Who is the most powerful?

[Oleg Bach]

Just wondering if all the commonwealth nations were mobilized into one huge fighting force - would they have more weapons - more boots on the ground and more nukes than America?

[Oleg Bach]

Okay BC - do the math and report back - it should take you about 2 minutes to come up with the figures...what's an America expert for anyway - a prophet is not appreciated in his own home or nation...but I WILL appreciate some wisdom sent to the north...am I making sense here? Is it possible that we are the super power and you are not as super?

[Guest American Woman]

The U.S. has twice as many aircraft carriers as the rest of the world combined and has far more nuclear power than the UK/commonwealth. Obviously the commonwealth has a much higher population than the U.S., but if it's not part of a well trained military, in this day and age I'm not so sure that means too much. Crazy question, though - the commonwealth is made up of independent nations - it's not as if they act as one or could be commanded to act as one, so how powerful they are combined is really not a factor.

Edited August 21, 2011 by American Woman

[Oleg Bach]

The U.S. has twice as many aircraft carriers as the rest of the world combined and has far more nuclear power than the UK/commonwealth. Obviously the commonwealth has a much higher population than the U.S., but if it's not part of a well trained military, in this day and age I'm not so sure that means too much. Crazy question, though - the commonwealth is made up of independent nations - it's not as if they act as one or could be commanded to act as one, so how powerful they are combined is really not a factor.

This might be one fo the things that are over looked. If a crisis was to arise. The commonwealth nations are not as "independant" as persumed. The power of the crown - symbolically or other wise - is still a very powerful force. They would rally if needed. The edge that they have is geographical - If they needed to attack... say America - which they never would - they could come on from all sides...and to control this advance..would be impossible - In a conventional war..Americam supply lines could be easily distrubed and broken.

Never underestimate an advesary that is capable of surrounding you. It's not a crazy question per say - For instance if Britain or Canada were attacked...India - parts of Africa - the EU - Australia - and so on...would swarm the advesary - Point being - the crown has created a historic tie that does is a comprised super power..I guess that is the point.

The Commonwealth could cause great grief to China or America if need be....Those that dispise the crown do not realize it's importance and power.

[Oleg Bach]

Also - these nations could be commanded as one - if they were unmanagable - they would have left the commonwealth - they all stayed - so what does that say? American leaders always pay tribute to the crown and always make the tradtional visit to London - because they understand that even though they may have left mother nest a long time ago - They are still family.

[Oleg Bach]

So any time we hear Ameicans or Canadians bash the Queen - they must realize that without this historic binding force - we are weaker. For instance if the Crown ceased to exist - the commonwealth would be up for grabs - as we see with the overtures towards Pakistan by China. India is loyal - Pakistan is not. American foreign poicy had better get with the fact that any historic resentment towards their mother nation causes a weakness in the chain...I suggest that America rejoin the commonwealth and stop acting like the collage kid that thinks he does not need mum and dad anymore - as long as a parent lives - security is ensured.

[Guest American Woman]

The power of the crown - symbolically or other wise - is still a very powerful force. They would rally if needed.

That's an opinion, not fact, and I'm guessing there are more than a few people in the commonwealth nations who believe their nation is independent of the crown - and could very well choose to act independently of the crown. The UK went into Iraq, for example, thinking it was necessary for their well being - and Canada didn't follow. So rallying is not a given. And even if they would rally, it would be as allies, not as one nation - so again, it's combined strength is not an equal comparison to the U.S.

[Oleg Bach]

That's an opinion, not fact, and I'm guessing there are more than a few people in the commonwealth nations who believe their nation is independent of the crown - and could very well choose to act independently of the crown. The UK went into Iraq, for example, thinking it was necessary for their well being - and Canada didn't follow. So rallying is not a given. And even if they would rally, it would be as allies, not as one nation - so again, it's combined strength is not an equal comparison to the U.S.

Seems that the "opinion" worrys you. _ Like I said - If a "few" people believe they are independent of the crown - that is as you said - a FEW - and a few don't count. The UK went into Iraq as a buisness venture - there was no profit for Canada. Canada did not follow because they were not guarenteed a cut in the contractual profits of war. No you are wrong. Never underestimate an old lady who controls the largest multi-national corporations - for the last 600 years. Corporate autocrats are all loyal to the crown - Canada is a company town.

[Oleg Bach]

Seems that the "opinion" worrys you. _ Like I said - If a "few" people believe they are independent of the crown - that is as you said - a FEW - and a few don't count. The UK went into Iraq as a buisness venture - there was no profit for Canada. Canada did not follow because they were not guarenteed a cut in the contractual profits of war. No you are wrong. Never underestimate an old lady who controls the largest multi-national corporations - for the last 600 years. Corporate autocrats are all loyal to the crown - Canada is a company town.

Bush and Cheney included.

[Guest American Woman]

Seems that the "opinion" worrys you.

No, it doesn't worry me in the least. Simply commenting on the reality of the situation.

_ Like I said - If a "few" people believe they are independent of the crown - that is as you said - a FEW - and a few don't count.

Actually, I think the vast majority of Canadians believe Canada is an independent nation.

The UK went into Iraq as a buisness venture - there was no profit for Canada. Canada did not follow because they were not guarenteed a cut in the contractual profits of war.

So Canada - an independent nation - didn't back the crown since there was no profit for Canada. Such loyalty, eh? That confirms what I've said. The two nations acted independently.

No you are wrong. Never underestimate an old lady who controls the largest multi-national corporations - for the last 600 years. Corporate autocrats are all loyal to the crown - Canada is a company town.

Only when it profits Canada, according to you.

No, I'm not wrong. All of the commonwealth rallying together is not a given - and if it did, it would be as allies, just as I said, not comparable to one nation.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Just wondering if all the commonwealth nations were mobilized into one huge fighting force - would they have more weapons - more boots on the ground and more nukes than America?

