Theanswer to the question ‘Is the UK a global military power?’ depends on thetheoretical lens through which one analyses the UK’s military power. Thetheoretical perspective affects the definition of ‘military power’ that is usedand therefore the answer to the question. At the beginning of this essay I willdiscuss a prominent school of thought within International Relations, Realism. Iwill argue that examining the UK’s military power through this theoreticalapproach provides the conclusion that the UK is not a global military power.This is because realism considers power as a zero-sum game based on materialcapabilities. The UK’s material capabilities are weaker when compared to thatof other states and therefore if power is zero-sum the UK loses power as otherstates gain it. I will then argue that the UK is in fact a global militarypower when factors other than material capabilities are analysed. Factors suchas the UK’s membership of security institutions, the implications of thesememberships and the UK military’s global reach and influence. I will use HedleyBull’s defining characteristics of a global power to examine the UK’s militarystrength. This requires an English School approach, which I believe to be more appropriatethan the Realist approach as it takes into consideration the role of themilitary in a changing global environment e.g. The importance of internationalinstitutions, the role of humanitarian intervention and emerging securitychallenges that require British military influence abroad. Definingwhat a ‘global military power’ is fundamental to answering this question. Theliterature often conflates military power with the status of a global powermore generally. For example, military capability and thus power, is a country’sability to defend itself against threats, both foreign and domestic, as well aspursuing interests despite competing interests from other actors (Tellis,2000).  Military power is considered inthis instance as the product of national power, hence the status of globalpower being synonymous with military power. This can make it difficult todistinctly define if a state is a global military power therefore it is simplerto measure military power rather than to define it. As previously mentioned measuringmilitary power depends on the theoretical approach taken. This is why I will beusing two different notions of military power. I will begin by discussing therealist approach.  Mearsheimer, in his book ‘The tragedy of greatpower politics’, states that global powers have offensive military capabilitiesand that military power is measured in relation to the weaponry a statepossesses (Mearsheimer, 2001). Immediately, the material military power a statepossesses is an indicator of its status as a global military power. Therefore,I will use the assertion by Mearsheimer that ‘a state’s effective power isultimately a function of its military forces and how they compare with themilitary forces of rival states’ (Mearsheimer, 2001, 55) as the key indicatorof military power from a realist perspective. The international relationsscholar Kenneth Waltz also asserts that a great power is one which holdsmaterial superiority over others, reasserting that material militarycapabilities are an important indicator of power status (Morris, 2011). The‘Global Fire Power’ website provides a ‘power index’ whereby countries aregiven a score as a result of their; air, sea and land forces, strength ofinfrastructure, resilience of economy and defensible territory. This ratingprovides an indicator of where the UK ranks in terms of its potential to ‘wagea prolonged campaign against another’ state (Globalfirepower.com, 2017). Muchof this score is based upon numerical data relating to physical capabilitiessuch as total aircraft strength, total naval assets, army personnel as welldefence spending and natural resources (petroleum). The UK ranks 6 in the worldon this index below France, China, Russia, India and the United States(Globalfirepower.com, 2017). Maintaining a realist perspective indicates thatthe UK is not a global military power in comparison to the five states whichsupersede its power. This is because power that is acquired relatively is moresignificant than absolute gain (Waltz, 1959). In other words, analysing theUK’s military power in relation to other states is more indicative of itsglobal position than if it were to be analysed in isolation to other states,according to realist theory. This is theassertion that power is a zero-sum game, which means as one actor gains powerother actors immediately lose power. Therefore, as other states rank above theUK using this power index the UK is immediately rendered weaker than the statesabove it (Powell, 1991).Significantly,the power index does not include the UK’s nuclear capabilities which are partof its military power as nuclear weapons spending falls under the defencebudget of the UK. The Royal United Services Institute claimed in 2013 that theUK’s submarine and deterrent spending would account for 35% of defence spendingby 2020/21 (Chalmers, 2013). The UK’s nuclear capabilities are significant asthe UK is one of only nine countries in the world that possess nuclear weapons.Nevertheless, if the UK’s military power is relative then the fact that the UKas of March 2016 only possessed 215 nuclear weapons in comparison to Russia’s7000 and the US’s 6,800 (Ploughshares Fund, 2017), proves that the UK is powerfuldue to its nuclear capacity in absolute gain but is not powerful relatively. Myargument is that the English School approach is a superior lens through whichthis question can be answered. This is because it not only acknowledges theimportance of power and how it is distributed but it also brings attention toother factors (Morris, 2011). In this section I will examine the UK’s militarypower using the definition of a great power put forward by Hedley Bull as wellas the concept of ‘legalised hegemony’ and the UK’s global reach and influence. This definition and other considerationsallows for a more holistic approach for examining the UK’s position as a globalmilitary power. Hedley Bull in his 1977 book ‘The Anarchical Society: A study