Can the United Kingdom truly still be considered a superpower?
No. The United Kingdom lost its superpower status at the conclusion of the Second World War (note: the term "superpower" is a post WWII term, but when applied retroactively, the UK would have fit the bill from about 1700-1945). Additionally, the term superpower is a bit nebulous, but suffice it to say, it includes the capacity to economically and militarily project a nation's (empire's) might to almost anywhere on the planet. The British Empire essentially was gone at the end of World War II because, the dominions of Canada and Australia had already spun away and the last "great vestige" of the British Empire in Africa and India were now MORE costly to maintain than they provided in economics to the same. Bearing the cost of having stood against the Nazis in Europe, Britain began the period of winding down her empire and her military spending greatly while handing that baton off to the Yanks. In fact, both Churchill and Roosevelt (then Truman) knew this would happen and planned for a handy transition of British power to American power in such a way that all but guaranteed that the two would continue to work together while the shift in political power moved from London to Washington, DC. The Lend Lease Act saw much of this codified in the Americas (bases handed to the USA in the former empire and in Britain herself). The greatest part of this -- through treaties and agreements -- saw that the British built institutions and traditions of global domination (in particular oceanic domination) would be assumed -- through base handovers and economic agreements -- by the US and that Britain would maintain a continued voice in the function of that hegemony for decades to come.
How does France's military rank among modern nations?
The French military is an extremely capable force. The surrender talk comes from jealous Brits (and a number of terribly ignorant Americans) who don't like France. Not liking France does not change the fact that France is ahead of the U.K. in all military aspects except for barking.There are two countries in the world that can strike any single country in the world in a matter of hours with an expeditionary force. These countries are the U.S. and France. The U.K. comes nowhere close.France very often operates together with the U.S. but it gets to choose its fights (see Iraq 2).French Rafale landing on an U.S. aircraft carrier:Now, France also happens to have a force of composed of foreigners who in effect are expendable soldiers, this force is very highly disciplined and trained, using it does not require the president to woo the crowds, no one starts rioting when that unit loses men, it's all honor for its flag. That unit is the French Foreign Legion.There are many things that make France great and better than most militarily...They have the best jets. (Rafale)They have the 2. best tanks. (LeClerc) [1st : Israel - Merkava]They instill a distinct fear into every terrorist that hears that the legion is coming, not even U.S. drones work that way.They are not really restricted by ROE as they couldn't give jack shit about international opinion. <-- highlight this point.They have the best HUMINT networks in Africa and the Middle-east, many Americans died because of some dumb U.S. Senators who insisted that France was a baby-state and they don't need to ask France for help with intel.They take pride in their military, something that is considered taboo by many EU countries.They have cool hatsThe only problem France has had has been with the economy. That required the armed forces to make some cutbacks, that happened to all of the western world, though.France is a very formidable force. My answer may be a little rough but you can read more, the information is out there.
Why is France so pathetic?
Depends on who's asking.A French libertarian would say France is pathetic because we are practically a communist country.A French leftist would say France is pathetic because we sold the country to multinationals.A French conservativist would say France is pathetic because it has been invaded by MuslimsA French liberal would say France is pathetic because we don't give a shit about Islamophobia and any form of racism.A Brit would say France is pathetic because we still haven’t recognised that they're better than usAn Italian would say France is pathetic because we still haven’t recognised that they're better than usA German would say France is pathetic because we are a lazy idle people that doesn't pull its weight in the EUA Spaniard would say that France is pathetic because we are all gabachos.The Irish would say France is pathetic because we are an “ex” colonial power.A Swede would say France is pathetic because we suck at speaking other languages apart from our ownA Flemish would say France is pathetic because we speak the same language as the Walloons.An American would say France is a backstabber who doesn't want to tag along to every war they go inA Quebecer would say France is pathetic because we think we speak a better French than themAn Algerian would say France is pathetic because we should repair our colonisation to them for the next five centuriesA Palestinian would say France is pathetic because we are obviously anti Arabs and we have been sold to the jews.An Israeli would say France is pathetic because we are obviously anti semites and we have been sold to the Arabs.A Turk would say France is pathetic because we keep on demanding the recognition of the Armenian Genocide which obviously they had no part in!And so on, and so on…What’s cool with hating France is that it's a game everybody can play for their own reasons.Even, and overall, the French themselves.
Why doesn't India have veto power in the United Nations when it represents nearly 1/5 of humanity?
“Position is not for those who demand it but for those who deserve it”Truth is after world War 2 India emerged as the world's fourth-largest industrial power with increased political, economic and military(At the peak of the war 25lac Indian soldier were fighting all over the world for allied forces But at that time it was under the rule of British .So when India got its freedom and became republic, It was offered the permanent seat at UNSC which comes with VETO power through different channel on different time but Nehruji decline the offer citing PRC (people's republic of China) interest should be considered first. It was major policy lapse on his part.When Nehru Refused American Bait on a Permanent Seat for India at the UNNow for some years India is trying to get the Seat but unable to achieve the objective due to following reasonsP-5 countries don’t wanna share the power :Everyone thinks China is only the hindrance in our path, but US, UK, France or even Russia (Agree they are the closest powerful friend but Russia is different from the Soviet Union ) do not want to give India a seat because they don’t wanna share the power. example :White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest is on record stating "President (Obama) would support the inclusion of India in that process (reform of UNSC)" but cables leaked by Wikileaks quoted Former US Secretary of State and the Democratic candidate for president Hillary Rodham Clinton ridiculing countries like India as "self-appointed front-runners" for a permanent membership of UNSC.Basically, International Diplomacy works on “give and take”. So we will get the chance.2) Japan, Germany and Brazil:These countries too want a seat for themselves and they are giving a good fight.3)India demands 4 seats not one:Strange ?I know but that’s the truth . India being part of G4(Japan, Germany,India and Brazil) countries want 4 seats ,one for each G4 member. Therefore it needs to change the UN charter and reform the UNSC which is also one factor of delay .But Our PM(Modiji) is doing everything to achieve the same and I believe we will achieve it soon because “We Deserve It “Thanks for A2A .