[TheInterpreter]

Are we in decline? I can't definitively say if we are or not. I think with the military cuts and the education cuts we are on our way.

[Irviding]

I am not trying to offend British people or their country (infact I am predominately of British descent, 50-60%, if you count my Irish ancestry (family of Ireland is from Northern Ireland) it would be around 85%) but the British country in general has been in a downward decline since the end of World War I. At that time, it was the dominant world power. By WWII it was by no means dominant, but still very powerful.. in the top 3 I'd say. Then by the end of WWII, the Suez Crisis, it just really went exponentially down. In terms of power projection, economic strength, it has really just been declining and declining. Is it going to bottom off soon like Spain or any of the other former European power players, probably. Just not as bad as they did.

This post has been edited by Irviding on Thursday, Dec 29 2011, 07:11

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (TheInterpreter @ Thursday, Dec 29 2011, 05:51)

Are we in decline? I can't definitively say if we are or not. I think with the military cuts and the education cuts we are on our way.

I don't think education spending cuts are a symbol of decline, more of necessity. The problem, as I see it, is that the UK has failed to find it's niche in the world. We're not really Europeans, even though it would be beneficial for us to act as such; many of our Commonwealth states have lost interest in us and we're seen by some parts of the world, rightly or wrongly, as the United States' right-hand man. Same issues in terms of spending and power projection- a military that's been neutered by incompetent political wrangling, leaving us with a reasonably powerful fighting force but no real way of projecting it. Then there's economics- whilst similar nations such as Germany have found their economic strengths long ago and stick to their guns (that is, high-precision, high-technology, luxury and technical goods), our economic policy has little direction. The international markets have lost faith in financial services, which is where much of our economic strength lies; our secondary industry is improving in quality, but slower than that of many developing nations, and we struggle to compete on a cost front with new providers and on a quality front with existing ones.

In short, trying times- there's potential there for us to realise our proper place, if only we spent less time bickering and in-fighting about what was beneficial for the country and just bloody did something.

[AlexGTAGamer]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Dec 29 2011, 11:25)

In short, trying times- there's potential there for us to realise our proper place, if only we spent less time bickering and in-fighting about what was beneficial for the country and just bloody did something.

As my dad always says: "There are too many Chiefs and not enough Indians". In other words: There are too many people running their mouths off and not enough people actually doing anything.

[Menaced]

QUOTE (TheInterpreter @ Thursday, Dec 29 2011, 04:51)

military cuts

The defence cuts will no doubt impede the UK's military capability in the short-term, but the future looks reasonable if you look at what the UK is procuring for the future.

The UK is constructing two conventional aircraft carriers which will be laden with some 40 aircraft, including the JSF, AW159 and AW101, which will give the RN a huge boost in power projection capability. An airwing from just one of these aircraft carriers is apparently three times the size of the entire Tornado GR.1 force deployed during Operation Desert Fox. It is certain the UK will get at the very least one of these vessels, while the fate of the second vessel remains in political limbo. It is hoped that the Falklands War and the recent campaign in Libya will demonstrate the need for both of these carriers and help persuade our reluctant government to commission and convert the second vessel.

The UK is also constructing a batch of Type 45 destroyers, which have been hailed as some of the most capable air defence destroyers in the world, and the Type 26 frigate, which will either be constructed independently by the UK or built in a partnership with another nation. A new fleet of ballistic missile submarines is also being planned which will be equipped with the UK's future nuclear deterrent.

The UK is also capable of developing domestic UCAV and UAV's, such as BAE Taranis and BAE Mantis, and is developing other UAV platforms such as Telemos with partner nations like France. Let's also not forget the number of missiles and other munitions being developed such as CAMM, PAAMS, Storm Shadow, CVS 401 Perseus, Fire Shadow, FASGW and Meteor. Then there's the order of 22 Airbus A400M which will supplement the C-130J and C-17 Globemasters currently in service to form the UK's future transport fleet.

