Has the UK Resigned as a World Power?

[Tahuti]

I grant that India could potentially become a Security Council Member, but their moves toward it seem to be more about channeling the ghost of the Non-Aligned Movement than actually wanting a SC seat. Outside the SC, they can complain about the SC; but once inside they don't have that luxury.

I'd like to be proven wrong, though I doubt India can actually compete one day with China, or even Russia. India probably more likely dissolves before that happens.

Think of this: India is more diverse than the EU and interethnic tensions are significantly worse. Gross economic mismanagement in the form of overregulation and corruption have made India more comparable to plenty an African country than China, which is significantly wealthier yet still poor compared to Western standards. It will take at least decades - assuming India isn't plagued by either Pakistan or China or from the inside - to catch up with China. It may well take a century before it is on par with the West. And all of that, is likely not even happen at all. Not as an India as one state.

Pakistan, despite suffering from the Taliban is still a match for India. It has a more homogenous demography, good relations with the US and China and enough nukes to utterly bring India to ruin should India think of nuking Pakistan. So it should suffice I'm rather pessimistic about India achieving a role similar to that of China.

 

[Borachio]

The Suez Crisis revolved around British attempts to maintain their Empire .... It was not about trying to maintain the Empire,

The distinction you're making really rather escapes me. Do you mean trying to maintain control of a strategic trading route had nothing to do with maintaining the British Empire... or that it did?

 

[Phrossack]

I imagine the UK will cease to exist shortly, what with the SNP and Scottish secession gaining support and UKIP fanning the flames. It's willingly weakening itself and gave up on things like power and relevance some time ago, but that's their choice, however foolish it may be. I hate the pursuit of power for its own sake, and empires, but we will soon come to wonder whether the new world powers are not in fact worse than the old ones.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The distinction you're making really rather escapes me. Do you mean trying to maintain control of a strategic trading route had nothing to do with maintaining the British Empire... or that it did?

I would think the distinction is that you can't have a crisis brought about by "maintaining an empire" if there is in fact no empire to maintain. You can have a crisis brought on by "delusional people trying to maintain something that doesn't exist" though.

 

[Ajidica]

I'd like to be proven wrong, though I doubt India can actually compete one day with China, or even Russia. India probably more likely dissolves before that happens.

What makes you think India would dissolve? Most people thought India would dissolve under Nehru, but it didn't. Admittedly, I don't know a lot about India, but nothing I have read suggests India is going through any social upheavals at the same level it went through under Nehru.

Pakistan, despite suffering from the Taliban is still a match for India. It has a more homogenous demography, good relations with the US and China and enough nukes to utterly bring India to ruin should India think of nuking Pakistan. So it should suffice I'm rather pessimistic about India achieving a role similar to that of China.

The Pakistani nuclear deterrent is a joke as far as nuclear deterrents go. Although the Pakistani's are believed to have more warheads than India, I am under the impression that the Pakistani warheads are generally of a smaller size with poorer guidance systems. Furthermore, India either has or is close to having solid-fuel rockets which would allow near-instantaneous launch. Pakistan is still relying heavily on liquid fueled rockets which require at least six hours to set up and have a limited launch window due to how corrosive the fuel is.
Pakistan is far smaller than India with a more centralized population than India. Were a nuclear exchange occur, India would almost certainly be the 'winner' (at least as far a 'winner' in a nuclear exchange exists).
Additionally, the Pakistan-Chinese alliance was in many respects illustrated to be impotent after the 1971 India-Pakistan War when China stood on the sidelines. India has continued to maintain a moderately successful domestic arms industry, purchasing the equipment they cannot build on their own. Lord_Baal made some very good posts on India-Pakistan-Chinese relations a year or two ago, I'll see if I can dig them up.
EDIT: A quick search doesn't seem to turn them up. Ah well.

The distinction you're making really rather escapes me. Do you mean trying to maintain control of a strategic trading route had nothing to do with maintaining the British Empire... or that it did?