of order in world politics’, describes the role of great powers and thus what makes them ‘great’. It is important to note that the application of the various aspects of this definition to characteristics of the UK’s military power overlap with each other in terms of where they fit into the definition. Firstly, he states that the country must be one of a collection of states of comparable power (Bull, 1977). The UK’s membership of NATO is an indicator of its comparability with other military powers in the world. The UK is one of the 5 of the 28 countries in the alliance that meets its defence spending target. NATO members are required to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defence, the UK spent £60.3 billion on defence in 2016 (Economist.com, 2017). This is similar to the spending of other European states that met their 2% target e.g. Germany, France and Greece (Economist.com, 2017). This indicates that the UK is economically capable of funding its military to similar levels as other states which have a similar size and GDP. NATO states that for a state to become a member it must be in position to ‘further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area.’ (Nato.int, 2017). This indicates that the UK has both the political but most importantly the military capability to contribute to NATO’s aim of maintaining the freedom and security of the North Atlantic area. This is a symbol that the UK is of comparable military power to other member states within this powerful alliance. The next two aspects of Bull’s definition, when applied to the UK, reiterate the point that the country is of comparable military power to other global powers through its membership of highly influential institutions and ability to reach and intervene in a majority of conflicts across the globe. Secondly,Bull asserts that the state should be in the top classification of states interms of military strength to be considered a global power (Bull, 1977). Thisis when the realist perspective, in terms of material capabilities, comes intoplay within the English School perspective. As previously noted, the UK isnumber 6 on the power index according to Global Fire Power (Globalfirepower.com,2017). Most notably, a recent article published by the UK Defence Review statedthat a study carried out by European Geostrategy characterised the UK as a‘Global Power’, only second behind the US which was labelled a ‘Superpower’(Allison, 2017). The article references military capabilities and operations asthe cause of the classification.  Notonly does this categorise the UK as a global military power it also places itin the top rank of countries in terms of military strength. The study claimedthe UK is a ‘A country lacking the heft or comprehensive attributes of asuperpower, but still with a wide international footprint and [military] meansto reach most geopolitical theatres, particularly the Middle East, South-EastAsia, East Asia, Africa and South America.’(Allison, 2017). The article alsoreferenced the UK’s membership of NATO and the United Nations Security Council,as well as military interventions and operations carried out by the UK such asoperations in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Allison, 2017)Thirdlyand most significantly, Bull claims that global powers have certain rights andduties that are internationally recognised by other states and actors but alsoby their own leaders and citizens (Bull, 1977). The most recognisablemanifestation of this characteristic, in the case of the UK, is the state’s permanentseat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). The UNSC primary aim is todeal with threats to peace. The council has various means of doing thisincluding diplomatic and economic solutions, but it also issues directives forpeacekeeping operations, accommodating ceasefires, dispatching militaryobservers and initiating collective military action (Un.org, 2017). The UK’sability to veto and vote on the council is a right, as described by Bull, thatis unique to only the permanent five members of the council. This has given theUK influence over key military decisions allowing for the expansion ofinfluence and power. For example, in 2011 the UK voted in favour of conductingairstrikes against the Gaddafi regime in Libya. This was a call for militaryaction within a sovereign state, a crucial indicator of the UK’s military powerthrough intervention. Specialduties are another aspect of Bull’s definition. Special duties carried out bythe UK include humanitarian intervention. Broadly defined, humanitarianintervention requires the use of a country’s military power in the form ofarmed force to end a humanitarian crisis in another state (Opil.ouplaw.com, 2011).The modern concept has encompassed other justifications for humanitarianintervention such as the need to bring about peace, stabilise a region and endhuman rights abuses (Opil.ouplaw.com, 2011). In 2011 the UK was a key supporterof UNSC resolution 1973 which authorized intervention in Libya on humanitariangrounds (United Nations Security Council, 2011). In 2015 the UK began carryingout airstrikes in Iraq and Syria with the goal of defeating ISIS along with acoalition of other states led by the US. A country must have the militarycapability to intervene in another state on humanitarian grounds as it requiresuse of material military. This indicates that the UK has the significant materialmilitary power to do this. GerrySimpson’s conception of ‘legalised hegemony’ reinforces the argument that theUK is a global military power (Simpson, 2004).  