U.K. Depends On U.S. Military

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

O.K. a new thread to liven things up. ;)
Are people aware the U.K. would be knackered over defence without the U.S. military which explains all these debates over foreign policy. How come we were left so far behind? In actual fact, in a sense, we couldn't go to war without permission from the U.S. Senate as we don't have the capacity. Comments?
Note:
http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd76/76news04.htm
"The UK currently deploys the US nuclear weapon system, Trident, using British-made submarines and an ostensibly British-designed warhead. The UK Trident uses Trident II D5 missiles from the US missile pool, which are manufactured, tested and serviced in the United States. UK Trident submarines collect the missiles from the US Trident submarine base at Kings Bay, Georgia. The missiles are tested at the US missile test range off the coast of Florida. The UK Trident submarines are assigned to NATO and rely on US satellites for targeting."

Israel is also far more powerful than the United Kingdom which may explain why it's the U.S. main partner of consultation. Whereas Britain probably couldn't win a war against Iran without U.S. assistance (or defence) Israel is another matter.

"In 1986 descriptions and photographs of Israeli nuclear warheads were published in the London Sunday Times of a purported underground bomb factory. The photographs were taken by Mordechai Vanunu, a dismissed Israeli nuclear technician. His information led some experts to conclude that Israel had a stockpile of 100 to 200 nuclear devices at that time."

Kinda sucks really. But since we lost the Empire GB has had no real reason to have a big military. All we do is peace-keeping/helping America out when it decides to invade somewhere. We have some of the best troops in the world but they aren't that great in number and horribly under resourced.

Britain 100 years - even 200 years ago - required a vast military infrastructure in order to maintain it's empire.
But Britain back then was in a different position to the USA today - because back then you had several colonial powers trying to conquer more than their peers.
France and Germany (Prussia), Astro Hungary were all trying to acquire more and more territory.

So in historical terms, Britain today is nowhere near as dominant as it was back
in those times.
And that's not a bad thing.

Professor Niall Ferguson has calculated that 67 of the 68 empires in mankinds history have all fallen.
Ferguson says that the USA will follow the other 67 empires.

O.K. a new thread to liven things up. ;)
Are people aware the U.K. would be knackered over defence without the U.S. military which explains all these debates over foreign policy. How come we were left so far behind? In actual fact, in a sense, we couldn't go to war without permission from the U.S. Senate as we don't have the capacity. Comments?


I've made this point before Crappy. My conclusion was : We shouldn't bother buying any more cracked up gear from the US. If we are going to have a Nuke deterrent it needs to be under *our* control, otherwise it isn't worth squat to us. Brown has indicated that he thinks we should fund the development of another US replacement to Trident, I can't see the point. It's new money for old rope.

I've made this point before Crappy. My conclusion was : We shouldn't bother buying any more cracked up gear from the US. If we are going to have a Nuke deterrent it needs to be under *our* control, otherwise it isn't worth squat to us. Brown has indicated that he thinks we should fund the development of another US replacement to Trident, I can't see the point. It's new money for old rope.

Who controls Trident ?
Presumably Britain could use Trident without having to get the go ahead from the US?

Israel is also far more powerful than the United Kingdom which may explain why it's the U.S. main partner of consultation. Whereas Britain probably couldn't win a war against Iran without U.S. assistance (or defence) Israel is another matter.
If Israel did not have the capability of defeating any other Middle Eastern country, Israel would have ceased to exist long ago. But they could not have achieved this without assistance from the US, and indeed from the UK.

Professor Niall Ferguson has calculated that 67 of the 68 empires in mankinds history have all fallen.
Ferguson says that the USA will follow the other 67 empires.No doubt at that but it will not happen in most of our lifetimes.

Britain's took almost 200 years.

That was what I was driving at, Lim. That was something I wasn't aware of myself. The U.K. has no nuclear capability without express permission from the White House. The Trident Missiles are actually controlled by America if I understand it correctly. A nuclear power we ain't.
That is why, despite all the wrangles and arguments, Blair has no option but to follow U.S. policy.
France, on the other hand, has its own nuclear capability, although it's not anything to do cartwheels over.
Israel, for that matter, does have its own nuclear capability and doesn't depend on the U.S. for the button option. I believe France collaborated with Israel and helped it get the bomb.

Who controls Trident ?
Presumably Britain could use Trident without having to get the go ahead from the US?

But conversely speaking.... Einstein was the brains behind nuclear energy. Without Einstein, the U.S. wouldn't be where it is today. Likewise, without Lenin and Trotsky, Russia would never have been a global power. Physicists such as Saharov borrowed a good deal from Einstein. As Einstein was the father of nuclear physics, Israel of all nations is entitled to its nuclear weapons.


If Israel did not have the capability of defeating any other Middle Eastern country, Israel would have ceased to exist long ago. But they could not have achieved this without assistance from the US, and indeed from the UK.

But, Booger Boogkins........ :D ;) :D
That was my point. It ain't under our control. That's an astounding fact, as Britain once led the world in industry and economical power. We got left behind. They allowed all the brains in the country to go elsewhere and in the U.S. there was more money for science.


I've made this point before Crappy. My conclusion was : We shouldn't bother buying any more cracked up gear from the US. If we are going to have a Nuke deterrent it needs to be under *our* control, otherwise it isn't worth squat to us. Brown has indicated that he thinks we should fund the development of another US replacement to Trident, I can't see the point. It's new money for old rope.

