Reminder that UK is the second most powerful nation on the planet.
>inb4 "muh russia and china"
>inb4 "muh nukes"
>>53452366
Old data
Poland is regional power now.
>>53452366
So when will they ask to get Hong Kong back?
>France above China
>>53452366
Canada is up there?
Ruins this entire thread, not a reliable table
>>53452415
Is there anyway to stop the polish bull?
>>53452519
We're still regenerating. Not powerful enough to do anything big yet.
Also
>implying we'll ask
>>53452549
to be fair they get all of our cool old shit
>9. Canada
hmm
>>53452366
get a real hobby
>>53452642
>Finland
>>53452586
>implying we'll ask
I didnt want to use "beg" to spare you some insults but if you insist.
>>53452415
stop shitposting
it's such a regional power even Ukraine told Poland to gtfo when Duda tried acting big
>>53452585
Yeah
>>53452536
France currently projects more real power and soft power than China.
French armed forces are dicking around in West Africa, North Africa, the Middle East, right at this very moment.
it helps when you're dad of the most powerful cunt.
> Russia is not the first
>Global power
>muh obscure overseas territories
>muh power projection with only 3 amphibious ships
>muh soft power
>muh ramp carriers that won't have fixed wing AWACs
>Canada and Australia as Regional Powers.
I seriously doubt that. What do they have to deserve these positions?
>UK global power.
Ok good joke, where is the real ranking?
>>53453726
With literally no aircraft carriers.
>>53453481
France is doing squat in niggerland while China is militarizing trade lanes. Sounds about right.
Real ranking:
Global power:
1- USA
Regional to Global
2- China
Regional
3- France
4-Russia
5-Japan
6-UK
7-Germany
8-India
Local
9-Italy
10-Spain
11-Sourh Korea
12-Australia
13-Brazil
14-Canada
15-Turkey
>>53455212
And economically Russia would be local under South Korea
>>53454593
We have a lot of control over our region (Oceania).
>>53455382
But you arent mosre powerful than South Korea, for example.
>>53454669
they are building 2 but I've heard they will be shitty anyway
>>53452366
>We are top 15.
What?
>>53455423
True, but I think that's just how it's weighted. South Korea has to compete with China, Japan, etc in their region while no one can really compete with us in ours.
>>53455659
>no one to compete with us
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War
>>53452603
We had nukes without any warheads during the cold war okay? We're super powerful
No,obviously china.
>>53452366
Fuck Australia has some power for a country of only 23 million. We're by far the least populated on that list.
>>53455328
Liar! You lie!
>>53452519
they should at least stop kowtowing to the dirty communist chinese frist
>>53453481
What kind of power are we talking about here? If it's about economy, then I would agree because France still has a great impact to the global economy while China, slumping down ever since the crash of their stock market, has been driving away foreign investments, not to mention, crazy shit that are happening in China and numerous violations of international code that are made by illegal Chinese companies is spelling out that they are not lucrative to the foreign companies that wants a better standards for their product.
If we are talking more than economic power (i.e. firearms) then I would say that this is a different story.
>>53455212
Tremble in fear before the power of España!
>>53452366
How can Canada be a Regoional power if the Region it is in is with a Super Power
>>53455434
Why do you say they'll be shitty? In terms of capability the UK's carrier strike will be second only to the US
>>53452549
>>53452594
Silly goy, you literally underestimate our power
>>53452366
>Canada above India and Turkey
Doubt.
>>53462744
>turkey
>power
You realise it's run by Turks?
>>53455483
We're pretty much the top dogs of South America, and together with Mexico we rule Latin America.
Sure it's tough if you wanna compare us to dreadnaughts like America, Russia and China, but hey we're still the best of a whole continent!
Then again so is Australia but I don't think that counts...
>>53455212
haha spain 10th. It's not the 1600's anymore you silly goose.
Canada is extremely modernized and fully industrialized, with a population of 35 million and bountiful natural ressources. In a war time economy our country has the capacity to produce large sums of munitions, supplies and troops. At the end of WWII we had the fourth largest airforce and the fifth largest navy in the world.
Canads is irrelevant and not a regional power considering it is sandwiched between Russia and America, two vastly more powerful nations, but it is still a relatively strong country.