Simpson defines legalised hegemony as theexistence of ‘an elite group of states’ within international society that havespecific rights, duties and privileges distinct from other states which areconsidered to have less power (Simpson, 2004, pg. 68). The UK’s seat on theUNSC, membership of NATO and involvement in humanitarian intervention are allevidence of the UK having the military power to be considered a part of thiselite group of states. Moreover, the UK’s position within Simpson’s legalisedhierarchy compliments Bull’s definition of a great power having special rightsand duties. The global reach of a country’s military is a critical variable in assessing military power. The ability for a country to maintain and build a presence in all four corners of the globe is a accurate indicator of its power. The UK has overseas defence facilities in 10 countries across the globe (Allison, 2017) allowing the UK to have a presence in areas of strategic and diplomatic significance e.g. the Falklands, Canada, Brunei, Kenya and Bahrain. This enables the UK to pursue its defence and political interests as well as carry out expeditionary warfare if needed. Moreover, the UK’s overseas territory of the Falkland Islands provides strategic advantage by providing the UK with a military presence in the South Atlantic region. Relatively, the US has defence facilities in 70 countries across the globe but is the only state to have a greater number of overseas defence facilities than the UK (Grunwald, 2015).  The UK’s war in Afghanistan which lasted from 2001 to 2014 is another example of the UK’s ability to maintain a military presence abroad. The UK’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and subsequent presence lasted until 2011 which is significant evidence of global reach. As the threat of terrorism increases the UK is now a member of the Global Coalition, a group of countries pledged to defeat Daesh. The British Army presently has a non-combat role in Iraq, where it trains and provides equipment to the Iraqi Security Forces of whom it has trained 25,000 in various combat roles (Army.mod.uk, 2017), further indicating the country’s global reach and military power. An analysis of the UK’s military power would not be complete without reference to the Commonwealth. The British Empire formally ended with the transferring of Hong Kong to China in 1997. This signified a new era for the UK as a global power. However, the UK’s military presence in commonwealth countries signifies a level of maintenance of the UK’s once powerful empire.  With deployments of British soldiers in Kenya, Canada, Cyprus and Sierra Leone, the UK’s colonial past may have paved the way for a militarily powerful UK in the present allowing for British influence across the globe. Inconclusion, the UK is a global military power when analysed from an EnglishSchool perspective. When Hedley Bull’s three main characteristics of a globalpower are applied to the UK the answer is such. Various sources including thepower index created by Global Fire Power and the European Geostrategy studyclaim that the UK is amongst the most powerful states in the world in terms ofmaterial capabilities. The UK’s membership of NATO and its seat on the UNSCreiterate its influential position as a military power capable of interveningand being present in conflicts and locations around the globe. The UK’s globalreach through its overseas military presence and overseas territories addsfurther strength to its military. It is evident that when military power isconsidered from a realist perspective the full range of indicators of militarystrength are not considered. Focusing on material capabilities exclusivelynegates the affect intervention, presence, reach and influence have on acountry’s military power. Bibliography  Allison, G. (2017). Study finds UK is second most powerful country in the world. [online] UK Defence Journal. Available at: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/study-finds-uk-is-second-most-powerful-country-in-the-world/ [Accessed 14 Nov. 2017]. Army.mod.uk. (2017). Iraq – British Army Website. [online] Available at: http://www.army.mod.uk/operations-deployments/23414.aspx [Accessed 16 Nov. 2017]. Bull, H. (1977). The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order In World Politics. 4th ed. New York: Palgrave McMillan.Chalmers, Malcolm (2013) Mid Term Blues? Defence and the 2013 Spending Review’. RUSI Briefing Paper. Economist.com. (2017). Military spending by NATO members. [online] Available at: https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/02/daily-chart-11 [Accessed 14 Nov. 2017]. Globalfirepower.com (2017). 2017 United Kingdom Military Strength. [online] Available at: https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=united-kingdom#powerindex [Accessed 13 Nov. 2017].Grunwald, M. (2015). Where in the World Is the U.S. Military?. [online] POLITICO Magazine. Available at: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/us-military-bases-around-the-world-119321 [Accessed 15 Nov. 2017].Mearsheimer, J. (2001). The tragedy of Great Power politics. New York: W.W. Norton and Company. P. 55Morris, J. (2011). How Great is Britain? Power, Responsibility and Britain’s Future Global Role. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 13(3), pp.326-347.Opil.ouplaw.com. (2011). Humanitarian Intervention. [online] Available at: http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e306 [Accessed 15 Nov. 2017]. Ploughshares Fund. (2017). World Nuclear Weapon Stockpile. [online] Available at: https://www.ploughshares.org/world-nuclear-stockpile-report [Accessed 14 Nov. 2017].Powell, R. (1991). Absolute and Relative Gains in International Relations Theory. The American Political Science Review, [online] 85(4), p.1303. Available at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/30094881/powell_1991.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1510772667&Signature=aevpQnIgt5gw2f%2FJ%2BA8E5%2BlaW7Q%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DAbsolute_and_relative_gains_in_internati.pdf [Accessed 13 Nov. 2017]. Simpson, G. (2004). Great powers and outlaw states. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, p.68.Tellis, A. (2000). Measuring national power in the post-industrial age. Santa Monica, California: RAND/Arroyo Center, pp.133-176Un.org. (2017). About the United Nations Security Council. [online] Available at: http://www.un.org/en/sc/about/ [Accessed 13 Nov. 2017].United Nations Security Council (2011). S/RES/1973 (2011). United Nations Security Council.Waltz, K. (1959). Man, the state, and war. New York: Columbia University Press.Get Help With Your EssayIf you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!Find out more