Who is the most powerful?

[Oleg Bach]

Yes Oleg is nuts - and a very old school royalist.

[Oleg Bach]

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]

Why do people want to believe that the Queen is some influenceless figure head - How many corporations do you believe that she quietly controls? Hom much influence can she dole out in one phone call to all the other phone callers at her disposal? The Queen is a Queen for God's sake - and she could do just about anything...including depose a few leaders on a whim - money rules - class rules - tradtion rules. In the old days they had lawyers all over the world who carried the now almost defunct title of Queens' Council....who do you think all these old guys ultimately report too? You are talking thousands of quiet spys and facilitators all over the planet - never underestimate - a thousand years of orgainized effort>

[Bonam]

If it came to it right now, the US could probably wipe the floor with every other nation on Earth combined, let alone just the commonwealth. Only Russia has enough nukes to saturate ABM defenses and to do significant damage to the US, but their military is underfunded, demoralized and poorly trained. All the other countries the US could nuke to oblivion without fear of retaliation in mere minutes.

Or, it if came to conventional combat and all sides decided to avoid the use of nuclear weapons, the US would have even a greater advantage. No other nation has the capability to conduct extensive military operations on multiple continents at the same time. No other nation has the logistical capabilities to sustain prolonged offensives from locations where they don't have ready made bases.

[Oleg Bach]

If it came to it right now, the US could probably wipe the floor with every other nation on Earth combined, let alone just the commonwealth. Only Russia has enough nukes to saturate ABM defenses and to do significant damage to the US, but their military is underfunded, demoralized and poorly trained. All the other countries the US could nuke to oblivion without fear of retaliation in mere minutes.

Or, it if came to conventional combat and all sides decided to avoid the use of nuclear weapons, the US would have even a greater advantage. No other nation has the capability to conduct extensive military operations on multiple continents at the same time. No other nation has the logistical capabilities to sustain prolonged offensives from locations where they don't have ready made bases.

Some one is going to have to sign the pay checks for the American mercenary forces - from what I understand they are running low on cash - Men who fight for money do not fight for free - The tax payers would revolt - and they would have to pay of their military to contain their own people - I don't believe that America can pull it off at this point - Neither does China who takes their money and laughs.

[g_bambino]

Why do people want to believe that the Queen is some influenceless figure head - How many corporations do you believe that she quietly controls? Hom much influence can she dole out in one phone call to all the other phone callers at her disposal? The Queen is a Queen for God's sake - and she could do just about anything...including depose a few leaders on a whim - money rules - class rules - tradtion rules.

Oleg, why do you think Elizabeth II is any different than, say, Queen Beatrix or King Harald V?

[Guest Derek L]

Some one is going to have to sign the pay checks for the American mercenary forces - from what I understand they are running low on cash - Men who fight for money do not fight for free - The tax payers would revolt - and they would have to pay of their military to contain their own people - I don't believe that America can pull it off at this point - Neither does China who takes their money and laughs.

Oleg, let’s say I owe you $100 dollars.....I have a gun, you a stick....I’m not going to pay you back that $100 dollars.....How funny is that?

The taxpayers would buy war bonds, taxes would have to be rasied and the rust belt would rebuild industry………A larger scale war might not be too bad economically for the United States…….

Now loan me another $25 bucks.....

[g_bambino]

If it came to it right now, the US could probably wipe the floor with every other nation on Earth combined, let alone just the commonwealth. Only Russia has enough nukes to saturate ABM defenses and to do significant damage to the US, but their military is underfunded, demoralized and poorly trained. All the other countries the US could nuke to oblivion without fear of retaliation in mere minutes.

But the US would still be doomed to collapse from the results of the environmental impact of nuclear war on that scale: nuclear winter, radiation poisoning, famine, etc.

Or, it if came to conventional combat and all sides decided to avoid the use of nuclear weapons, the US would have even a greater advantage. No other nation has the capability to conduct extensive military operations on multiple continents at the same time. No other nation has the logistical capabilities to sustain prolonged offensives from locations where they don't have ready made bases.

That's a questionable assertion. The funds alone needed for such a campaign would be astronomical, never mind how stretched thin the forces would be. Plus, there's some 380,000,000 people fit for military service just in China; more than the entire US population.

[+]

Edited August 22, 2011 by g_bambino

[Guest Derek L]

But the US would still be doomed to collapse from the results of the environmental impact of nuclear war on that scale: nuclear winter, radiation poisoning, famine, etc.

Not nessacalry, a single strike launched against the Commonwealth by the United States from an Ohio class ballistic missile sub, with 24 Trident SLBMs, with each having ~4-5 MIRVs, would pretty much end it…….120 low yield nukes won’t cause a nuclear winter…

That's a questionable assertion. The funds alone needed for such a campaign would be astronomical, never mind how stretched thin the forces would be. Plus, there's some 380,000,000 people fit for military service just in China; more than the entire US population.