>>53452366
>soft power
>>53452366
>this is what *nglos actually believe
JEJ
>the massive gap between the US and the rest of the world
Why do other countries even try?
>>53462903
Jokes on you, we don't
>8. Australia
What the fuck? How is this even judged?
>>53452366
AUSTRALIA MENTIONED
LEAF KEKS ON SUICIDE WATCH
>>53462771
>Sure it's tough if you wanna compare us to dreadnaughts like America, Russia and China
You have a bigger economy than Russia
>>53462944
>What the fuck? How is this even judged?
It's from here
http://www.europeangeostrategy.org/2014/01/european-geostrategy-audit-major-powers-worlds-fifteen-most-powerful-countries-2014/
>people confused about Canada
I don't think you people understand how first world countries work.
>>53452366
>Australia and Canada significantly above India
POO IN LOO
>Australia and Canada almost as relevant by themselves as Germany
AYY LMAO
tl;dr This is a shitty list.
And this is the better one.
>>53455212
>>53459224
Wanna know why your stock market just went down 25% the last few weeks.
China's hard power. Them sucking has an equally large effect as them doing well.
Despite being your friendly neighbourhood BIDF, my own autism rates the UK below China.
>>53452366
>Britong - Global power
>naval reaction time - 12 hrs
erry time
>>53465489
kek, I'd like to see your navy try and beat ours tbhfam
>>53452366
>>53455212
Britain and France are not regional powers if they can project military force on a global scale you ignorant spic
>>53462619
no idea I'm not into military but I saw some Brits complaining about it
>>53470529
Probably the ramp meme.
The UK's two carriers will be a massive step up in capability for the UK, and more capable than any other navy except for the US.
People here are so clueless they say the French aircraft carrier is better just because it doesn't have a ramp and is nuclear powered
>>53452366
Why is India in the top ten? Is it just because of the nukes? If so then why is Pakistan not there?
>>53452366
uk could barely hold against argies
>>53467070
>Expecting moors to know anything
Lel
>>53471133
>barely
pls
>>53471133
Except that a small taskforce easily defeated the entirety of the Argentinian army and navy during the cold war and when the British army was going through a slump
>"""global""" """"power"""
>lose cod wars to Iceland which is not even in list
>>53470769
Well by design a CATOBAR carrier is more capable than a STOBAR/STOVL carrier. Fixed-wing AWACs, cargo aircraft, more compatibility with other navies and the F-35C simply has more range and can carry a bigger payload than the F-35B.
But looking at the costs and the downtime of carriers, it's better to have two STOVL carriers like the UK will have, than just 1 CATOBAR carrier.
>>53471664
Nah there's more to it than that. STOVL and STOBAR are pretty different. STOVL has advantages which CATOBAR doesn't have. For an equivalent sized ship, the STOVL carrier has a faster sortie rate and it can operate in rougher sea states than the CATOBAR carrier. That second part is crucial. A medium-sized CATOBAR carrier probably would not have been able to operate in the rough South Atlantic seas during the Falklands War. STOVL also requires less maintenance. Compare the few months needed for QE Class maintenance to the 18 months that the French carrier requires
But the bigger mistake you're making is that not all CATOBAR carriers are the same, and not all STOVL carriers are the same. It depends on size and design too.
The French carrier has 2 catapults, compared to the big US carriers which have 4 catapults. A big STOVL carrier is much better when it comes to sorties compared to a 2-catapult carrier. You should also look at size. The French carrier typically only carries two Hawkeye (fixed-wing AWACS), which means it puts just one in the air. A single Hawkeye in the air is not superior to several Merlins that will explore in different directions simultaneously. And a Merlin's endurance is only one hour less than a Hawkeye.
So if you gave me the choice between one QE and one CdG, I would choose the QE.
>>53471133
How many countries can fight a war on the other side of the world like that
>>53467070
Yo can make a great projection of your power with 0 carriers.
LMAO
>>53470914
Because you are economically relevant, Pakistan no.
And yout navy force is far better.
>>53471154
>Moors.
There is more moors living only in London than in the whole Spain.
>>53470769
>Probably the ramp meme.
at least you won't have a literal firetruck on it like china
>>53475491
Spain you're shit. FUCK OFFFFFF
>>53452366
kek how can Canada ever become a regional power if our neighbor is the fucking US of A
>>53475681
We're lords of the Arctic on our side of the globe ;^)
>>53452366
what makes britain a global power and france not?