Whoops, I meant to say that the Suez Crisis was about maintaining an empire as opposed to regaining an empire as Tolni had characterized the Suez Crisis as.
Blame me not paying sufficient attention to what I was typing.

 

[bhavv]

I imagine the UK will cease to exist shortly, what with the SNP and Scottish secession gaining support and UKIP fanning the flames. It's willingly weakening itself and gave up on things like power and relevance some time ago, but that's their choice, however foolish it may be. I hate the pursuit of power for its own sake, and empires, but we will soon come to wonder whether the new world powers are not in fact worse than the old ones.

Then there's also this petition:

https://www.change.org/p/the-uk-gov...gland-to-secede-from-the-uk-and-join-scotland

Everyone please sign it and make it happen. Scotland is quite too far for me to move to, but if this ever happens, I will be in Scotland. Yay.

 

[Triewd]

I would think the distinction is that you can't have a crisis brought about by "maintaining an empire" if there is in fact no empire to maintain. You can have a crisis brought on by "delusional people trying to maintain something that doesn't exist" though.

I don't really appreciate being called delusional thanks

Also in 1956 the British Empire did in fact still exist it included large parts of Africa the Caribbean, Australia (1986) so actually yes it did exist.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't really appreciate being called delusional thanks

Also in 1956 the British Empire did in fact still exist it included large parts of Africa the Caribbean, Australia (1986) so actually yes it did exist.

Were you trying to maintain the British Empire in 1956? Even I'm not that old.

I'd call that a bunch of territory they couldn't figure out how to manage, not an actual empire, but that's just me maybe.

 

[Zelig]

No one cares about GDP, and no one cares about military strength. If the security council tells, say, the US "we are sanctioning them and you can't sell them arms" the US will say "they are a good customer, so blow it out your butt" and everyone knows it. Then the UN has no choice but to denounce the US (or Russia, or the UK, or France, or China) and they get told a second time to blow it out their butt. Rather than suffer that loss of credibility, the countries that would just blow off the UN are given the right to veto the sanctions that they would ignore so they don't have to ignore them.

I always find it weird when Americans complain about the UN. Seriously, the UN has essentially no power over the US, and some power over some other countries.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I always find it weird when Americans complain about the UN. Seriously, the UN has essentially no power over the US, and some power over some other countries.

It is pretty strange. Usually it is some sort of conservative with a conspiracy theory driven thing, it seems, which of course means that it doesn't have to make any sense at all.

 

[Commodore]

It is pretty strange. Usually it is some sort of conservative with a conspiracy theory driven thing, it seems, which of course means that it doesn't have to make any sense at all.

Yeah, I don't get all the hate for the UN in the US either. I actually feel the organization needs to be given the ability to operate independently from its member nations so it can actually enforce its resolutions on ANY member that violates them.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yeah, I don't get all the hate for the UN in the US either. I actually feel the organization needs to be given the ability to operate independently from its member nations so it can actually enforce its resolutions on ANY member that violates them.

That would be ideal, but in practice it just can't work. Too many member nations are basically immune to anything the rest of the world could muster up and do.

 

[ParkCungHee]

No one cares about GDP, and no one cares about military strength. If the security council tells, say, the US "we are sanctioning them and you can't sell them arms" the US will say "they are a good customer, so blow it out your butt" and everyone knows it. Then the UN has no choice but to denounce the US (or Russia, or the UK, or France, or China) and they get told a second time to blow it out their butt. Rather than suffer that loss of credibility, the countries that would just blow off the UN are given the right to veto the sanctions that they would ignore so they don't have to ignore them.

Pretty much this, but it's more than just credibility on the line. Remember when chicanery managed to keep the Chinese from excercising their Veto?

Remember how, instead of running roughshod over Chinese demands, the UN forces suffered 40,000 troops killed and 115,000 wounded. And still had to recognize Chinese demands?

 

[bhavv]

You might want to talk to the Kikuyus, Malayans, Indians, Egyptians, Palestinians, and others about how well British rule worked out for them

Back in those days the British even treated their own workers poorly. Abysmal wages, no time off, long hours etc.

