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

261–270 of 531 posts

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#261

Post by exasperaited »

Neil44 wrote: post #233
exasperaited wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This frankly reads as somewhat sociopathic, not just anti-union. In 2025 I admire anyone brave enough to take this position: are you independently wealthy?

Come now, trying to talk about UK industry in the 70's without mentioning unions?

Except the post that you were replying to was not, was it? And you were talking in the present tense.

If you think unions have no possible value in 2025 you are either independently wealthy, retired on an excellent pension, or very misinformed. Right now everyone should be considering whether there is a union for them, because what is coming down the pipe is not good.

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#262

Post by exasperaited »

KingTravis wrote: post #232
exasperaited wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you perceive your work to be artisanship (and a lot of people in the automotive and custom bicycle business do, along with people in the high end furniture business, for example), and you have enough customers who agree, and enough work to keep yourself and your employees busy and your families all fed, then a messaging system that speeds up productivity really is a lot of bollocks , basically (particularly for a…

I understand what you're saying, and I agree, technology doesn't always make things better. In this particular example though I'm not talking about adding frivolous software, I'm making the point they don't want to invest in ANY computing technology. Inventory, logistic, order, people or timesheet management. The example of IM is more a case of removing the requirement to hand a runner a note and them literally go to…

The thing is, that runner learns the business over time and could one day replace another employee. This is why automating away entry level jobs is not always a good long-term decision. Whereas e.g. Slack is just Slack forever.

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#263

Post by diego_moita »

giorgioz wrote: post #172

Italy is barely mentioned in the whole article. Today Italy is the biggest shipbuilding manufacturer in Europe: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/countries-dominate-global-s... I feel the double standard of such articles quick in pointing out Italy being behind in many statistics (which it is and is fair to point it out). When it's Britain behind the whole article is written only from the point of view of the UK and a…

England is an island, both geographically and culturally. This is the culture from where Brexit comes.

They still think that the world spins around their navel, that football (soccer) is their game and the sun never sets in their empire.

At the end of WWI, 4 empires collapsed: the Austro-Hungarian, the Russian tzar, the Ottoman Empire and the British. The Austrians accepted it and moved on. The Russians and Turkish are in denial and resisting to accept what they already know. The British didn't even get the memo, they're totally oblivious, in a "Downtown Abbey" fantasy.

> While other metrics of Italian excellency are ignored.

Bullshit. People know about Ferrari, Lamborghini, Alfa Romeo, Maseratti, Ducati, Beretta (guns), Carpiggiani (ice-cream machines), La Marzocco, De Longhi (espresso machines), etc.

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#264

Post by wahern »

energy123 wrote: post #246
eru wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? 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.

Small island countries shouldn't build their own ships only because they can't due to their size. But they probably should have sovereign manufacturing of asymmetric deterrence tools like anti-ship missiles. Friends aren't good enough, unless you have a mutual defense treaty, they aren't real friends and can't be counted on. Look at Ukraine struggling to get Tomohawks and ATACMS now, or struggling to get tanks and je…

> Friends aren't good enough

They are if you actively manage your relationships with an eye to maintaining redundant access to necessary materiel or having multi-pronged defense strategies. Singapore is constantly nurturing strategic defense ties with multiple allies and attempting to avoid existential reliance on any single ally. And the one nation they definitely wouldn't rely on is Malaysia, the country most likely to threaten their sovereignty. Ukraine's problem was they were politically too dysfunctional and dependent on Russia defense trade until Russia's successive invasions forced them to reform domestically. (To be fair, Russia had a hand in prolonging their dysfunction.)

