5 ms·
For a country that is an Island you'd think that the question of whether or not it is 'national-strategic' would have been answered in the affirmative.
by jacquesm 1y ago
For a country that is an Island you'd think that the question of whether or not it is 'national-strategic' would have been answered in the affirmative.
- mrcsharp 1y agoIt is. But you won't get such an answer from the "important" people because they are busy imposing useless laws every other day. The public is unaware and unwilling to engage in such discussions because there isn't much pain being felt yet from the current structure of the economy.
- givemeethekeys 1y agoIf the people who have the most to lose don't think that something is in the national interest, then is it really?
- xboxnolifes 1y agoThey're also the people with the most ability to jump ship should something happen.
- coldtea 1y agoaka zero skin in the game, and, worse, a lot to earn by doing favors and pushing for quick profits for their friends in the corporate and finance worlds
- potato3732842 1y agoIt's the old world old money version of cashing out your tech bucks and retiring to Colorado.
- mrcsharp 1y agoDisagreements about what is of national interest is always going to be a thing. In my opinion, having a country that doesn't have the means to build, at the very least, what is needed to keep its economy going is not in a good spot at all.
- faichai 1y ago"think" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. Are the people really thinking? I don't think they are.
- coldtea 1y agoThose people are thinking just fine. With their wallets. Why would they prioritize national interests? Because they were elected to do so? After all they know they were actually elected because people were only given a couple of establishment approved choices, and in their naivety they happened to pick their side this time (after all they alternate between the two choices all the time). They also know they'll be fine and have their salaries, extras, and nice corporate post-politic sinecures whetever their performance. Just see Blair.
- throwaway290 1y ago> Why would they prioritize national interests? Because they were elected to do so? How about because they are human people like you and me. You don't think you are a bad guy who always does things only in your own interest right? So why do you think they are like that? How about if they really screw people over they know there will be mass protests etc.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- coldtea 1y ago>How about because they are human people like you and me Oh, sweet summer child. >You don't think you are a bad guy who always does things only in your own interest right? So why do you think they are like that? Because I wasn't promoted and passed all the exams of a system designed to promote sociopaths, party interests, and corporate/financial/M.I.C. interests, nor did I have the sociopathic self-selection to want to get to the highest offices of power.
- foldr 1y ago
- whiplash451 1y agoLike people were not feeling the pain in the first half of the XXth century when we decided to own our nuclear stack? It's a matter of political courage.
- calvinmorrison 1y agoFor an Island that has been dependent importing most goods for hundreds of years... I don't even think there's much of a merchant marine fleet left in the UK.
- arlcode 1y agoInteresting question. Its plausible that there are not many vessels that are UK flagged anymore. The more interesting question is how many of these are under "control"/influence of domestic operators If required, a flag can be exchanged in a pinch and tax codes /regulations can be adapted to allow/encourage this.
- noir_lord 1y agoHappened during the Falklands War. There are peacetime rules and war time rules, war time rules are best summarised as “government does what it wants and justifies it after the fact”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War_order_of_battle:_British_naval_forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War_order_of_battle:... under “Ships taken from trade”.
- realityking 1y agoI just clicked through to some of the listed ships and it appears they were all flying a British flag in 1982 before being requisitioned. It’s not at all clear to me a government would have that power about a foreign flagged vessel, even if the shipping line owning it might be British.
- RobotToaster 1y agoMaybe not legally, but most of the countries used as a flag of convenience are tiny, what could the Marshall islands do about it?
- dukeyukey 1y agoIt's about a thousand ships, but realsitically it's very fuzzy, with flags of convenaince and all. And British companies own a _lot_ of ships, just flagged under other countries.
- eru 1y agoWhy? Singapore is an island, too, and we don't need a national-strategic ship building industry. As long as your friends build ships, you are fine. The UK is friends with South Korea, for example.