Limerickman, your bold coding ain't right, I don't think. :confused: You appear to have both tags closed when the first should be open? Let's see if this works or not:
<B>Writing in bold</B>

Britain 100 years - even 200 years ago - required a vast military infrastructure in order to maintain it's empire.
But Britain back then was in a different position to the USA today - because back then you had several colonial powers trying to conquer more than their peers.
France and Germany (Prussia), Astro Hungary were all trying to acquire more and more territory.

So in historical terms, Britain today is nowhere near as dominant as it was back
in those times.
And that's not a bad thing.

Professor Niall Ferguson has calculated that 67 of the 68 empires in mankinds history have all fallen.
Ferguson says that the USA will follow the other 67 empires.

:confused: Hmmm, yet it works on notepad?? :confused:

Limerickman, your bold coding ain't right, I don't think. :confused: You appear to have both tags closed when the first should be open? Let's see if this works or not:
<B>Writing in bold</B>

Limerickman, your bold coding ain't right, I don't think. :confused: You appear to have both tags closed when the first should be open? Let's see if this works or not:
<B>Writing in bold</B>

I made not attempt to "bold" anything in message 4 (or anywhere else for that matter).

It works for me...I just went to user CP,clicked on the "B " and Robert's yer farver's bruvver.When I do that though,I get square brackets,as in B.
.....[ ]square brackets works OK,without the backslash in the first set of brackets.
At the bottom left corner of this page...I have "IMG" code set to "on",and "HTML" set to "off" and it all works OK.

Hmmm....I suspect the evil hand of George Bush and the CIA in this.My sword shall not sleep in my hand....

It's that Bush behind this rain lark. I wanted to paint my boat but the fact is this: Bush has this rain machine he's using to flood the planet. He and the other Bushites are then going to steal your boat and my boat and do a Noah on us all.
It's a plot so it is. :p


It works for me...I just went to user CP,clicked on the "B " and Robert's yer farver's bruvver.When I do that though,I get square brackets,as in B.
.....[ ]square brackets works OK,without the backslash in the first set of brackets.
At the bottom left corner of this page...I have "IMG" code set to "on",and "HTML" set to "off" and it all works OK.

Hmmm....I suspect the evil hand of George Bush and the CIA in this.My sword shall not sleep in my hand....

Limerickman, your bold coding ain't right, I don't think. :confused: You appear to have both tags closed when the first should be open? Let's see if this works or not:
<B>Writing in bold</B>nope, Carrera, that wont work either.

tags on most php based forums take the format of bold - [ b ] [ / b ]

you were specifying html.

anyway whats all this USA sumbissive shite you keep spouting these days?

the UK depends on the US military?....does that give you some kind of sexual kick?...

the US army is bigger, thats where it ends. There is no way in hell the UK is inferior to the US militarily except purely in numbers. One-on-one the UK is the best trained army in the world. You will not find any one (including an American) to diasgree with that statement. If they do then they are deluded to the point of stupor.

I wanted to paint my boat but the fact is this: Bush has this rain machine he's using to flood the planet. :p
its called industrial pollution... emitting uncontrolled levels of carbon dioxide and chemical pollutants into our atmosphere, it does contribute to global warming and does produce adverse weather effects as well as acid rain and the pollution of drinking water in 3rd world countries.

America is the biggest polluter on the planet, the biggest criminal and it - this is precious - "it isnt in America's financial interests to accept Kyoto protocols on pollution" . I heard that from an American on another forum....beautiful.


you need to get your tounge out of GWBs arse and start looking at the real world.

its called industrial pollution... emitting uncontrolled levels of carbon dioxide and chemical pollutants into our atmosphere, it does contribute to global warming and does produce adverse weather effects as well as acid rain and the pollution of drinking water in 3rd world countries.

America is the biggest polluter on the planet, the biggest criminal and it - this is precious - "it isnt in America's financial interests to accept Kyoto protocols on pollution" . I heard that from an American on another forum....beautiful.


you need to get your tounge out of GWBs arse and start looking at the real world.
Can you tell us a single fact about the Kyoto treaty?

It requires countries like America to reduce ozone emissions FAR more dramatically than any other country in the world. At face level...that would seem right if we pollute more.

However....it also allows for undeveloped countries.....and countries like China....to continually increase the pace of pollution up to the same level as the US.

So essentially what the Kyoto treaty is.....is a redistribution of the pollution....they want us to curb our manufacturing and emissions while allowing other countries to take what we reduce.

You need to get your head out of your own ass and actually know something about the treaty before casting aspersions.

nope, Carrera, that wont work either.

tags on most php based forums take the format of bold - [ b ] [ / b ]

you were specifying html.

anyway whats all this USA sumbissive shite you keep spouting these days?

the UK depends on the US military?....does that give you some kind of sexual kick?...

the US army is bigger, thats where it ends. There is no way in hell the UK is inferior to the US militarily except purely in numbers. One-on-one the UK is the best trained army in the world. You will not find any one (including an American) to diasgree with that statement. If they do then they are deluded to the point of stupor.
I agree....to a point. I don't think one on one the English army is any better or worse than ours.

The English army is a great ally and a great fighting force.

It's just too bad they come from England apparently as I am starting to not think the same of them.