In a conventional dust-up, the United States could bomb any nations capital with impunity from bombers (B-2) based in Missouri or cruise missiles launched from nuclear attack subs……the other side, not really much a threat………The Chinese numbers don’t mean much when they’re in China.

Edited August 22, 2011 by Derek L

[g_bambino]

Not nessacalry, a single strike launched against the Commonwealth by the United States from an Ohio class ballistic missile sub, with 24 Trident SLBMs, with each having ~4-5 MIRVs, would pretty much end it…….120 low yield nukes won’t cause a nuclear winter…

I was under the impression you were speaking about the US vs. the world. But, even if it were - in some other bizarre scenario - the US against the 54 nations of the Commonwealth, I'd still wager that the resulting environmental impact on the globe would be significant; fallout would be blowing all around the globe, directly into the northern US from Canada alone. Not to be forgotten is that India and the UK would launch counter-attacks on the US, bringing all the effects of nuclear explosions right to US soil.

In a conventional dust-up, the United States could bomb any nations capital with impunity from bombers (B-2) based in Missouri our cruise missiles launched from conventional subs……the other side, not really much a threat………The Chinese numbers don’t mean much when they’re in China.

Still not buying it.

[+]

Edited August 22, 2011 by g_bambino

[Guest Derek L]

I was under the impression you were speaking about the US vs. the world. But, even if it were - in some other bizarre scenario - the US against the 54 nations of the Commonwealth, I'd still wager that the resulting environmental impact on the globe would be significant; fallout would be blowing all around the globe, directly into the northern US from Canada alone. Not to be forgotten is that India and the UK would launch counter-attacks on the US, bringing all the effects of nuclear explosions right to US soil.

The environmental impact is subjective………there where many more bombs tested in the 50s & 60s…

The Indians don’t have any missiles that can reach North America, and the British usually only have one of their four boomers at sea....The British would require avoiding USN attack subs prior to launching....They’ve had problems “avoiding” French subs lately, so it’s a crap shoot....The Americans have missile defence, the Brits subs carry 16 (American) missiles...

[Guest Derek L]

..

Edited August 22, 2011 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

..

Edited August 22, 2011 by Derek L

[bush_cheney2004]

... the US against the 54 nations of the Commonwealth, I'd still wager that the resulting environmental impact on the globe would be significant; fallout would be blowing all around the globe, directly into the northern US from Canada alone. Not to be forgotten is that India and the UK would launch counter-attacks on the US,...

In addition to the realities of India's limited nuclear weapon capabilities, I want to point out some historical context for "protection of Commonwealth nations" from attack by the United States. Off the top of my head, I specifically recall that Nixon threatened India with a carrier battle group (Task Force 74) in defense of West Pakistan, and we all remember Reagan's "invasion" of Grenada. If the Commonwealth pivots around the UK, it was in full retreat by then as a middle power.

[Uncle 3 dogs]

What a rediculous, meaningless thread!

[Socialist in Oil Country]

United States military expenditures: $698,105,000,000

Commonwealth military expenditures:

United Kingdom: $57,424,000,000

India: $36,030,000,000

Australia: $26,900,000,000

Canada: $21,800,000,000

Pakistan: $6,410,000,000

South Africa: $3,160,000,000

Malaysia: $3,500,000,000

Nigeria: $1,724,000,000

New Zealand: $1,358,000,000

Sri Lanka: $1,280,000,000

Bangladesh: $1,137,000,000

Every other Commonwealth country spends less than a billion on their militaries

That is a total of $698,105,000,000 for the United States vs. $160 billion roughly for the Commonwealth countries I listed

[Moonlight Graham]

Every other Commonwealth country spends less than a billion on their militaries

That is a total of $698,105,000,000 for the United States vs. $160 billion roughly for the Commonwealth countries I listed

The US spends more on defense than every other country in the world combined.

[GostHacked]

The US spends more on defense than every other country in the world combined.

I'd argue the US spends more on OFFENSE than any other country in the world.

[Guest Derek L]

I'd argue the US spends more on OFFENSE than any other country in the world.

The best defence.......

[Machjo]

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?

It's nice to have a bunch of boots on the ground, but that's also fewer people building up a debt-ridden economy.

Also, numbers are not all that matters. It's generally more difficult and expensive to fight a war abroad than on home soil owing to the extra logistical costs involved, not to mention that when fighting on home soil, all but the religiously pacifist will take up arms, whereas when fighting abroad, only hawks and, depending on the legitimacy of the cause, possibly moderates will support it. Look at how the US had to leave Vietnam not so much owing to events in vietnam, but owing to lack of political support at home. There was no such passive indifference on the Vietnamses side fighting on home turf.

Edited August 27, 2011 by Machjo

[Machjo]

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.

A minor issue though is that the parliaments of each and every one of them would have to have a majority vote for war, unlike only one US government.