>>53475321
1. Global power projection involves more than just carriers, there's amphibious transport, LPDs helicopter carriers, logistics, marine assault forces etc
2. Britain has the two biggest carriers in the world outside the US navy under constuction and one on the verge of entering service
3. one of the old carriers is in reserve in case of an emergency
>>53470769
and the french one is 20 years old as well
>>53475491
I can confirm this, the single time I went to London I saw more Moors/North Africans/"Asians" than the 6 or so times I went to Spain combined.
>Global Power
>Lost to fucking ICELAND
>Not once
>Not twice
>But THREE FUCKING TIMES
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars
>>53475893
Mcvitties.
>>53475491
I'm with this guy, and not for also being Spanish. France is a regional powa, ok. I have no problem with this.
But, is UK more powerful than Russia? Fck seriously, Mr Putin did what he wanted in Crimea and your super-duper-power-worldwide-millitary-presence did a shit.
UK is not able to start a war and sustain it for a long time. Your country can do its stuff in the Middle East thanks to Murica-chan. UK is something close to Spain if we don't consider USA support into account.
>>53476006
Yeah but age isn't a good argument because many of the US carriers are even older but also better. More important factors are:
- size. the bigger the better
- amount of time spent in maintenance
- can it cope in rough seas
- variety of aircraft it can carry
- quality of the escort fleet
>>53467070
This
>>53476178
Now Germany, you know what actually happened. By your logic your country has been defeated by North Africa because your police didn't gun them down in the mass rape.
You are smarter than this. Act like it.
>>53476386
You are wrong. France is a global power. The only three blue water navies are us, the yanks and the frogs.
As for your second part, why the fuck would our global power have relevance in the reds invading Crimea? America did nothing either, is America now not a power? Awful logic.
The UK is nowhere near as low down as Spain and I want to know your weird reasoning for this.
Armchair experts on /int/ are hilarious.
>>53476814
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue-water_navy
The only REAL global power is the USA. Sotp dreaming in your Empire Era. China is most relevant than you, and you are not a global power anymore.
>>53452366
Someone could explain me please what is a local power?
This is the reality that Britfags refuse to see.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9150339/Falkland-Islands-Britain-would-lose-if-Argentina-decides-to-invade-now.html
>>53476814
Soooo, you need US' Navy to deploy yours... Then you have no Navy power.
Didn't want to say that the baguettes are not a global power, I just parcially agreed with the OP. They are the muscle of Europe. (Germany is not allowed to... lmao, no one trust Germany).
Seems that a lot of bongs still living during your Colonialist Era. And like my mate is saying, China is more relevant than you, in terms of millitary power and economical strenght.
>>53477506
>What is hyperbole and unreliable narrator
Did you sell your brain for gold as well?
>>53477506
You've got to be kidding me. There is not a chance in hell Argentina could invade the Falklands.
You don't understand the point of these articles. It's to put pressure on government and remind the public that the military exists. They're always exaggerating in order to try and win more of the budget.
>>53477576
>you need US' Navy to deploy yours..
What?
>>53477576
In terms of economy no doubt China are ahead, nobody is arguing that but China military is nowhere near Britain's.
>>53477576
>>53477684
It's more accurate to say that China's military is larger, but the UK has longer military reach. China can unleash more power against its neighbours than the UK can, but China can't sustain a military operation across the seas.
>>53452366
UK is shit
>>53477644
If UK has not carriers in active service you depend on US Navy to provide air support in foreign countries. Im not saying that your ship are sinkable nuttshells, if not that you need that cooperation to deploy amphibious troops. And please, don't tell me that you don't need them to attack, for examble, Haiti. I am talking about a real operative force against a decent-armed country.
>>53477613
Hyperbole that saya that you are not a global power anymore. You are a regional power as Germany (economically stronger than you) and France (politically and military stronger than you).
Now, can you tell me what makes you a global power, you smart paki?
This China military meme needs to stop.
China has no interest in expansionism. All the RPC ever did, military wise, was to reconquer what they considered to be China's "natural" borders.
>>53477763
Shut up, you are not allowed to have a proper army.
No resentment, I find funny Germany's situation due to World Wars.