The UK's military has seen a decline in size over the past few decades, but so has pretty much every other nation's military of similar power, like France or Germany. Even after the severe cuts the UK has had to burden, the British military will remain a potent and capable force, which is set to become all the more capable if the politicians plan their cuts a bit better (or better yet, refrain from further defence cuts completely, at least for now) and deliver the equipment they have promised. I'd say of the three major European countries, the UK, France and Germany, the UK military will have the most capable military come 2025, backed by the second strongest economy in Europe (if CEBR's 2016 forecast is correct).

This post has been edited by Menaced on Thursday, Dec 29 2011, 21:54

[Irviding]

Sivis, where do you think that place should be? Amongst Europe? Stronger ties with the commonwealth (not like restoring British soveriegnty over the 15 dominions but perhaps much closer ties, unified foreign policy, free trade, etc.), or trying to cozy back up with the US? I know Cameron is sort of joining close with India lately.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Thursday, Dec 29 2011, 20:02)

Sivis, where do you think that place should be? Amongst Europe? Stronger ties with the commonwealth (not like restoring British soveriegnty over the 15 dominions but perhaps much closer ties, unified foreign policy, free trade, etc.), or trying to cozy back up with the US? I know Cameron is sort of joining close with India lately.

My view is that Europe is the right "place" to be. The EU, as a trading bloc, is already the strongest financial institution in the world by most measures, and by some proportion at that. The problem is that, whilst all those in Europe share a degree of common heritage and are, in essence, basically from the same stock, events in recent (though by no means universally modern) times have led to a mutual attitude of suspicion between what could and should be cosy bedfellows. I've already made my thoughts clear on how the EU, as an institution, can effectively wage foreign and security policy by use of force as well as through diplomacy and economic actions (that is, making full use of the EU's Rapid Reaction Force as a tool of political power, in much the same way that the NATO security mandate acts as a force multiplier for its member states). The EU as a body possesses nations with positive relationships and links with quite literally every other state on the planet (well, save for perhaps the DPRK and Iran) and enough shared history (admittedly not all of it good) to become a real power player rather than just an economic powerhouse. I don't see the stronger commonwealth links as being a necessary separate entity because they would manifest themselves anyway through a stronger European Union. Of course the US is also an important player in this, but the aspirations of the great federation are roughly akin to those of European states and the territorial/geographical spheres of influence mean that there's little cross-over in terms of power projection. The question is really whether the US would be comfortable taking a back-seat to Europe in some areas such as the Middle East and Africa where the 'State's reputation has been sullied by previous involvement, and the reputation of other Western states is much more positive- after all, we've got basically the same aspirations and endgame.

[Typhus]

QUOTE (AlexGTAGamer @ Thursday, Dec 29 2011, 14:14)

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Dec 29 2011, 11:25) In short, trying times- there's potential there for us to realise our proper place, if only we spent less time bickering and in-fighting about what was beneficial for the country and just bloody did something. As my dad always says: "There are too many Chiefs and not enough Indians". In other words: There are too many people running their mouths off and not enough people actually doing anything.

The people deserve no less. Maybe when people in this country learn to respect and obey their government, instead of comparing them to Nazis on a regular basis, we will move towards greatness.
What can we possibly achieve when our media fosters such anti-establishment sentiment? We need a common purpose, a common goal, but that cannot happen whilst people are obsessed with individuality and the rejection of all morality.
We have become weak, over tolerant and prissy. Our men have become effeminate weaklings and our children are drugged up Anarchist pigs. The government gives people so much liberty that the common man now stands on his soapbox questioning the need for that government. Questioning the very people who safeguard his freedom.
People want more accountability, they want more control, more, more, more. And why? Because they honestly feel entitled to have a real say in the political process. Like a greedy, spoiled child they cry for things they have not earned.

