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.
I'd say you have to have a really solid/creative (ingenious?) plan beyond "just nationalise it and she'll be right" - otherwise yeah it'll just be heavy and a drain on the economy.
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 distribute satellites.
Everyone in this discussion seems to be forgetting Trident as well. There's a lot of assumption the next war will be helpfully similar to WW2, and some sort of reverse sweet spot where we are subject to naval interdiction but will not deploy the strategic nuclear deterrent, and at the same time have enough time to build things, but not things that require any of the rest of the supply chain than steel (I have bad news about the number of ASIC fabs in the UK).
Back to "dead men dominate UK politics". In this case, we're trying to refight a war from 70 years ago.
Well if trident gets used then what comes next is irrelevant.
It's like planning for your house burning down V dying. If you're dead you don't really need to worry about the after.
So yes the military plans for everyone but global thermo nuclear war, because there's no point planning for that anyway.
I wouldn't say were planning for the next ww2. Look at the number of tanks we have. If anything were over optimised for helping the US fight insurgencies in the middle east at the expense of being able to fight a high intensity war.
The absolute worst case is that it's not advantageous/useful at all in the next war to have the capability, but it wouldn't harm you at all if you do have it, it just wouldn't be useful. In every other case, from the worst case all the way up the continuum to the best case, having the capability is beneficial to varying levels of degree.
How many billions have you spent propping up useless industries in the years before the war though? What capacities could have been built with those billions otherwise?
In a defensive war, a steel navy sitting in spitting distance of your shores and an army of steel tanks will still do a lot to keep the enemy at bay. And you can swap the tank turrets for Gatling guns on some of your newly produced tanks to help against drones
You wouldn't be able to win the war in your scenario, but you could still do a lot to make sure the other side isn't winning either.
Russia is not only on the precipice of giving up territory in Ukraine, it's likely to give up so much more because its ability to function as a country is being systematically destroyed.
The only barrier between Russians and anarchy is the last nine meals they’ve had. How's the summer harvest coming along?
If you’re looking at win vs loss you also need to look at what you got in return for what you gave. A ton of casualties and further international isolation aren’t really worth the middling gains Russia could negotiate for peace today. Which is probably one of the reasons they still haven’t, sunk cost fallacy and all that.
> If you’re looking at win vs loss you also need to look at what you got in return for what you gave.
This.
Russia is suffering over 400 casualties for every square km (1036 per square mile!) of territory captured in Donetsk, screwing their own economy and turning themselves into a pariah. Russia certainly isn't winning.
The benefit of war is almost never worth the cost. It just tends to scale up from repeated mutual miscalculations. For instance WW1 started from a Bosnian Serb assassinating the Austro-Hungarian heir and the next thing you know Brits are killing Germans over it. Everybody would have certainly turned back the clock there if they could, even moreso given that "The War to End All Wars" directly set the stage for WW2. But that doesn't mean that the Allied Powers didn't win WW1.
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.
Again, spectacularly failing to carry out your goals is not "winning", in any sense of the word.
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 balance back towards Austria-Hungary, and so on.
And then this just kept iterating until suddenly everybody's fighting everybody, tens of millions are dying, and absolutely nothing was achieved. Then you get the Treaty of Versailles which desperately tried to justify it all by being excruciatingly punitive on Germany, but of course that ultimately did nothing but essentially guarantee WW2 where tens of millions more would die again, and again for basically nothing, with a good chunk of Europe left in rubble.
In the modern war Russia claimed that their motivation for the war was to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. Their early movements were largely performative or Hail Marys (like the decapitation strike) and within 48 hours they were engaged in negotiations with Ukraine that involved 0 land concessions, but primarily focused on Ukraine not joining NATO. Ukraine chose to fight, at the urging of the West, and so here we are.
>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.
The rhetoric about Ukraine falling in 3 days came from the West, not Russia. [1] And it's highly improbable that "we" actually even believed that. Wars don't ever end in 3 days, and Ukraine had been pumped full of arms for years, had multiple cities that been heavily fortified for war, and an army approaching a million men, large numbers of of "ultra nationalists" itching for a fight, and all of this before all men of "fighting age" (up to 60) were locked in the country and started being forced into the military. Why we were putting out nonsensical rhetoric that could serve no viable purpose other than to try to entice an invasion (and as such would normally be classified) is a question with only one apparent answer.