>>53477873
Oh sure, right now we don't have carriers in active service. That's a fair criticism. So right now we can't project air power. But you are pretending that carrier strike is the only thing navies do. That's nonsense. The Royal Navy can and does deploy independently around the world 365 days a year.
>>53477917
>Now, can you tell me what makes you a global power, you smart paki?
Not him but here are a few things. Pic related. A seat on the UNSC P5. Having the world's 5th economy. Being part of alliances and unions that span the world. For example, the UK is part of a Far East defence agreement that includes the UK, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand
>>53478068
A Navy with no air support is an easy prey for someone with decent air forces. Even Spain would be able to repel an amphibious assault from UK.
Yes, I know that the Royal Navy can and does deploy troops beyond its borders, but I repeat, that would't be possible if you wanted to deploy the same units in Nordland, for example. You lack the air support to face a well-armed enemy.
And one curiosity, if the French people are frogs, and those from USA are burguers, what are Spanish? Moors?
>>53478366
stop it faggot you embarass me
>>53477917
You don't know what hyperbole means do you?
>>53478366
Again, you seem to think the sole purpose of a navy is to project air power for amphibious assault. That is wrong. I said the Royal Navy can deploy worldwide, I didn't mean to deliver troops (although it does this).
Amphibious assault is a *tiny* fraction of everything a navy does.
And while we have to wait a few years before we can PROJECT air power, the Royal Navy is very capable of defending AGAINST enemy air power
>>53478366
>And one curiosity, if the French people are frogs, and those from USA are burguers, what are Spanish? Moors?
Well, you'r one unique and bizarre delicacy is bull's balls.
>>53478612
Exageración. Yes I know, perhaps you wouldnt loose that war, but this is not the idea. You have lost a lot of power and Royal Navy is not what it used to be. You are not a global power anymore.
>>53478564
Por que? No dice nada raro.
>His country doesn't have the word "United" in its official title.
>>53477959
You shouldt laught a lot. Half of the weapons that europeans use are made by them, and are much stronger economically.
Germany is an USA colony after WWII just as Spain, UK and the rest of NATO countries are. And because of that USA is the REAL global power, the other ones just wannabes, except China.
>>53479331
>his country doesn't have Equal Power/Dominion in its official title
>>53479051
No, the idea is that we are letting the Royal Navy decline and though it is still the 2nd most powerful navy in the World, Britain is in danger of losing that spot.
Seriously, learn how to read.
>>53478912
And paella, all guiris wastw a fortune to eat a cheap and wrong-made paella.
Spanish diet is very rich, but only for people that knows anything about it.
>>53479404
Would like to see your navy against russian army to proove that.
Seriously, I would love to see that.
>>53479576
>Would like to see your navy against russian army to proove that.
What does this mean? Our navy against the Russian navy?
>>53479519
>Spanish diet is very rich, but only for people that knows anything about it.
Because you think we eat frog legs for every meal ? This applies to every nation's cuisine.
>>53479404
And try to understand what people try to tell to you.
Royal Navy is at the same level as is used to be? UK is still relevant in the world as it used to be? Would you say that your country is more relevant than China, more relevant than even Russia or France, than Germany in Europe?
>>53479722
I havent said that. There is more than one Spaniard posting here.
>>53479835
>Royal Navy is at the same level as is used to be? UK is still relevant in the world as it used to be?
Sorry but who was even saying that? I believe this is called a straw man.
>>53452366
your inb4s are the truth about this list though. uk has almost no manufacturing businesses, they cant even make up their own shit anymore. china nuclear reactors ftw.
>>53479882
Currently, there are 3 Spaniards.
When I laught of Germany was from the good side. They had no army before becoming the Bellic Power that faced half Europe and Russia alone. Just wanted to be ironic.
I know that they currently control Europe's economy.
>fucking spain of all countries having a go at the UK
get a job jose, you won't feel so emasculated when thinking about Britain then
>>53480158
Your country can't have a Stronk Army neither. xDD
But the progress after WW2 was impresive. And your economical and industrial power is something that deserves admiration too.
The Axis is good at economy.
>>53480158
>they cant even make up their own shit anymore. china nuclear reactors ftw.