- ggm 1y agoSouth Korea is a long way away, if supply chains are contested and there are competing bidders for their outputs. South Korea is far closer to Singapore. "Friends" is a strange concept in national strategic planning. You might ask yourself "just how much are those friends going to come and help when push comes to shove" and look at current politics, and re-assess what has been commonly felt these last 50 years: no prior friend can be assumed to be motivated to still be a friend. Think about Taiwan. All these friends, and now the biggest one says "we think you're too risky. move all that advanced chip making to us, onshore, we'll talk more about how seriously we want to be a friend and defend you after"
- eru 1y agoThere's always trade-offs. Even local shipping producers can't magic together a ship in a week. Of course, you can also look for some closer-to-home backup friends. My main point is that close allies (both geographically and in terms of relationship) are about as good as having your own local industry. In a few important cases and areas, having production with friends is better than at home. Mostly because it's harder for local political interests to capture a foreign economy.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- dylan604 1y ago> Of course, you can also look for some closer-to-home backup friends. Nobody likes being a back up friend to only be called on when your primary friend is unavailable, or you want to do something your primary friend wouldn't like. Countries make treaties/trade agreements accordingly
- agobineau 1y agoaustralia has almost no fuel refining capacity most of australia has less than 2 weeks of gasoline and imports it on weekly barges from singapore. in the XXIer century some australia cities have run out of gasoline for half a day, an afternoon, a few days https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-15/singapore-bound-duel-tanker-delayed-again-in-tasmania/6621740 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-15/singapore-bound-duel-...
- oblio 1y ago> XXIer century Sorry, but it's a bit funny. Based on the name I assume you're French (speaking, at least)? That "XXIer" contraption is really funny to me, I speak a bit of French. In English it's twenty first so XXI or XXIst, in French as far I know it's vingt et unième, so XXI or XXIème. Is "XXIer" from another French dialect or another language entirely?
- bgnn 1y agoThat's unbelievable. A lot of 3rd world countries have their own refineries.. Wow.
- throwaway290 1y ago> most of australia has less than 2 weeks of gasoline and imports it on weekly barges from singapore. And you know how much oil is found in the vast lands of Singapore... That stuff floating to Australia is probably Russian oil https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/nov/09/loophole-russian-sanctions-oil-imported-to-australia https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/nov/09/looph...
- michaelt 1y agoIf shipbuilding is a strategic national industry, doesn't that also make all the inputs to a shipyard strategic industries? After all, if a war broke out and our normal trading partners weren't willing to sell us ships, presumably they wouldn't sell us steel or engines or ball bearings or paint or radar modules or computer chips or plastics.
- moomin 1y agoThey is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, unless you believe we buy steel from the same places we buy ships. The real answer to this is threat analysis: what are the realistic scenarios under which it becomes a problem. e.g. if Japan stops supplying ships a) how likely is that and b) could we just buy them from the Dutch instead? However, the stakes for getting this wrong are high.
- lukan 1y agoI mean, if we are talking about a big war scenario, then simply the distance to Japan would mean Dutch ships are clearly the better choice. Otherwise sure, realistic threat scenarios. But the world is also changing fast. Denmark or Canada did not expected to be militarily threatened by the US some years ago and still this is where we are now.
- nico_h 1y agoIf it’s sourced from abroad it has to be shipped (blockades anyone ?) If your usual trading partner is inaccessible for reason X , what are the odds your alternate trading partner is also affected by reason X? Are there geopolitical or national political reasons that partner B might become unavailable or unpalatable at the same time?
- energy123 1y agoMaybe, but it has to be balanced against the economic damage of autarkic policies which sabotages national security in its own way. There's no substitute for a case by case analysis.
- 1y ago
- expedition32 1y agoIt's a country that is also a capitalist economy. Ofcourse they can build cargo ships. But those ships will be ten times more expensive than anything you can buy from Korea. Who is going to make up the difference?
- flir 1y agoThe idea is that, if it's that important, you ultimately fund it from taxation. It's so important that it's really defence spending.
- TitaRusell 1y agoThe UK has been slashing defence spending since WW2. And with reason the USSR lost because they couldn't afford the cold war anymore.
- nradov 1y agoAnd now the UK has committed to increase defense spending. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8175/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
- mr_toad 1y agoThe decisive battle of WWII, as far as the defence of Britain was concerned, was fought in the air. Invading an island nation without air superiority is a non-starter. I actually doubt the value of modern navies for anything other than gunboat diplomacy, or coastal patrols these days. I think they’re too vulnerable to things like cruise missiles and drones.