Simple Answer.

No.

No one has wasted more money on investing in weapon stockpiles than the U.S.

[Oleg Bach]

Simple Answer.

No.

No one has wasted more money on investing in weapon stockpiles than the U.S.

Okay..back to the idea that Canada is an "independent" nation - everyone is big on this independence thing - Canada is an adult but still the adult child of Britian - the adult child can be independent but will always have powerful familiar ties with their place of origin. So second question - how would a totally united commonwealth fair if they had a conventional war with America - seeing little Japan almost kicked the crap out of them --- I suggest that the commonwealth would be a more dangerous advesary...I guess the point is - I really do not like this idea that we need to hide behind the shirt tails of big brother America...Canada combined with all of it's royalist members is not some whimp - we as the mafia say - have family...or as Dany Devito said "You mess with me and you are messing with the whole family"

[bush_cheney2004]

....I suggest that America rejoin the commonwealth and stop acting like the collage kid that thinks he does not need mum and dad anymore - as long as a parent lives - security is ensured.

The United States was never part of the Commonwealth. As for geater Commonwealth power, it seems that didn't win the day for WW1 or WW2. The Americans didn't start your wars, but it sure as hell finished them.

Edited August 22, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Oleg Bach]

The United States was never part of the Commonwealth. As for geater Commonwealth power, it seems that didn't win the day for WW1 or WW2. The Americans didn't start your wars, but it sure as hell finished them.

You always arrived fashionably late.

[Boges]

If, for whatever reason, the US decided to go to war against the rest of NATO and/or the British Commonwealth. We'd become Holland and/or Poland circa WW2 before the rest of the world could mobilize to our defense.

I would argue most Canadians would consider the US more of a friend than the British Commonwealth anyway. It's just some quirky thing we like to keep part of our identity.

[Oleg Bach]

Not being a military brain, it was still easy to figure that out. By the time the commonwealth nations were mobilized we would be over run..oh well - just a thought...as for America being more of a friend than the commonwealth...not true - America is like some rich tycoon that really does not have any true friends, unless he rents or buys them.

[bush_cheney2004]

You always arrived fashionably late.

So did the Commonwealth....after appeasement failed.

[Yukon Jack]

The British Commonwealth was never more - except for some quasi-Olympic kind of Games - than a loose alliance of producers supporting free-loaders.

Anyone who thinks that those nations who are still slave to this 19th century anachronism would unite and bear arms against America, well, lives in the 19th century.

[Oleg Bach]

The British Commonwealth was never more - except for some quasi-Olympic kind of Games - than a loose alliance of producers supporting free-loaders.

Anyone who thinks that those nations who are still slave to this 19th century anachronism would unite and bear arms against America, well, lives in the 19th century.

My dad was born in 1910 - his father was born in the last part of the 1800s - My dads way of thinking was effected by his father - and hence I am partially the product of the 19th century - It would be nice to go home - back in time...funny recent Russian immigrants always comment that I look act behave and speak like I am for the olden days - oh well. The commonwealth way of thinking is still more powerful than the American way - Problem is thinking something does not make it so - so forget about having a war...maybe in the next life.

[bush_cheney2004]

...The commonwealth way of thinking is still more powerful than the American way - Problem is thinking something does not make it so - so forget about having a war...maybe in the next life.

Good idea.....don't write checks you can't cash.

[Oleg Bach]

Good idea.....don't write checks you can't cash.

Would never write a check...that I couldn't cash. Could be the point - If China got to pushy - thinking that America might be ready for the complete taking - they had better realise that there are many nations that it would have to deal with all at once.

[Guest Derek L]

There is a greater likelihood of Commonwealth member states fighting each other than the United States………That said, any fictional nuclear war between the United States vs. the United Kingdom, India and Pakistan would be over in a few hours……..The United States has the ability to counterstrike, the others, not so much……

[Oleg Bach]

There is a greater likelihood of Commonwealth member states fighting each other than the United States………That said, any fictional nuclear war between the United States vs. the United Kingdom, India and Pakistan would be over in a few hours……..The United States has the ability to counterstrike, the others, not so much……

SO they can hit you but once - and America can smack you around for a while with nukes. Great scenaro...does not look like there is a victory for anyone in this.

[Guest American Woman]

SO they can hit you but once - and America can smack you around for a while with nukes. Great scenaro...does not look like there is a victory for anyone in this.

You do realize it's not happening, right?

[g_bambino]

The British Commonwealth was never more - except for some quasi-Olympic kind of Games - than a loose alliance of producers supporting free-loaders.

Anyone who thinks that those nations who are still slave to this 19th century anachronism would unite and bear arms against America, well, lives in the 19th century.

Talking about anachronisms: The "British Commonwealth" hasn't existed for over 60 years; it's been the Commonwealth of Nations since 1949. Membership is voluntary, not slavery.

Of course, it's impossible to say what would happen if the US carried out an act of war against a Commonwealth member state. Probable is the Commonwealth Secretariat condemning the act; but would it mobilise the 53 other Commonwealth members to ally in military retaliation? Unlikely. Some might opt to fight, others would not. Oleg is nuts if he thinks Queen Elizabeth still has command of the Indian, Pakistani, South African, Brunei, and other non-Realm armed forces, or even that she could threaten the presidents/monarchs of those countries into ordering their militaries to move against any other country. I have great respect for the Queen and appreciate the Commonwealth Realms' Crown (including the way it links over a dozen countries through a shared monarch and more than 50 countries as a "symbol of the free association of [the Commonwealth's] independent member nations"); but a globally dominating power she and it are not.

[cap]

Edited August 22, 2011 by g_bambino