Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships • Hacker News Board

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#221

Post by Ekaros » Fri, Sep 27, 2024, 5:52 AM UTC

ywvcbk wrote: post #216

bruce511 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is zero chance of China invading the US or vice versa. But this issue isn't about a ground war in either place, it's about a war in some 3rd place. It's not about "home country". The US doesn't need carrier groups to defend home country. It needs them to project power into other parts of the world. Take Taiwan. If China invades there that represents a significant dilemma for the US. On balance, they'll likely m…

The hypothetical war in Taiwan would likely be almost entirely naval/aerial so yeah the question is if US has enough political will. Don’t think artillery shells will be a huge factor and even on paper the Chinese navy (and probably the air force) doesn’t even come even remotely close to US (yet). Actual invasions of Japan and Australia are even harder to imagine. How would that even work? And why?

China-Taiwan situations is technically still a civil war. Internal conflict to "China". Like war between Confederacy and Federation forces.

It is unlikely that China will invade Japan and certainly not Australia. I find it extremely more likely that USA will invade Mexico with some fake pretence like war on drugs.

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#222

Post by ywvcbk » Fri, Sep 27, 2024, 5:56 AM UTC

danenania wrote: post #197

mmooss wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sadly, we have learned that that simply does not hold up. We've learned that the world now is more divided and violent than we had hoped, with the revisionist Chinese and Russians on one side and the US Republicans on the other (or sometimes on the same side as Russia!) So we depend more on the military, and also we can't depend on China's manufacturing to supply military goods. But can the US depend on Europe's, S…

If you're measuring in decades, can you take any alliance for granted? Things can change in unpredictable ways. Taking Europe as an example, if Trump or someone like him decides to leave Europe to its own devices while facing an aggressive Russia, we could see massive re-militarization. Who can say where a shift like this would lead? It's easy to view these countries as permanent allies when they depend on us for sec…

> Things can change in unpredictable ways.

When you do stupid and unpredictable things? Certainly. But that seems like an internal US problem. Of choice rebuilding local manufacturing might be easier than fixing that in theory. OTH the longterm cost would like be much higher due to lower global stability.

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#223

Post by zmgsabst » Fri, Sep 27, 2024, 5:58 AM UTC

ywvcbk wrote: post #216

bruce511 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is zero chance of China invading the US or vice versa. But this issue isn't about a ground war in either place, it's about a war in some 3rd place. It's not about "home country". The US doesn't need carrier groups to defend home country. It needs them to project power into other parts of the world. Take Taiwan. If China invades there that represents a significant dilemma for the US. On balance, they'll likely m…

The hypothetical war in Taiwan would likely be almost entirely naval/aerial so yeah the question is if US has enough political will. Don’t think artillery shells will be a huge factor and even on paper the Chinese navy (and probably the air force) doesn’t even come even remotely close to US (yet). Actual invasions of Japan and Australia are even harder to imagine. How would that even work? And why?

Artillery and particularly guided artillery like Excaliber rounds are highly effective at resisting landings.

In the most recent US wargame, China succeeded in occupying parts of Taiwan which would make artillery even more important — as attacks from the mountain regions towards Chinese occupation would keep them from establishing a secure foothold.

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#224

Post by dangitman » Fri, Sep 27, 2024, 6:03 AM UTC

Sakos wrote: post #177

cpursley wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia is out producing the US on guided munitions and rockets fired from the ground as well (and missile defense). And icebreakers, of course. So it’s doable - just depends on priorities (ie, moving chip manufacturing back which seems to have us recent success).

US shipyards and military production are extremely low on any number of metrics. It's unclear even now whether the US has enough stockpiles and enough production of modern munitions to maintain an active war against a peer adversary like China with such massive production capacity and such a massive population. At some point, you do need constant production of enough munitions, doesn't matter how smart or precise tho…

[dead]

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#225

Post by mmooss » Fri, Sep 27, 2024, 6:07 AM UTC

aylmao wrote: post #107

mmooss wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sadly, we have learned that that simply does not hold up. We've learned that the world now is more divided and violent than we had hoped, with the revisionist Chinese and Russians on one side and the US Republicans on the other (or sometimes on the same side as Russia!) So we depend more on the military, and also we can't depend on China's manufacturing to supply military goods. But can the US depend on Europe's, S…

I think I only partially agree with this. I do think the US can depend on Europe, Canada and Mexico. South Korea, Japan, and Australia are far from the USA and close to China. They have high incentive stay friendly with China. I do think China can easily outproduce the US. But I don't know that the US needs to maximize output per dollar. The USA can print dollars, and already creates a whole bunch of dollars out of t…

> South Korea, Japan, and Australia are far from the USA and close to China. They have high incentive stay friendly with China.

While that was to some degree a concern years ago, before Biden took office, those countries have decisively and openly taken sides with the US and are members of a network of alliances that also includes The Philipines and, to a degree, India. The US has been building and improving bases, military training, etc. in and with those countries and all over the region For example, there is AUKUS, a major agreement between the US, Australia, and also the UK, for Australia to become the only country outside the UK to receive one of the US crown jewels, nuclear submarine technology. Australia also is hosting an expanding number of US bases.

> I don't know that the US needs to maximize output per dollar. The USA can print dollars, and already creates a whole bunch of dollars out of thin air every year. The inflationary effect of printing a few more billion, specifically to maintain local shipbuilding capabilities, might be worth it.

The economics is trickier than that: Production is real economic value; printing money is just a statistic. Productivity = output/dollars. If you increase the dollars in that equation, you don't change the output and you reduce the nominal productivity number (though usually it's measured using inflation-adjusted dollars, so it's really unchanged).

