What i was making was not an argument for holding of nuclear weapons. It was a response to the calling of the UK a ‘boss’ country.
Germany and Brazil both have higher GDP’s, however i would discount Brazil on account of GDP per head should be taken into account, there has to be a point that you get to before you say we have our own issues to deal with before you can afford to contribute to international stability.
Personally unless you are able to convince me that Germany is about to go all Nazi on us again i wouldnt have a major problem with them going nuclear. Tho i would question the need for them to while members of nato when Both us and the french have Nuclear weapons as well as the americans.
There are 30+ countries with above average populations. Which makes 150+ with below average populations. Population is not in and of itself a detemining factor of power (see the Raj) but but a small population does restrict national power.
The UK economy is more dependent on non eu trade that pretty much any other eu memberstate, with the possible exception of Germany, tho that i doubt if you take account for the rotterdam effect.
Your pulling the old ‘realities of the 21st C’ gig here, which is at best ahistorical. The UK has treaty obigations internationaly on a scale that is only approached in Europe by France. And france is some way off. Those are commitments that we have chosen to take, and the application of which have been on the whole positive. See deplooyment of british forces to Kuwait in the 60′s which detered an iraqi invasion.
On power projection your prejudice is plain here, and not surprising.
We dont have high military spending. No western nation does. We have low military spending. As a percentage of GDP its less than a third of Saudi Arabia.
Power projection is Amoral. You call it bullying. Its not. It can be but to simply say it is is at best childishly simplistic. At worst…well i dont think that would get past the mods.
For example, the US Navy maintains at see 3-4 carrier battle groups at any one time. Thats a Carrier, couple of cursiers/destroyers, usually a frigate or two, a sub or two plus support ships. Basically enough firepower to wipe out Belgium in an afternoon. Also enough capability to, for example, say hundreds, if not thousands of lives if used to support relief efforts in the wake of a natural disaster. Or it could for example sail between two nations that could be about to come to blows and make it clear that someone who has a big gun wouldnt look to happily on that. not that im thinking of china and taiwan at all here.
As for who can really project power there are plenty that would disagree with my view, but since you ask the three certains are us, the US and France. All have the ability to deploy organic naval airpower, marine forces, and troops by sea, and well as by air, basically anywhere in the world, and also operate nuclear powered subs. none of this has to do with nuclear weapons. the possible fourth is Russia, tho i get a funny feeling mst of the russian armed forces are a bad joke just now. Both Italy and spain may soon join that club in the next 10 or so years, depending on equipment choices and economic outlook. LEss likely is australia doing so. Japan could if they wanted to but dont seem to, and China and india will.
On your second last para, we do have nukes, so whats your point. we dont pose a real strategic threat to any of those nations, are formally allied to at least 4 of them, so why our having or not having them would impact their decisions is beyond me.
Tho it should be noted that ive never seen anyone who is in anyway informed on nuclear matters claim that japan shouldnt be considered a de facto nuclear weapons state.
on your last para, i wasnt making a case for a nation being worthy of having a nuke.
you want to get into that thats fine, but then we have to start talking about what you do if a country you deem unworthy of having such weapons decideds to go and get them.
and israel doesnt say they dont have nukes. their policy is to refuse to comment in any way.
