Live data from Hacker News

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

bbc.com

271–280 of 314 posts

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

#271
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Did you miss the word "large"? And the UK required significant US assistance during the Falkland Islands war, so apparently you're quite ignorant about history.

https://time.com/archive/6882618/just-how-much-did-the-u-s-h...

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

#272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't much care what the man does with his free time. I'm more interested in the veracity of his statements. On that front he supplies copious references to peer reviewed research by numerous others and primary sources. Character assassination is for folks who can't argue on the merits.

You still haven't offered your own credentials.

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

#273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem for them wasn't the sales, it was the catches. The EU was good for farmers, not so good for fisheries. The EU fishing rules meant multiple countries could fish the same grounds meaning overfishing. The UK was much stricter on net sizes than Spain was.

> The EU was good for farmers, not so good for fisheries. It was good for industrial farming, not the farmers themselves, one of the big reasons for Norway refusing to join was the impact it would have on farmers.

I knew plenty of smaller and tenant farmers who benefitted from the EU. There weren't industrial farms around there.

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

#274
post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 jus…

Doesn't matter now. Ukraine will never join NATO. Poland will be happy to veto their entry, and will be happy having Ukraine be the buffer state that can sacrifice its youth for the sake of Europe. What Zelensky did with honoring the UPA was irredeemable.

Heck, were Belarus to overthrow Lukashenko, they have a better chance of joining NATO than Ukraine now.

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

#275

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.

Its also not price competitive as producedin the uk. No high energy industry will survive in europe

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

#276
post #179

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

Russia's explicit and communicated goals for this war were utterly failed by day four of the invasion. Arguably they lost within hours when they failed to take Hostemel airport.

By Russia's own accounting, they lost years ago. It does not matter what the outcome is, Russia has taken massive pain to sustain this war they never planned to sustain. They entirely used up their immense Soviet inheritance, which was something they held in high regard and used to insist made them strong. It's gone now. Used up.

The gas station of Europe can no longer produce sufficient gasoline for internal use. It will take at least months to get that capability back.

They have utterly failed to substitute sanctioned components, having switched back to imported components after their internal substitutions performed so poorly.

Their navy is being taken apart by a country that scuttled it's own navy on day one. Ukraine sunk the flagship of the black sea fleet with supposedly just a few missiles, something which the Moskva by all accounts on paper, should have handled just fine. Except all their craft are in such poor condition that many of the systems on the Moskva were likely just nonfunctional, including defense radars, communications, and anti-missile defenses.

Russia was totally reliant on an American private company for their battlefield communications, and is not coping with the shutdown of their access, which they should have been prepared for long ago. They were also dependent on Discord and Telegram.

Russia is being seriously wounded by a country much smaller than it, which also ostensibly had all the same problems as Russia, like poor soviet doctrine, corruption, a poor economy, and demographic issues.

Russia is failing to compete industrially with a former vassal.

Russia had to import soldiers and ammo from north korea.

Russia's weapons export industry is dead. Nobody wants their trash that has proven terrible on the battlefield. Nobody expects Russia to actually be able to build what they claim to sell anymore.

Russia is so run dry on arms that they couldn't help Venezuela against the US invasion. They sent a single anti air weapon system.

Half a million Russians are dead.

If the war ends today and Russia is allowed to keep all the land it is currently standing on, it still has lost. It's not even a Pyrrhic victory at this point.

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

#277
post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is that land worth the costs Russia has endured? Very obviously not, that’s why it’s not “winning”. If they could turn back the clocks they would.

> If they could turn back the clocks they would.

That’s not my very objective understanding of Russian history.

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

#278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's nowhere near the same thing. This was supposed to be an imperialist land grab by Russia. This war did not emerge organically. Russia had a goal, to seize Ukraine - easily and quickly. Russia have failed at that goal. Failing is not winning. Not only have they failed to secure their objective, the attempt to do so has cost several orders of magnitude more than intended. The land they do control is of low value. A…

Would you say that Austria-Hungary choosing to outright invade Serbia because the assassin was a Bosnian Serb who might have had some backing from the government, was reasonable? Or was that a land grab? And when when Russia joins Serbia was it solely an action of obligation or because they thought they might be able to get a piece of Austria-Hungary? And similarly when Germany jumps in seeing they can now shift the…

>In the modern war Russia claimed that their motivation for the war was to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO.

If Russia is so terrified of NATO invasion, why do they keep taking defenses off the boarder with Finland which just became a NATO member as a part of this war? Why does Russian state TV insist they should nuke Britain?

Why didn't Russia invade any of the NATO members already on their border?

>Ukraine chose to fight, at the urging of the West

It is well known that the US admin had prepared to airlift Zelensky out of Ukraine and support a literal insurgency because they expected Russia to win easily, and were not actually prepared to support Ukraine in a regular war. This resulted in Zelensky's famous "I need ammo, not a ride" statement.

Why did Russia violate their treaty terms with Ukraine, which explicitly guaranteed their security? Why should you ever trust negotiations with a leader who has clearly demonstrated they do not respect what they sign?

>Their early movements were largely performative or Hail Marys

No it wasn't. Attempting to take Hostomel was standard doctrine, and they fully expected to succeed, which is why their convoy was not in fighting shape, and carried parade uniforms.

Russia, at the very top, fully believed and intended to defeat Ukraine in 3 days. They were literally not prepared for a drawn out war.

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

#279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Somewhere under the sea at this very moment there is a British submarine captain who could nuke Moscow tonight if he (and his crew) wanted to.

There’s absolutely nothing the Americans could do about it.

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

#280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Somewhere under the sea at this very moment there is a British submarine captain who could nuke Moscow tonight if he (and his crew) wanted to. There’s absolutely nothing the Americans could do about it.

NATO can and probably would shoot them out of the sky using ballistic missile defence. IIRC Britain has a total of 8 missiles.

Britain's obsolete Trident subs are manufactured by Lockheed, so if they fall out with Trump they will lose access to spare parts. The replacements aren't due until 2028.

Post reply on HN