You're pretty stupid, Britain DOES make its own nuclear reactors. The ones that go in our nuclear submarines are made in Britain by Rolls Royce. These are more complex than the civil reactors and the reactor of an Astute Class submarine could power a city the size of Southampton
We are getting France and China to build civil nuclear reactors because the government doesn't want the taxpayer to bear the capital costs (which are enormous).
There are plenty of valid criticism you can make about the UK. It's pathetic that so many of you have to tell lies about us.
>>53480465
>implying we won't bear the capital costs in the end anyway through higher utility bills and massive state-funded decommissioning costs.
lmao
>>53452536
>china anything other than a paper tiger
>>53467070
>UK projecting military force without American help
Ebin
>>53481141
We will be paying a lot, nuclear power is expensive. But we're paying higher utility bills etc instead of the capital costs. It means the payment is more spread out.
It also means that if there's a problem when building the reactor, or if it's delayed, it's French and Chinese money on the line. Some analysts have said that Hinkley Point C has the potential to destroy EdF (the French state-owned company)
>>53476814
>China isn't blue water when they have larger ships, way more logistics, supply bases around the world, four huge amphibious assault ships, and a carrier.
The British guy who coined the term blur water navy literally calls China's Navy blue water.
>>53481393
Total cost will be higher as they're guaranteed some ludicriously inflated £/MWh, also a national security threat whether you think so or not.
Should bite the bullet and get a state-backed nuclear power company going again.
>>53481337
>merikek winning a war without european help
zozzle
>>53481581
Chinese logistics are shite and they definitely do not have naval supply bases around the world. lmao.
Give it 10-15 years mate.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf
>>53456388
I wouldn't say 'by far.' Canada only has a population of 35 million
>>53481686
>Should bite the bullet and get a state-backed nuclear power company going again.
I agree, but this government seems focused on getting current borrowing down at all costs
>>53483381
But borrowing at ~2% to fund infrastructure makes a huge amount of sense.
>muh deficit
>>53481811
They are shit?
They have 40-50 logistic ship and supply bases in Pakistan, Eritrea, and Sri Lanka.
The Chinese also have few interests outside of the Pacific/Indian Ocean so "Global reach" is pointless to them.
Their logistics have been growing at an exponential rate in quantity and capability.
>>53483564
The British deficit is absolutely horrible considering current GDP/Debt levels.
>Australia's total military power is 117.6%
Pretty comfy
>>53483818
-4.4% GDP in 2015
It's bad but not awful. France is at -4.1% and Japan is -6.8%
>>53484198
It's horrible considering current debt levels.
I dont care about those memes for kids and autstic wizzards.
But it cannot be unseen that brits in general are idiots, autstic idiots that try to represent them as some big players worlwide.
You are pushing this on soo big lvl that it is becoming funny desu,
Considering the fact that there is 68 posters I belive that there is more than 1 deluded fucker from UK.
>UK would crush Russia in real fight
>USA couldnt beat or navy or go to full war with UK
>our economy is strong
>Our car industry is GOD tier, better than Germany
>We colonized world, we best yeaahhh
Those are some of posts I rembember seing here.
In reality I have respect for UK, its nice country with nice economy.
But:
>Brits are stupid, ignorant and arogant
>Fat fuckers full os niggers and muslims on streets of London
>Football clubs are now owned by Russians and Muslims
>Bad weather, boring as fuck
>Ugliest nation on planet and you are winning it by far
>Honstly you are irelevant to many of us, no body fucking cares about UK remember that!!
>Your are helpless without USA
>Being USA dog and dont accept the truth cuz muhhh world power, we used to rule da world before.
Please stop that shity threads and deluded crap about UK beating Russia or China pls, and even saying some crap how USA is just a "litlle" stronger than you. Its soo wrong that it is stupid to argue about.
You fucking incest born degenerates, first achive legal age to use this website and than post it.
Best regards my dear imperialistic world gloabal player, we all fear and shake of some new UK threat and move on global scene. Yeahh Putin is just meme thing, USA is no big deal, China is one big lie but UK on the other hand is serious shit.
TOP KEK
Go to dentist fuckers! They will care more about you than the rest of the world.
tier 1
-USA
tier 2
-Russia
-China (will be in tier 1 in years)
tier 3
-UK
-France
tier 4
-other
>>53487892
I agree with the nippon.
>>53486847
So many strawmen here it's more of a straw city