The only other NATO members that bordered Russia before the Ukraine War were were the Baltics. They have poor geography for an invasion and would also be immediately cut off from mainland Europe in the case of a war by the Suwalki Corridor - a tiny stretch of about 40 miles that is the Baltics only connection to Europe outside of Russia/Belarus. By contrast Ukraine has ideal geography for an invasion. Kursk is also the path the Nazis ended up taking when trying to press into Russia during WW2, and also where they suffered a very costly defeat.
I do fully agree that Russia expected their negotiations with Ukraine to be successful, and had the West not intervened they likely would have been right.
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 hand shake that they wouldn’t join NATO? I really don’t want to insult you but…
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 the US declaring Ukraine a "NATO+ country" immediately. And NATO's responses towards Russia's expressed concerns began to be completely dismissive with not even a vague allusion to reconciliation.
So I think the main goal was certainly to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, but I think a major secondary goal was for Russia to make it clear that their claims of red lines and such are not toothless. If a country makes repeated claims of things being a red-line but never acts on such claims, then their future claims will be casually dismissed.
> 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.
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.
That guy wasn't important at all. The other countries were just looking for an excuse to start a war. Until then wars were kinda glorified, governed by pretty strict rules and not much attention was paid to the destruction.
WW1 changed all that with the tank, the machine guns, the toxic gas, the trench, the air warfare.
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.
Is it that they can't work, or that they are too expensive for Russia to field any appreciable amount that won't just make them valuable targets? Its not trivial to produce the hundreds of thousands of rounds you need for each one to be ready.
If there is any nation on earth that is capable of cheaply producing large quantities of simple weapons of war it is the Russians. The issue is not a lack of cheap bullets.
Steel on its own is inert and useless, you need to retain the entire downstream manufacturing ecosystem that consumes it. Like cars for example, producing steel but letting all your vehicle manufacturers sell off to foreign owners just so you can import BYDs doesn't do you any good.
A political movement that destabilizes the living situation for large parts of the population feeding them to the populists to archieve a lofty abstract goal, thats almost poetic.
i.e. if you have a lot of financial resources and can buy 1000 ships cheaply for the cost of propping up your steel industry to build 100 ships, should you buy 1000 ships (or the steel needed to build them quickly) to instead?
You can make this same argument about a great number of things. Why is steel any more critical than food or vaccines or the like? Indeed we got caught short of vaccines recently, and had some nontrivial consideration of running a military op against NATO member over it.
The food example, is the exact reason for large farming subsidies in the European Union. These were implemented as a founding initiative, due to the experience of food shortages during the second world war.
A great number of things could be considered critical. Due to the nature of when access could be cut off, the main thing countries likely worry about being able to access, is things humans need to stay alive, and things needed to wage war.
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?
Farming subsidies are the only way to prevent famine, the granary system sort of works, but regularly resulted in shortages and famines throughout every empire in history. Even not accounting for longer term climate trends, yield due to weather can vary up to 30% in a year, so it only makes sense to pay for a bit of over production so in the event of a couple bad years your food output is merely break even, and not 70% of needs.
Its better to pay 5 cents more for a loaf now than pay $20 a loaf with rationing later, or if we went back to granary system possibly getting moldy food.
Obviously there are a lot of important things you need to keep a country running, but steel is a key input a in a huge number of very important sectors (infrastructure, military, automotive etc.) so having some ability to produce your own steel seems a sensible hedge.
Food tends to be a lot easier to produce, and many countries do often subsidize their food production, as well as have mercantilistic policies to ensure food production is kept locally.
Vaccines is a more interesting one, and would be something that might indeed be of interest to a nation. On the other hand I don't think many governments are that concerned about another pandemic, sometimes the discourse regarding it very much sounds like "what are the odds it'll happen again"
> On the other hand I don't think many governments are that concerned about another pandemic, sometimes the discourse regarding it very much sounds like "what are the odds it'll happen again"
Gambler's fallacy will keep striking until we do better, won't it.
