British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply • Hacker News Board

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#261

Post by t0mpr1c3 » Fri, Jul 17, 2026, 3:41 PM UTC

jarym wrote: post #52

Deukhoofd wrote: post #22

It's probably not a bad idea. Steel is one of the things that an industrialized country needs to produce to protect its own sovereignty. Letting it shut down and just hope you'll always be able to import enough steel from other countries is a bad long-term strategy. You'd be left unable to fend for yourself.

Yep, same can be said of manufacturing capability in general. If you don't have a manufacturing base then inevitably when there's a war you may find yourself unable to build defense components.

Supply chains are so diversified that self sufficiency is only feasible for countries the size of US and China.

Russia has been forced to cannibalize jet planes because sanctions have starved it of spare parts.

Even the US Navy gets its ships built in South Korea now.

Britain's remaining industries are very niche. With a small domestic market, you can't get economies of scale. You have to specialize.

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#262

Post by t0mpr1c3 » Fri, Jul 17, 2026, 3:52 PM UTC

8note wrote: post #179

georgeecollins wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If machine guns were useful against drones Russia would be winning in Ukraine. Check out Russia's Black Sea fleet to learn the fate of your navy sitting by your shores.

russia is currently holding just about all the land it wants in Ukraine They might not be taking Kiev for a hundred years, but the fortress belt is well within reach in the next couple of years If they were to negotiate an end tomorrow, Russia certainly wouldnt be giving up territory in ukraine. i dont see how thats not winning

It still hasn't got all of Donbas.

Russia can't even keep what it previously took. Crimea is becoming indefensible.

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#263

Post by t0mpr1c3 » Fri, Jul 17, 2026, 3:55 PM UTC

pseudohadamard wrote: post #228

georgeecollins wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's imagine a hypothetical symmetrical war between two modern countries. One can disable the other's satellites and maintain their own fleet. The other can't get access to any third parties' satellites. You aren't going to send your steel navy out when one side can see you from space and you can't, almost regardless of the numbers. Your big army of steel tanks is useless against a bunch of drones directed by distri…

For Americans wondering why they were making a Judas Priest album public property, it's actually a company based in S****horpe.

S tier post

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#264

Post by t0mpr1c3 » Fri, Jul 17, 2026, 3:57 PM UTC

handelaar wrote: post #134

0x3f wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Farming subsidies are one of the most criticized parts of the EU. My comment isn't in support of it. But even so, subsidy is quite different from compulsory purchase. The question is: why is steel special. Not in a no-action-vs-some-action way, but why so aggressive? Ironically I think it's the same for both steel and farmers: they provide votes.

For lots of reasons but if you're the UK and you're honest with yourself and you are only allowed to pick exactly one reason that steel is absolutely critical? Royal Navy.

Ezcept that the shipyards closed in the 1970s.

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#265

Post by timschmidt » Fri, Jul 17, 2026, 4:04 PM UTC

Hikikomori wrote: post #258

timschmidt wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What kind of expertise should you possess to be able to comment on a lab theory? Enough. > Even if lab leak is true, what is the proposal, that we do not study viruses at all? People love to think in black and white. All on or all off. It is metabolically inexpensive to reduce reality to the binary. But reality is all the colors in between. To the best of anyone's ability to reconstruct the events which led to the…

>Enough. So someone with expertise in other non relevant fields is enough? Yet people that have expertise in relevant fields dispute his conclusions and its not relevant somehow?

You really like to stand up incorrect assumptions to argue against. Second time you've done so in this short interaction.

Not a word yet about your motivation. Huh. You'd think anyone out here demanding others' credentials would lead by presenting their own.

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#266

Post by t0mpr1c3 » Fri, Jul 17, 2026, 4:06 PM UTC

illliillll wrote: post #256

RandomLensman wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how the UK could generally be self-sufficient in any large war.

The UK has nuclear weapons.

The command and control systems are American. The intelligence network is American. The last time the British military acted without US support was Suez. The UK went in on NATO 100%.

France took an entirely different set of conclusions from Suez.

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#267

Post by t0mpr1c3 » Fri, Jul 17, 2026, 4:18 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #83

RandomLensman wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how the UK could generally be self-sufficient in any large war.

It certainly wasn't self-sufficient in the last two large wars.

Britain's last two territorial conflicts involved the Falklands, and Icelandic fishing ships in the neighborhood of Rockall. I don't recall that third party assistance was required in either dispute, thank you very much.

The US the other hand is always asking for other countries to bail it out of some mess or other.

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#268

Post by t0mpr1c3 » Fri, Jul 17, 2026, 4:21 PM UTC

linksnapzz wrote: post #120

pjc50 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.centreforcities.org/reader/town-and-gown/univers... "Universities brought in an estimated £24 billion to the UK economy from abroad in 2022. They provide services (education) to international students who bring money to the institutions from abroad through international fees. These students also bring money to the local economy by spending on goods and services while they are studying" (presumably there's…

How many destroyer keels has U. Essex laid down this decade?

You'll find Colchester lads undeniably tasty around closing time on a Saturday.

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#269

Post by Hikikomori » Fri, Jul 17, 2026, 4:31 PM UTC

timschmidt wrote: post #265

Hikikomori wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Enough. So someone with expertise in other non relevant fields is enough? Yet people that have expertise in relevant fields dispute his conclusions and its not relevant somehow?

You really like to stand up incorrect assumptions to argue against. Second time you've done so in this short interaction. Not a word yet about your motivation. Huh. You'd think anyone out here demanding others' credentials would lead by presenting their own.

Not your credentials specifically, but Steven Quay. Cursory search suggest he's not an expert in relevant fields, but does have a book about lab leak theory. Immediately suspicious as there are a lot of scientists that turn to grifting in areas that were not relevant to their expertise.

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#270

Post by mopsi » Fri, Jul 17, 2026, 4:34 PM UTC

somenameforme wrote: post #257

solumunus wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ukraine were no where near joining NATO at the time, although as it turns out - if they were their motivation would have been entirely valid. Russia didn’t want Ukraine to join NATO because it would prevent them from annexing Ukraine, that’s simple logic. > within 48 hours they were engaged in negotiations with Ukraine that involved 0 land concessions So you think the plan was to invade Ukraine to scare them into a h…

Not joining NATO would be an extremely small price to pay relative to what war could, and ultimately did, entail. There's a nice timeline here [1] of relations between Ukraine and NATO. It's an archived version from the day before the invasion began, so there's no hindsight posts. Things were accelerating rapidly on the Ukraine-NATO front. In January 2022 there was apparently even a bill that was to be introduced in…

  > Things were accelerating rapidly on the Ukraine-NATO front.

They weren't. Ukraine is still nowhere near getting a membership action plan, which is the formal start of membership negotiations.

We saw with Finland and Sweden how quickly entry into the organization can progress if there's a will in the alliance to accept new members. We have not seen such will regarding Ukraine.

The whole "blame NATO" narrative is just a waste of everyone's time and completely ignores the internal developments in Russia and the ambitions of Putin and his clan. The main goal of the ex-Soviet security apparatus is to restore their lost empire and the special privileged position of the security services within it. To Europeans, the Cold War and the Iron Curtain were abnormalities that have been rectified; to the current generation of Russian decision-makers, the Cold War was a normalcy that they strive to return to. Russian dissidents have been warning for decades that the destruction of Russian democracy would sooner or later lead to resurgence of Soviet imperial thinking, and that's exactly what we're seeing.

NATO itself bears little importance in this. Russia is against all forms of European cooperation and would prefer to see countries alone and isolated, because it would permit attacking them one by one, instead of facing a joint front that they can't beat.