The issue I raised is that had British rule continued to this day, the countries under the British Empire would have been much better developed and had much greater rights and quality of life than they currently have.

 

[Borachio]

I imagine the UK will cease to exist shortly, what with the SNP and Scottish secession gaining support and UKIP fanning the flames. .

I'm not so sure this is true. There is certainly a move towards greater autonomy in Scotland, and I think the votes for independence in the referendum were largely an expression of this (though undoubtedly many yes voters are in favour of outright independence).

As for UKIP "fanning the flames": that's a new one on me. I'd have thought UKIP was especially likely to favour imperialism, if anything - because its positions do tend to rather vague on everything except immigration.

 

[jackelgull]

I'd like to be proven wrong, though I doubt India can actually compete one day with China, or even Russia. India probably more likely dissolves before that happens.

Think of this: India is more diverse than the EU and interethnic tensions are significantly worse. Gross economic mismanagement in the form of overregulation and corruption have made India more comparable to plenty an African country than China, which is significantly wealthier yet still poor compared to Western standards. It will take at least decades - assuming India isn't plagued by either Pakistan or China or from the inside - to catch up with China. It may well take a century before it is on par with the West. And all of that, is likely not even happen at all. Not as an India as one state.

Pakistan, despite suffering from the Taliban is still a match for India. It has a more homogenous demography, good relations with the US and China and enough nukes to utterly bring India to ruin should India think of nuking Pakistan. So it should suffice I'm rather pessimistic about India achieving a role similar to that of China.

I can't guarantee India making it to world power status, but from where I'm looking, the threat of dissolution doesn't look as obvious as you're making it.

The only time India seemed at threat of dissolution was immediately after World War 2 when it gained it freedom. However, even then, the national government had the advantage of a well trained army who had beaten back the Japanese in world War 2, and there was a sense of Indianess imparted by the British. Britain did not distinguish between locale when they mistreated Indians and the resentment they accrued became a common bond between geographic lines. Finally, a great amount of power was given to the states to appease them. To this day, states in India still wield considerable amounts of power.

And today, nationalism has grown stronger not weaker. The economy is improving, and there is still some faith in the democratic system.

 

[classical_hero]

Still has not set yet. The dream is still alive.

That is just overkill that link.

 

[warpus]

Surely the UK is a regional power and not a world power these days.

 

[Phrossack]

I'm not so sure this is true. There is certainly a move towards greater autonomy in Scotland, and I think the votes for independence in the referendum were largely an expression of this (though undoubtedly many yes voters are in favour of outright independence).

As for UKIP "fanning the flames": that's a new one on me. I'd have thought UKIP was especially likely to favour imperialism, if anything - because its positions do tend to rather vague on everything except immigration.

The SNP won a lot of seats lately in Scotland, and the "Better Together" campaign really botched everything it did. UKIP is a fundamentally inward-looking party, I think; while they might look fondly upon the Empire, those days are over and everyone knows it, so they'd rather focus on leaving the EU and fighting immigration than, say, trying to rebuild British power and relevance. And UKIP and SNP victories might reinforce each other--the Scots would be more likely to vote "Yes" and leave in Round Two if UKIP wins more power, and a Scottish exit would further the idea that the (rump) UK's identity is fundamentally English. Then the Welsh and Northern Irish would start asking themselves whether they really want to remain in a country run by English nationalists.

Of course, that's assuming the SNP and UKIP continue to gain influence.

Surely the UK is a regional power and not a world power these days.

It's probably one of the mightiest countries in the British Isles, I must admit

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Pretty much this, but it's more than just credibility on the line. Remember when chicanery managed to keep the Chinese from excercising their Veto?

No, I don't really remember that.

Remember how, instead of running roughshod over Chinese demands, the UN forces suffered 40,000 troops killed and 115,000 wounded. And still had to recognize Chinese demands?

I'm thinking this must be referring to Korea, but at that time the China with the permanent seat and veto power was the Republic of China (Taiwan) not the PRC, and they had no interest in vetoing anything.