| ▲ | rayiner 15 hours ago |
| Brilliant move. Giving South Korea the U.S. approval required to provide for its own defense, while using that to incentivize investment into American shipbuilding. |
|
| ▲ | nobodyandproud 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I wouldn’t call it a genius move. Just long overdue: South Korea is one of the last, staunch US allies that can build large ships at scale. But will bringing
manufacturing to Philadelphia be a mistake? Will they run into the generations-steeped shipyard workers and steelworkers? Will American steelworkers try put one over to make themselves an expense, or a legit partnership to help each other? I can see this going either way; and I hope this partnership transcends the usual, petty partisanship. |
| |
| ▲ | jltsiren 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's more that South Korea and Japan are the last developed countries, where it's still economically viable to build cargo ships. Several European countries have robust shipbuilding industry, but they focus on higher-value ships such as cruise ships. | | |
| ▲ | nobodyandproud 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | How do they achieve it? The cost of living and social services can’t be that much different from at least mid-tier EU members. | | |
| ▲ | jltsiren 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | By becoming wealthy later than European countries. Shipyards are long-term investments. It makes sense to build them when you have the expertise and labor costs are in your favor. But once you have built them, they are a sunk cost. You can remain competitive against countries with cheaper labor for decades. Globalization and the growth of international trade also helped. China built new shipyards, but the demand for new ships also grew, keeping Korean and Japanese shipyards in business. Meanwhile, the wage gap is gradually getting narrower. | |
| ▲ | slavik81 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The Korean War played a major part, according to "Why Only Three Countries Bother Building Ships Anymore". https://youtu.be/0Gk61ginOqo | |
| ▲ | OneMorePerson 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not an expert but I think it has a lot to do with what gets prioritized by the government and other groups. Tax breaks and other support aren't infinite and where they (any given government) chooses to use them makes a big impact. |
|
| |
| ▲ | mmooss 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | All the potential problems listed by the parent are due to the workers. Who do you think promotes those narratives and why? |
|
|
| ▲ | echelon 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That's a genius move! We should get every country to do this. Build your nuclear subs here, in the US shipyards. We'll help you! We can massively expand our capacity, which will be important for self defense in the coming decades. |
| |
| ▲ | tyre 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | An interesting example of this is the US modernizations of its military industrial capacity by supply pre- and during WWI. There was intense debate in the international community as to whether non-warring countries could supply nations at war without being considered combatants. If they aren’t, you can’t neutralize the enemies supplies. If they are, those third countries are effectively part of the conflict. The US had to take the latter stance because it didn’t have a strong industry to product its own weapons. If it supported nations from buying from non-warring parties, it would be shit out of luck if it had its own wars. So it received a lot of investment from European powers, generating jobs, economic growth, and the funding to expand its domestic production without having to take on debt or wait for a war to break out. Come its entry into WWI and then WWII, the US had a strong home base of industrial capacity for arms manufacturing. | |
| ▲ | Waterluvian 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I imagine countries would only do this begrudgingly out of necessity. The U.S. has positioned itself as unworthy of trust and respect and is basically taking the mafia protection approach to getting other nations to work with it. | | |
| ▲ | kakacik 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | I would be very worried about any form of built in kill switch / degrade effectiveness based on recent F-16 fiasco that sobered entire Europe into massive military spending. Trust lost is trust that either never comes back or it takes tremendous, long term continuous effort. Not holding my breath. | | |
| ▲ | adgjlsfhk1 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | the good news here is that embedding a kill switch into a nuclear sub won't work very well since they don't communicate with the outside world for months at a time | | |
| ▲ | delfinom 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Well, yes but no. Hence the doomsday planes specifically made to communicate with deep sea subs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-6_Mercury Tl;dr attenuation of signals in water is frequency dependent, just like in air or walls, etc. So the plane has a 5 mile long antenna | |
| ▲ | mindslight 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "Military functionality license expired. Surfacing required to renew license. Surface Now? [Yes] / [Okay]." | | |
| |
| ▲ | echelon 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Recent F-16 fiasco? I didn't see this. What happened? | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | cjs_ac 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Part of AUKUS is this. |
|
|
| ▲ | beefnugs 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| But doesnt it also give russia incentive for walking distance sabotage |