I don't really care for farm subsidies either, but even ignoring that: it's quite a different level of intervention than compulsory purchase. Same with the vaccines. We didn't respond to that crisis by nationalizing AstraZeneca.
My rhetorical point is just that steel gets special treatment probably because it's politically expedient. There are large, politically-relevant parts of the country that are still emotionally tied to the idea that we're an industrial nation. People under the age of 30 still go on about Thatcher and the miners.
There's no real shortage of steel around the world that I know of. We could just stockpile it instead, for example. And in the hypothetical tail-risk scenario this is all supposed to insure against... how do we even get the raw materials for making steel anyway?
> There's no real shortage of steel around the world that I know of. We could just stockpile it instead, for example. And in the hypothetical tail-risk scenario this is all supposed to insure against... how do we even get the raw materials for making steel anyway?
The more I learn about steel, the more I realise it's not one single thing but a whole collection of different families of things, each with different tradeoffs.
One big thing about steel is actually traceability, certain industries require very specific steels. One example that always comes to mind is Sheffield Forgemaster's who are one of the few places in the world that can make absolutely gargantuan sized castings for nuclear reactors and marine equipment
Vaccines aren't something you need urgently in a crisis.
A wartime effort has to keep supplies moving daily, or the front collapses.
Whereas the need for vaccines is heavily deferred - your population is already vaccinated in peacetime, and you are unlikely to need to make a novel vaccine over the course of a war, nor vaccinate new population during one either: that large vaccinated population providing herd immunity gives you a lot of runway for children with less access.
> Vaccines aren't something you need urgently in a crisis
.. what were you doing in 2020?
> you are unlikely to need to make a novel vaccine over the course of a war
The lab leak people are probably wrong, but in the present era we're a lot closer to "hook AI up to a CRISPR machine and generate a biological weapon" than we have ever been.
Everyone seems to assume that we might get in a war that we recognize and can fight with the tools of WW2, ships and tanks, rather than a war we don't recognize fought with weapons we don't understand and have no counter for. Or, more likely, simply get bought out at the top. Why fire a missile when you can buy a political party for a mere £5m?
Which does not change the fact that the pandemic was a peacetime crisis where it was possible but not practical to keep most systems running if needed.
Coronavirus wasn't bullseyeing vaccine shipments in the Pacific or taking down air freighters.
EDIT: I mean I don't know why you think this is a catch-22: countries pursue both capabilities, and the UK has a pharmaceutical industry and on shore manufacturing capabilities.
Whereas many industrialized nations are struggling to keep steel making capabilities on shore and running. So why is steel special? Because currently it's the one we're in danger of losing (and much harder to ship globally even if you have allies).
> Viruses aren't so good at seizing and holding territory.
Neither is infantry that's sick with the flu, which may have been a factor in the ending of of WWI.
Tis hard to practice good hygiene and social distancing in the trenches.
If one side had better access to vaccines or access to better vaccines in a conflict during a pandemic, it would be significant, regardless of how the pandemic came about.
> relatively few domain scientists support that claim
I spent a decade at a national Science and Technology Research Center responsible for a twelfth of NSF's research budget. We studied biology at all scales and the algorithms it uses to solve difficult problems. I've looked for holes in Quay's testimony and didn't find any big ones. Most of his claims seem to be independently verified.
One thing I can say from my decade of experience is that scientists are not dumb people, and are acutely aware of how their work is perceived, and the connection that has to their research funding. You'll find as many scientists warning about the dangers of lax lab regulation as you will coal miners warning about climate change. Private conversations are very different.
> 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 outbreak (I think Quay makes a compelling case in that testimony which summarizes a great deal of investigative work by others) many things went wrong. Many of which were predictable. Many choices were made. All that suggests opportunity to reduce risk through less extreme means: restricting gain of function research to higher-BSL labs, removing those labs further from population centers, more closely monitoring inflows and outflows around such research, changes are possible in the review and approval process, the list of possibilities is extensive.
What would your motivation be for seeing it any other way?
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?
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.
Recycling steel uses by and large the same industrial sites as making new steel. Most new steel has some amount of recycled steel mixed in, the trick is getting the ratios of various types of scrap right