If the UK is in decline then the people have only themselves to blame. They have lost their soul, gambled away their dignity and whored out their pride. And for what? For what end? So a man can become a spineless coward who cannot judge others, because there really is no such thing as right and wrong, eh?

Those riots showed me, they were a bolt from beyond. When I saw the ignorant and educated united in primal, animalistic self-interest and the vile media DEFENDING them, I understood the crossroads we stood at.
We can either continue to advocate and cheer on our own destruction and decay, or we can try to muster up some courage and grow up.

[bobgtafan]

QUOTE

The question is really whether the US would be comfortable taking a back-seat to Europe in some areas such as the Middle East and Africa where the 'State's reputation has been sullied by previous involvement, and the reputation of other Western states is much more positive- after all, we've got basically the same aspirations and endgame.

Well we've already watched the beginning of that in some areas with the operation in Libya with the U.S. taking a backseat to Europeans (Although to what extent is disputed). If anything a stronger Europe would be what Washington has been dreaming of, given the Pentagons calls for greater military spending by NATO members. Sense North Africa and the Middle East are more or less Europe's Latin America, I don't think Washington would have to many problems with the Europeans increasing their military strength. The Pentagon is currently going through a period of mild austery with more to probably come and I remember some grumbles about having to even get involved in Libya when the Europeans should do it. Also given Washington's refocus to East Asia and eagerness to depart from Central Asia the only question now is if the Europeans would do such a thing. My answer is no, no they wouldn't.

[Sanjeem]

Well, if we are in decline we're certainly going down at a slower and much safer rate than many other European countries, especially in the Mediterranean I think it's safe to say.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (bobgtafan @ Thursday, Dec 29 2011, 15:45)

QUOTE The question is really whether the US would be comfortable taking a back-seat to Europe in some areas such as the Middle East and Africa where the 'State's reputation has been sullied by previous involvement, and the reputation of other Western states is much more positive- after all, we've got basically the same aspirations and endgame. Well we've already watched the beginning of that in some areas with the operation in Libya with the U.S. taking a backseat to Europeans (Although to what extent is disputed). If anything a stronger Europe would be what Washington has been dreaming of, given the Pentagons calls for greater military spending by NATO members. Sense North Africa and the Middle East are more or less Europe's Latin America, I don't think Washington would have to many problems with the Europeans increasing their military strength. The Pentagon is currently going through a period of mild austery with more to probably come and I remember some grumbles about having to even get involved in Libya when the Europeans should do it. Also given Washington's refocus to East Asia and eagerness to depart from Central Asia the only question now is if the Europeans would do such a thing. My answer is no, no they wouldn't.

Absolutely. The thing is though, are we prepared to let the Europeans take full control in those areas after the US has put so much capital into it? In Arabia at least, we have pretty much every country there in our sphere of influence, and Yemen is already quasi-occupied by the US. Are we going to give that up to the Europeans? I mean I just don't see that happening. France already exercises control over its former colonies in West Africa (gotta love the BS news story France put out that it was the Ivory Coast soldiers that killed that maniac and not French troops), but I suppose we could allow Europe more control in some areas of Arabia. That is if they are willing to put the money into it though. We still cover European defense, and that can't be denied. Perhaps they can take some weight off our shoulders as we go in to fight for influence in Asia.

[bobgtafan]

I think the U.S. largely is ready to give up control to the Europeans but most European nations don't even spend over 2 percent of GDP on defense and given their coming population crisis and austerity because of pensions they won't be increasing it and will continue to rely on America to project power and provide security in near by regions.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (bobgtafan @ Thursday, Dec 29 2011, 21:05)

I think the U.S. largely is ready to give up control to the Europeans but most European nations don't even spend over 2 percent of GDP on defense and given their coming population crisis and austerity because of pensions they won't be increasing it and will continue to rely on America to project power and provide security in near by regions.

And provide security in general for them.