The US can increase output by borrowing more dollars, increasing the volume of investment in shipyards without increasing productivity. But borrowing does cost something - IIRC the debt payments will soon exceed the military budget - and can cause inflation, which eventually negatively impacts output. In the end, China may be able to invest far more.

> Just going for dollar efficiency has led the USA to de-industrialize, perhaps too much.

What connection is there?

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#226

Post by mmooss » Fri, Sep 27, 2024, 6:10 AM UTC

danenania wrote: post #197

mmooss wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sadly, we have learned that that simply does not hold up. We've learned that the world now is more divided and violent than we had hoped, with the revisionist Chinese and Russians on one side and the US Republicans on the other (or sometimes on the same side as Russia!) So we depend more on the military, and also we can't depend on China's manufacturing to supply military goods. But can the US depend on Europe's, S…

If you're measuring in decades, can you take any alliance for granted? Things can change in unpredictable ways. Taking Europe as an example, if Trump or someone like him decides to leave Europe to its own devices while facing an aggressive Russia, we could see massive re-militarization. Who can say where a shift like this would lead? It's easy to view these countries as permanent allies when they depend on us for sec…

NATO, as well as the rest of the Atlantic relationships that form the 'West', has worked very well for 90 years, and NATO is still growing and strengthening.

Anything can happen, but that's not rational. Rationally, we need to anticipate what is likely and not treat risk as if it's all random, coin-flip, unpredictable chaos.

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#227

Post by mmooss » Fri, Sep 27, 2024, 6:12 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #90

mmooss wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sadly, we have learned that that simply does not hold up. We've learned that the world now is more divided and violent than we had hoped, with the revisionist Chinese and Russians on one side and the US Republicans on the other (or sometimes on the same side as Russia!) So we depend more on the military, and also we can't depend on China's manufacturing to supply military goods. But can the US depend on Europe's, S…

> But can the US depend on Europe's, South Korea's, Japan's, Canada's, Australia's? I think so. If our goal is to be robust against the risks of a great power conflict, we can't necessarily depend on manufacturing from these countries because a great power conflict might either overrun or cut off our supply lines to these countries. In fact, control over East Asian shipping lanes is the central point of the current c…

I agree there is some risk for the East Asian countries. I think China would be hard pressed to stop all that production and trade, but certainly they could impact it and who can say what a 21st century war would look like?

Still, it's a risk, not a deal killer. China could bomb US production too.

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#228

Post by mmooss » Fri, Sep 27, 2024, 6:13 AM UTC

shiroiushi wrote: post #146

kazen44 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having your own manufacturing and industrial base is also very, very important from a geopolitical perspective. (as european countries have come to realise after the invasion of ukraine). you need your own industrial base to manufacture and develop the machinery you need to defend and project hard and soft power across the globe. Globalisation was supposed to "solve this issue" by making economies so interconnected t…

The US doesn't have too much trouble manufacturing things like aircraft carriers and submarines and 5th-gen fighter jets and missiles, and indeed builds plenty of those, even exporting some. It does have trouble building an icebreaker, but it doesn't need those very often, so it can't keep any company interested in the business when it only wants one every ~30 years or whatever. It doesn't make sense to spend a ton o…

FWIW, the US does have problems producing ships. For example, the US military and Congress very much want to increase the rate of submarine production, and haven't been able to do it. If you look at current news, you can see the desperate measures they are pursuing.

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#229

Post by mmooss » Fri, Sep 27, 2024, 6:15 AM UTC

cgh wrote: post #136

mmooss wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes; I meant that Finland has a pretty good relationship with the US; I didn't say anything about Canada and NATO.

My mistake, sorry. I thought you were implying Canada wasn't a NATO member. I agree with your economic nationalism comments. But Canada is in a special position here: the US Arctic is contiguous with Canada's much larger Arctic region and a US/Canada icebreaking partnership seems to make sense. The US nationalists might be okay with it because of NAFTA, generally close economic ties and the whole "fortress North Amer…

> The US nationalists might be okay with it because of NAFTA

Why are nationalists ok with NAFTA, which is just like any other international fre trade agreement? Is it because Trump backed it - meaning, of course, that they aren't nationalists but Trumpists.

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#230

Post by mmooss » Fri, Sep 27, 2024, 6:20 AM UTC

EasyMark wrote: post #152

mmooss wrote: post #14

> ... allowing the Coast Guard to buy icebreakers from Finland would likely save over a billion dollars per ship, as well as years of construction time How about we let Finland build the icebreakers, and we build something we're good at, like fighter planes? Then everyone gets the best and most efficiently built icebreakers and fighter planes, and all for much less money. There is no [edit: economic] logic to economi…

I've always heard people say nationalism is a good thing and globalism is the solution, yet they never have an answer to what do you do when China controls every supply chain and then decides to bulldoze Taiwan and we then go to war with them? All the market advantages and globalism in the world goes out the window and you can't do much more than capitulate to a bully.

> they never have an answer to what do you do when China controls every supply chain and then decides to bulldoze Taiwan and we then go to war with them? All the market advantages and globalism in the world goes out the window and you can't do much more than capitulate to a bully.

That was a complaint many years go, but things have changed dramatically: The US now is 'decoupling' its economy from China, and moving production to friendlier countries, and the US encourages and arranges for allies to do the same. The US and its Pacific allies are also intensely preparing for possible warfare with China.

Just because China is not a reliable partner doesn't mean the US should throw out all other partners. Should the US not buy icebreakers from Canada and Finland because of China? That would be greatly hamstrining the US. China's government would love it, I think.