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#265

Post by dgroshev »

barrkel wrote: post #252
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…

Direct kinetic war between nuclear powers is pretty much unthinkable - mutual annihilation if either core territory is threatened. Instead, wars happen through proxies or direct attacks on non-nuclear powers, and then you need the ability to project power short of a nuclear response. Russia can't prevent aid to Ukraine with nuclear blackmail. The US can't defend Taiwan without ships - it can't use nuclear blackmail i…

We just had a direct kinetic war between nuclear powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_India–Pakistan_conflict

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#266

Post by energy123 »

hypeatei wrote: post #45
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'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…

Nuclear weapons are overrated. Multiple countries already invaded a nuclear power (1973 Yom Kippur War) and nothing happened. If Egypt wasn't afraid of nukes, what makes you so confident that your future enemy will be?

It's an empathy gap. You are rightly cautious of nukes, but you then project that mindset onto belligerents, which is the mistake. A very important rule in strategic planning is to avoid projecting your own calculations onto the enemy.

Nuclear powers, like all states, need to meet the pacing challenge and be capable of winning, or at least have enough asymmetric capabilities to force a frozen conflict if necessary.

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#267

Post by dgroshev »

MrsPeaches wrote: post #155
coldtea wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Sometimes the time to fix a thing in general (nevermind the "best time") has come and gone, and the rest is wishful thinking and platitudes like "the next best time is now".

The UK is actually doing something(ish) about it now. Innovate UK (the UK’s public innovation funding) recently had a bid out for maritime R&D but with a focus on clean tech: https://iuk-business-connect.org.uk/opportunities/clean-mari... Obviously, this is not going to make up for the loss of the broader ship building industry, but it does show that the UK is thinking about maritime technology as a key strategic are…

To add to that, we just won a £10bn contract to build Type 26 anti-sub frigates for Norway https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr5rgdpvn63o

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#268

Post by energy123 »

bootsmann wrote: post #133
purple_turtle wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having nuclear weapons does not give you immunity to all threats. Quite recently we had a case of nuclear state being partially occupied by a state without nuclear weapons. And even in that case use of nuclear weapons would be unacceptable escalation and they used regular army to (mostly) kick them out and carry on with their earlier invasion on other parts of the front. (I am speaking about Kursk if anyone is confus…

To be fair, the credibility of the Russian nuclear stack is questionable at this point. Its unclear how much capacity survived the past 30 years of graft. We have developed nations struggling to maintain theirs without layers of blatant corruption weaved into the process.

I never understood this line of thinking. It doesn't matter if graft ruined 95% of Russia's nukes. Your city is still gone.

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#269

Post by purple_turtle »

bootsmann wrote: post #133
purple_turtle wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having nuclear weapons does not give you immunity to all threats. Quite recently we had a case of nuclear state being partially occupied by a state without nuclear weapons. And even in that case use of nuclear weapons would be unacceptable escalation and they used regular army to (mostly) kick them out and carry on with their earlier invasion on other parts of the front. (I am speaking about Kursk if anyone is confus…

To be fair, the credibility of the Russian nuclear stack is questionable at this point. Its unclear how much capacity survived the past 30 years of graft. We have developed nations struggling to maintain theirs without layers of blatant corruption weaved into the process.

That is nonsense. Even if (optimistically) 90% are nonoperational, what it would change?

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#270

Post by TheMagicHorsey »

This article radically downplays the role that unions had in killing the UK shipbuilding industry.

While it's true that shipbuilders were reluctant to introduce new technologies and techniques due to capital requirements, the much bigger reason they did not was the impediment put up by unions. Yes, capital expenditure is painful in a cyclical industry, but in previous eras of shipbuilding, companies did invest in modernization ... in those previous eras, unions were much less active or absent. Other countries also faced the same capital crunches and cyclical business environment, and still invested. It was not that the Japanese, Koreans, and Italians were somehow more "risk-taking" than the English ... no, rather their unions had not yet taken hold post-war to smother innovation.

Unions always trade away the advancements of tomorrow for the security of the workers today. When one supports a union one should always keep in mind that you are putting down for your comfort today and mortgaging your children's tomorrow. This might not be an issue if your children don't follow your trade. But if they do, you've just screwed them over. The rest of the world doesn't stand still while your union blocks radical progress.

Post reply on HN