4 ms·

If 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 o

If 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 ago
They 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 ago
  I 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 ago
  If 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 ago
    Maybe, 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.
- iso1631 1y ago
  The sensible thing would be deep integration with a continent-spanning economy. Sure the UK is an island, but the channel isn't exactly wide (not to mention the tunnel). It's hardly Iceland - even Ireland is more detached. But the UK decided against that in 2016, and despite demographics having shifted the views, there is no general "rejoin" campaign.
  - robbie-c 1y ago
    I've wondered about this too. I live in the UK and have been idly daydreaming about my next startup, and it seems like Brexit, and therefore having a small market / uncooperative EU, is such a headwind for some of the things I'd like to do. Seems like many UK startups just pretend to be based in SF. I think rejoin is going to be politically unpopular for a while, as there's no way we could rejoin the EU on anything like as good terms as we left on.
    - TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
      Rejoin is polling far ahead of Brexit, which is beginning to be acknowledged as a mistake by everyone. Although not everyone agrees on the reasons. The problem is the UK is an oligarchy owned and run by non-dom billionaires. It's essentially a floating labour camp. Virtually all the major industries are foreign-owned, and profits flow out of the country instead of being invested in infrastructure, R&D, and national development. The public school/Oxbridge educational path is based on a 19th century view of the world, which has its roots in a feudal society that expanded into global piracy. Rejoining the EU isn't just about undoing the direct, about exposing the population at all levels to a more modern culture with elements of social responsibility and rational state planning. The EU isn't perfect. But Europe successfully rebuilt after WWII, while politically the UK is still stuck in the 1930s.
      - iso1631 1y ago
        But that popularity (about 2:1 saying brexit was a mistake) isn't translating to political support, probably because both Labour and Tories supported Brexit. And while the majority agree we should never have left the EU, and the majority agree we should rejoin, that isn't translating to political support. Indeed the plurarity of votes is to Mr Brexit himself, who thanks to FPTP is likely to get a majority government in 2029 off 30% of the vote. Hell 1 in 8 people that voted Farage last year think the UK never should have left Europe. Not that it wasn't the right type of brexit, but that it shouldn't. Yet they voted for Farage, decided that was a mistake, and are continuing to vote for Farage. I get it. Some people just want the world to burn. But a similar number think we should rejoin the EU, yet voted Farage last year. It's no wonder support for democracy is at an all time low.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
sehansen 1y ago
The further down the value chain you go, the simpler it is going to be to find alternative suppliers. Or alternative inputs. And figuring out which alternative inputs make sense in your situation is probably much easier if you're the ones integrating the different components. And if you are committed to building X ships a year for strategic reasons, chances are a local company will end up a globally competitive supplier by grabbing the opportunity right in front of them.
nradov 1y ago
Even back during the Age of Sail when Britain was the dominant naval power with a worldwide empire, they had to import many of the inputs for their domestic shipbuilding industry. This included basic stuff like timber, tar, hemp, cotton, etc. If you have enough warships to secure your sea lines of communication then depending on imports is less of a concern. But the UK Royal Navy today is a shadow of its former self and can barely serve as a local defense force.
- mitthrowaway2 1y ago
  But weren't they mostly importing these from their own colonies? If anything, the acknowledgement of the importance of securing strategic inputs must have been a big part of the push within the governments of colonial powers for territorial expansion. I think there must not have been as much of sense at the time that you could just leave people in other parts of the world to be independent and still buy these things from them at fair prices.
Qwertious 1y ago
If a war broke out and the UK couldn't call in NATO, then the UK is already fucked. And if they can call NATO in, then they can tap into the inputs in all NATO countries.

moomin 1y ago

They 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 ago
I 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 ago
If 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 ago
  Maybe, 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.
iso1631 1y ago
The sensible thing would be deep integration with a continent-spanning economy. Sure the UK is an island, but the channel isn't exactly wide (not to mention the tunnel). It's hardly Iceland - even Ireland is more detached. But the UK decided against that in 2016, and despite demographics having shifted the views, there is no general "rejoin" campaign.
- robbie-c 1y ago
  I've wondered about this too. I live in the UK and have been idly daydreaming about my next startup, and it seems like Brexit, and therefore having a small market / uncooperative EU, is such a headwind for some of the things I'd like to do. Seems like many UK startups just pretend to be based in SF. I think rejoin is going to be politically unpopular for a while, as there's no way we could rejoin the EU on anything like as good terms as we left on.
  - TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
    Rejoin is polling far ahead of Brexit, which is beginning to be acknowledged as a mistake by everyone. Although not everyone agrees on the reasons. The problem is the UK is an oligarchy owned and run by non-dom billionaires. It's essentially a floating labour camp. Virtually all the major industries are foreign-owned, and profits flow out of the country instead of being invested in infrastructure, R&D, and national development. The public school/Oxbridge educational path is based on a 19th century view of the world, which has its roots in a feudal society that expanded into global piracy. Rejoining the EU isn't just about undoing the direct, about exposing the population at all levels to a more modern culture with elements of social responsibility and rational state planning. The EU isn't perfect. But Europe successfully rebuilt after WWII, while politically the UK is still stuck in the 1930s.
    - iso1631 1y ago
      But that popularity (about 2:1 saying brexit was a mistake) isn't translating to political support, probably because both Labour and Tories supported Brexit. And while the majority agree we should never have left the EU, and the majority agree we should rejoin, that isn't translating to political support. Indeed the plurarity of votes is to Mr Brexit himself, who thanks to FPTP is likely to get a majority government in 2029 off 30% of the vote. Hell 1 in 8 people that voted Farage last year think the UK never should have left Europe. Not that it wasn't the right type of brexit, but that it shouldn't. Yet they voted for Farage, decided that was a mistake, and are continuing to vote for Farage. I get it. Some people just want the world to burn. But a similar number think we should rejoin the EU, yet voted Farage last year. It's no wonder support for democracy is at an all time low.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

sehansen 1y ago

The further down the value chain you go, the simpler it is going to be to find alternative suppliers. Or alternative inputs. And figuring out which alternative inputs make sense in your situation is probably much easier if you're the ones integrating the different components. And if you are committed to building X ships a year for strategic reasons, chances are a local company will end up a globally competitive supplier by grabbing the opportunity right in front of them.

nradov 1y ago

Even back during the Age of Sail when Britain was the dominant naval power with a worldwide empire, they had to import many of the inputs for their domestic shipbuilding industry. This included basic stuff like timber, tar, hemp, cotton, etc. If you have enough warships to secure your sea lines of communication then depending on imports is less of a concern. But the UK Royal Navy today is a shadow of its former self and can barely serve as a local defense force.

mitthrowaway2 1y ago
But weren't they mostly importing these from their own colonies? If anything, the acknowledgement of the importance of securing strategic inputs must have been a big part of the push within the governments of colonial powers for territorial expansion. I think there must not have been as much of sense at the time that you could just leave people in other parts of the world to be independent and still buy these things from them at fair prices.

Qwertious 1y ago

If a war broke out and the UK couldn't call in NATO, then the UK is already fucked. And if they can call NATO in, then they can tap into the inputs in all NATO countries.