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

How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

construction-physics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 531 posts

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#111

Post by inglor_cz »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #40
ggm wrote: post #2

The best time to try and fix this is 20 or 30 years ago, but absent a time machine, the next best time is now. Either you feel this kind of construction process is national-strategic and you ignore the cost over imports, or not. If you don't regard this as a core competency which should be kept in the national register, then sure, buy the ships from other places. But, don't come whining when the national-strategic in…

Every country should be able to defend itself, without reliance on allies, as a national priority. If this means building cars, ships, tanks, and planes, then that infrastructure should be built and maintained at taxpayers expense. Whats more, you need to have market forces within your own country so competition can deliver you the best products. You can't just fund one ship building company, you need to roll the dic…

"without reliance on allies"

This is unrealistic for smaller countries, like Ancient Greek poleis or contemporary Estonia. Under your logic, they would have to give up their existence and join some empire.

In practice, already the Greco-Persian wars are an indication that alliances of smaller nations are viable, and that they are more efficient due to specialization. This is not a new problem, nor is it specific for post-industrial history; the Athens were better at fighting at sea, other poleis could provide hoplites.

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#112

Post by generic92034 »

palmotea wrote: post #86
hypeatei wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm of the opinion that things like shipbuilding don't really matter in times of war for countries with nuclear weapons. There would be dire consequences for anyone invading and/or blockading a nuclear armed country. A lot of people seem to yearn for the "good old days" where we built giant, tangible things that did cool stuff. That's fine, but the "national security" arguments ring hollow as you're basically saying…

> I'm of the opinion that things like shipbuilding don't really matter in times of war for countries with nuclear weapons. There would be dire consequences for anyone invading and/or blockading a nuclear armed country. The flaw in that annoyingly common logic is 1) countries are very reluctant to use nuclear weapons, and 2) any kind of nuclear escalation is an instant loss for your own side . I personally don't think…

> because he doesn't serve his people, they serve him.

I am not convinced the current breed of politicians in (more or less) democratic countries sees that differently.

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#113

Post by amelius »

wagwang wrote: post #35

Can't wait for the battle of the Thames river between the British North Sea fleet (purchased from China) against the imperial Russian fleet (also purchased from China) On a more serious note, the problem with centering your economy on international finance is that it's only lucrative if no one else in the world has capital and access to worldwide industry.

You only need a small naval drone to down an entire ship.

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#114

Post by madaxe_again »

ggm wrote: post #2

The best time to try and fix this is 20 or 30 years ago, but absent a time machine, the next best time is now. Either you feel this kind of construction process is national-strategic and you ignore the cost over imports, or not. If you don't regard this as a core competency which should be kept in the national register, then sure, buy the ships from other places. But, don't come whining when the national-strategic in…

I just don’t know that it’s feasible.

As the article mentions, the U.K. shipbuilding industry was dependent on cheap, skilled labour.

It doesn’t touch upon just how cheap.

My ancestors were riveters and boiler fitters in Glasgow from about the 1860s to the 1920s - they lived 30 to a room in tenements, three generations atop on another, and had to start work aged 5 or 6 to prevent the family from falling into destitution. The economics essentially demanded that you crank out descendants, as only by pooling a number of incomes could you survive. Everybody had horrific injuries of one variety or another. Most died before reaching 50.

The other thing that the article elides is just how much that workforce was shattered by the wars - an awful lot of Glaswegian and other shipbuilders signed up for the navy, as it was a much better opportunity than just making the boats - and proceeded to die at sea in droves. Their families did not receive compensation or their pay more often than not, as it was considered to be bad for morale to say a ship had been lost, and instead all aboard would be classed as missing or as deserters, and when they did finally say “yes, this ship was lost” 15 years after each war, it was usually far too late to be of any use.

Anyway. I just can’t see the working classes or international human rights organisations being willing to do the same again.

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#115

Post by faichai »

givemeethekeys wrote: post #38
mrcsharp wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It 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.

If the people who have the most to lose don't think that something is in the national interest, then is it really?

"think" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. Are the people really thinking? I don't think they are.

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#116

Post by whiplash451 »

mrcsharp wrote: post #19
jacquesm wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It 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.

Like 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.

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#117

Post by neilwilson »

Barrin92 wrote: post #64
ggm wrote: post #2

The best time to try and fix this is 20 or 30 years ago, but absent a time machine, the next best time is now. Either you feel this kind of construction process is national-strategic and you ignore the cost over imports, or not. If you don't regard this as a core competency which should be kept in the national register, then sure, buy the ships from other places. But, don't come whining when the national-strategic in…

>Right now, we're very far from Autarky and we're far too close to total dependency. The biggest problem with this thinking is that nationally mandated production is fundamentally unable to reduce dependency because national economic policy cannot increase aggregate output . That's to say when you politically prioritize to build ships the question always is what you aren't building instead, because all allocation con…

The problem is that the analysis of the alternatives only ever takes into account efficiency and not resilience. Which is typical of “rational expectations” belief systems based upon atomised individuals.

However the real world has politics in it, as we saw during the pandemic, at which points jurisdictions commandeer resources for themselves regardless of whether a “better price” is available elsewhere.

Within a jurisdiction where resources can be directed you only need one capacity for output. In a market situation you need multiple suppliers all of which with excess capacity to supply that you have reserved and which cannot be countermanded by other action (so it needs to be defended with military capacity). Once you cost all that in you may just find that doing it yourself is more efficient, once resilience is taken into account properly.

Nature rarely goes for the most efficient solution. When it does it tends to go the way of the Dodo.

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#118

Post by matsemann »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #40
ggm wrote: post #2

The best time to try and fix this is 20 or 30 years ago, but absent a time machine, the next best time is now. Either you feel this kind of construction process is national-strategic and you ignore the cost over imports, or not. If you don't regard this as a core competency which should be kept in the national register, then sure, buy the ships from other places. But, don't come whining when the national-strategic in…

Every country should be able to defend itself, without reliance on allies, as a national priority. If this means building cars, ships, tanks, and planes, then that infrastructure should be built and maintained at taxpayers expense. Whats more, you need to have market forces within your own country so competition can deliver you the best products. You can't just fund one ship building company, you need to roll the dic…

Ehh, I think the reason we have less wars in Europe the last decades is because we're all connected now.

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#119

Post by jack_tripper »

rusk wrote: post #98
jack_tripper wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's also my thinking that nullifies a lot of the discussion here. Like why would anyone start a naval beef with the UK, given the UK's nuclear submarine fleet?

Nukes are useless as anything other than a self destruct mechanism. A gunman pointing at your head with himself in the line of fire.

Nuclear submarines as in nuclear propulsion submarines. And nukes are useful because you never need to fire them.

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#120

Post by jack_tripper »

XorNot wrote: post #94
jack_tripper wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's also my thinking that nullifies a lot of the discussion here. Like why would anyone start a naval beef with the UK, given the UK's nuclear submarine fleet?

It's not about starting a direct conflict, it's that blockading it can be done at a distance rather easily. If ships can't get to the UK, or the foreign shipyards reduced to rubble - or outbid - then it's more effective and cost efficient then any direct kinetic action.

Submarine fleets will torpedo your blockade. No need to fire nukes.
Post reply on HN