[bobgtafan]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Friday, Dec 30 2011, 02:28)

QUOTE (bobgtafan @ Thursday, Dec 29 2011, 21:05) I think the U.S. largely is ready to give up control to the Europeans but most European nations don't even spend over 2 percent of GDP on defense and given their coming population crisis and austerity because of pensions they won't be increasing it and will continue to rely on America to project power and provide security in near by regions. And provide security in general for them.

Right, in a perfect world Europe would cover their own security interest and create their own sphere of influence so America can truly shift focus to the Western Hemisphere and East Asia were most of our economic and military interest are aligned. From what I understand ( and this may be misinformed) but most of the oil in the Middle East goes to China and Europe as well as things like natural gas and other minerals. In fact most of America's oil comes from the Western Hemisphere in Canada, America, Mexico and Venezuela in that order. I see no reason why America should subsidize European buying of raw materials from areas they could easily be responsible for if they increased their own military budgets.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (bobgtafan @ Thursday, Dec 29 2011, 22:47)

QUOTE (Irviding @ Friday, Dec 30 2011, 02:28) QUOTE (bobgtafan @ Thursday, Dec 29 2011, 21:05) I think the U.S. largely is ready to give up control to the Europeans but most European nations don't even spend over 2 percent of GDP on defense and given their coming population crisis and austerity because of pensions they won't be increasing it and will continue to rely on America to project power and provide security in near by regions. And provide security in general for them. Right, in a perfect world Europe would cover their own security interest and create their own sphere of influence so America can truly shift focus to the Western Hemisphere and East Asia were most of our economic and military interest are aligned. From what I understand ( and this may be misinformed) but most of the oil in the Middle East goes to China and Europe as well as things like natural gas and other minerals. In fact most of America's oil comes from the Western Hemisphere in Canada, America, Mexico and Venezuela in that order. I see no reason why America should subsidize European buying of raw materials from areas they could easily be responsible for if they increased their own military budgets.

Agreed. I've been supportive of Obama basically telling Europe to f*ck off lately. Compared with previous administrations, he's really cut them off from being our super strong allies we go to everything for. It's a commensal relationship with the Europeans no matter how you look at it.

[leaflinks]

UK in decline in the world or internally? I think so. Nothing remains the same forever.

[Melchior]

I don't know, I quite like Britain.

[Dimitri.]

As a UK citizen, I can definatly account for the fact that the UK is and has been in decline for many years. For a start, you say that the social care, education and other essential service cuts are essential, yet they have enough money for private government parties costiong thousands of pounds, annual spending of hundreds of thousands of pounds on bonfires, and million pound bonuses for bankers.

This government is a very corrupt group of the elite few. It's priorities are blown out of proportion, putting their own comfort before the daily survival of that ever-increasig group of people they put below the poverty line. For example, they seem fine with giving extremely ill people no support, giving the same old reason that 'we're all making sacrifices', yet they seem to be untouched by these sacrifices we 'all' have to make.

Can't wait to move to Holland. At least in Holland you can speak out against the government without being watched for the next few weeks. And yes, I've been there.

[SIKKS66]

The biggest problem is we seem to be in denial about it. As already said, we don't do anything, we have no national identity. We used to be a seafaring nation, we used to be an industrial, economic and military powerhouse. We seem to pride ourselves on that, living in the past. We just leave it to the saps to shout "proud to be British" a lot, about anything.

Right now, do we lead the world in anything meaningful? Our politicians just do the same right-wing/left-wing dance they've done for generations but nothing tangible seems to be happening to make us "Great" Britain again (a part of me just died typing that).

The only thing we're supposed to be proud about right now is the £24billion, two-week sports day we (or rather, London) are hosting in the summer. I hope it's a damp squib, I hope Team GB (groan) fails miserably. Hopefully then we'll all pull our heads out of arse about our true place in the world.

[Irviding]

Exactly - instead of living in the present and recognizing that your country could exercise strong influence over the world, it seems to be in the past notion that they own the world still.