Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

construction-physics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 328 posts

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

#231

Post by danenania »

mmooss wrote: post #226
danenania wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To me it seems more rational to be ready for a wide range of outcomes than to assume the next 90 years will be similar to the previous 90 years.

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

#232

Post by mmooss »

danenania wrote: post #231
mmooss wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To me it seems more rational to be ready for a wide range of outcomes than to assume the next 90 years will be similar to the previous 90 years.

I agree; I meant that we need to rationally assess what outcomes are more likely and plan according to that, not treat every outcome as equally likely.

And not only plan, as if we are passive victims of history, but make it happen - invest in NATO, etc.

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

#233

Post by umbra07 »

mmooss wrote: post #227
philwelch wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

China can't bomb American production unless we suffer absolutely catastrophic, unimaginable, WW3-escalatory levels of naval losses in the Pacific (because Chinese bombers from the Chinese mainland don't have the range to reach the American mainland).

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

#234

Post by shiroiushi »

daveguy wrote: post #218
shiroiushi wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to this article ( https://www.billboard.com/business/touring/taylor-swift-eras... ), it looks like it's mainly American tourists going to Europe to see Swift's shows because the ticket prices are 1/10 as much as in America. Apparently, it costs about $5000 for a couple to see a Swift show in the US now, so it's actually a lot cheaper to just fly to Europe to see her show.

> $5000 for a couple to see a Swift show in the US now... That's just not true. As long as you are able to get an original ticket and not a resold one. But ticketmaster and live nation should be regulated because they're a middleman monopoly in all of it.

>That's just not true.

According to the 1st paragraph of the linked article, it is.

>As long as you are able to get an original ticket and not a resold one.

That's pretty useless if they all get bought up by resellers.

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

#235

Post by danenania »

mmooss wrote: post #232
danenania wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me it seems more rational to be ready for a wide range of outcomes than to assume the next 90 years will be similar to the previous 90 years.

I agree; I meant that we need to rationally assess what outcomes are more likely and plan according to that, not treat every outcome as equally likely. And not only plan, as if we are passive victims of history, but make it happen - invest in NATO, etc.

Sure, but assuming we remain a democracy, or some approximation of one, we're always going to be a bit schizophrenic in our policies. Any particular administration can try to go in one direction or the other, but they have to be aware that their successor (or the one after) could very well undo all their actions and take the exact opposite course.

So in terms of long term planning, I think hedging our bets make sense. It might be a good idea to invest in NATO, but we also don't want to be left in a highly vulnerable position in 10-20 years if NATO falls apart and our current allies stop giving us free trade agreements, because that's a real possibility.

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

#236

Post by elygre »

thfuran wrote: post #142
beloch wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canada has the same problem with building icebreakers. The problem with icebreakers capable of dealing with multi-year ice is that they're a very expensive and specialized kind of ship that's hard to construct, but also the sort of ship that has a very long lifetime. Only a few governments in the world have any need of such ships, and they typically only need a few in the span of many decades. By the time Canada got…

>However, then shipyards that haven't made an icebreaker for twenty years would become shipyards that haven't made one for forty years. Is there really much difference?

Possibly this:

In twenty years, the experience retires. In forty, it dies.

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

#237

Post by brazzy »

hintymad wrote: post #145
jahewson wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it that the US ship builders aren't competent Yes, they are woefully uncompetitive. They produce single-digit numbers of commercial oceangoing ships annually, at 2-4x the cost of elsewhere. It’s an industry on life support.

Curious why the US does not think this is a big problem. I mean, look at the US 80 years ago. The US easily out produced the Axis. We could produce faster and cheaper. There's really no excuse that the cost of making canon shells is 10x higher than Russia. Isn't being able to manufacturing cheaply the signature of a highly developed society? Besides, expertise is not just volumes of blueprints, right? We can only kee…

> I mean, look at the US 80 years ago. The US easily out produced the Axis. We could produce faster and cheaper.

Read TFA. Faster, yes. Cheaper, no. Even after fully ramping up, Liberty ships cost considerably more to produce in the US than an equivalent ship elsewhere. In wartime that is acceptable. When you're producing for a global market, it's not.

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

#238

Post by vlovich123 »

xyzzyz wrote: post #193
vlovich123 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it’s worth American workers as a whole make ~20x what Turkish workers do. While American shipbuilders make more than the average while Turkish ones are closer to their average countrymen, the 20x discrepancy in salaries doesn’t seem limited to shipbuilding. So not sure about the characterization of “sucking on the teat of taxpayers” per se vs overall higher regulations and salaries in the US.

US-built cars do not cost 20 times that of Turkey-built cars.

US built cars are automated like crazy, have a lot of experience scaling, and save significantly on shipping costs.

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

#239

Post by mmooss »

danenania wrote: post #235
mmooss wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree; I meant that we need to rationally assess what outcomes are more likely and plan according to that, not treat every outcome as equally likely. And not only plan, as if we are passive victims of history, but make it happen - invest in NATO, etc.

Sure, but assuming we remain a democracy, or some approximation of one, we're always going to be a bit schizophrenic in our policies. Any particular administration can try to go in one direction or the other, but they have to be aware that their successor (or the one after) could very well undo all their actions and take the exact opposite course. So in terms of long term planning, I think hedging our bets make sense…

I won't keep going in circles, but focus on this point:

> Sure, but assuming we remain a democracy, or some approximation of one, we're always going to be a bit schizophrenic in our policies. Any particular administration can try to go in one direction or the other, but they have to be aware that their successor (or the one after) could very well undo all their actions and take the exact opposite course.

The idea that democracies are less stable and predictable doesn't bear out in reality. They are the most stable and predictable forms of government, because they have many checks on their power: Free press, legislatures, competitive elections, etc. expose fraud and incompetence to their disinfectent, sunlight. The rule of law means that officials serve the law and the people, not a person. Putin is not someone you trust to keep their word in a deal with you.

Government by dictators is less stable: They lack the essential things above, and are subject to one person's whim - a person inevitably corrupted by their power. They change power through violence, which makes them even more unstable.

And to circle back after all to the evidence right in front of us: NATO has lasted 90 years so far. The US has greatly expanded and deepened its alliances in East Asia over the last 4 years. Now name an ally China or Russia has. They don't - dictators don't have allies on that level; nobody actually likes their values and wants them to succeed. China and Russia's current relationship is nothing like the US's with NATO;

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

#240

Post by mmooss »

umbra07 wrote: post #233
mmooss wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

China can't bomb American production unless we suffer absolutely catastrophic, unimaginable, WW3-escalatory levels of naval losses in the Pacific (because Chinese bombers from the Chinese mainland don't have the range to reach the American mainland).

I'm not sure that's true. The US can't defend an entire Pacific front, obviously, and has a shortage of ships, many of which will be busy doing other things.

Anyway, I was thinking of missiles, which China has many of, and which can reach the US (including from submarines and other ships that can maneuver closer to the US).

Post reply on HN