound is good for exports. But if you are not an antrepeneur who's working for export you won't benefit from this. For the large majority of british people a weak pound means that everything on their table is going to become more expensive. Moreover...for exports you need markets. So either you make trade agreements with EU and that means that you still need to follow EU rules and regulations WITHOUT having a seat at decision table, either find new markets... a new market can't be found over night and until you'll find markets to replace the lost EU markets might be too late for UK. I've seen many brits crying about Greece, Portugal, Italy, etc... well UK have a much higher debt per capita than those countries. With an almost 10T national debt (which probably will go higher if pound is going downhill after Brexit) I don't think that UK can handle 2-3 years of recession. About EU rules and regulations...yes, many of them are plain dumb or useless. But the large majority of EU rules are tought to benefit the final consumer. Unfortunately some UK companies for some unknown reason don't always follow the rules. I'm going to give you just ab example from my personal experience. According to EU laws, phone carriers are forbiden to sim-lock phone. No matter if the phones are subsidised with a contract. Anywhere in Europe carriers stopped to sim-lock phones. Well...now about UK. Couple of weeks ago I bought an "SIM free" iPhone 6S from Carphone Warehouse. I used the phone with an EE pay as you go purchased from an off-licence store. I had to go for a short trip in France and bought a local SIM card but surprise...my "sim free" phone was sim-locked. When I came back in UK of course i went to Carphone Warehouse. I've been told that even if i paid full retail price for a "sim free" iPhone, the iPhone is going to be locked on the first network I'm going to use lol. In my case on EE so Carphone Warehouse asked me to go to EE to solve my issue. Went to EE, they asked me to pay £9 in order to unlock the phone for me. So yeah...I had to pay £9 to have my SIM free unlocked by a provider who didn't actually sold the phone to me, who never actually had me in any of their shops. And I've been lucky...at least they did for me. I heard that O2 is willing to unlock an "sim free" iPhone only after one year...
Well vlad, that's semantics really. You're arguing finer points of law without looking at the actual legislation (which is bogglingly long) This is a brief overview to prove you're wrong however: Countries in the European Union (EU) each have their own legislation on SIM locking, but must comply with the EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (Directive 2005/29/EC of 2005). As noted above, this directive has been successfully applied in Belgium to overturn that country's previous ban on bundling phones with contracts. However, carriers in many countries in the EU do not necessarily associate a phone's SIM lock status to the customer's tie-in contract status. Yes, it is unfortunately taken from Wikipedia, but I've checked it and it seems correct.
Just another point vlad, you do need trade agreements, but that does NOT mean you have to enter the EEC, or the EU, nor does it mean you have to accept free movement. Do you REALLY think Germany is going to accept no trade with the U.K.?