Nationalisation

martinsurrey

Marktheshark wrote: »

The Ability to forge steel can win or lose a war.
It is about our national security and protection of our people.

We as people must realise these greedy career politicians are selling us down the road.
The consequences of these crooks do not even bare thinking about, should the world change to conflict.

All wars are about money and resources and we have taken leave of our senses here, the world can and will change and we are going to get our backsides handed to us.

kinger101 wrote: »

I'm generally not in favour of nationalization or subsidies, but not being able to buy a nasty suit or some scatter cushions doesn't have the same national security implications as not being able to produce you own steel.

kinger101 wrote: »

We don't know what war we'll fight next. If it were with a global superpower, then yes, steel works, docks, airfields, power stations etc could be rapidly taken out within a few days.

But the UK has been involved in many military conflicts post-1945. In fact, the UK has spent more years engaged in conflict the that at peace.

A UK steel industry wasn't necessary for these conflicts, but I don't think the future is certain enough to say we would never be at a military disadvantage without UK steel. Not an easy risk to assess.

not relevant given below

Andy_L wrote: »

Plus without an indigenous source of iron ore how are you going to run them? Convoys of ships full of iron ore are far less efficient than ships full of iron and stell

THIS X1000

We import so much of our iron ore that it may as well be 100%

If you're worried about war, you need access to the raw materials, transporting 1,000,000 tons or iron ore to produce 500,000 tons of steel is a lot harder during war than importing 500,000 tons of finished steel, not to mention a lot less energy efficient.

Dont hide behind the argument "what happens if we go to war" we're !!!!!!ed for steel either way if shipping is stopped, if they can stop steel they can stop ore

Andy_L

kinger101 wrote: »

A UK steel industry wasn't necessary for these conflicts, but I don't think the future is certain enough to say we would never be at a military disadvantage with UK steel. Not an easy risk to assess.

I assume that should be "without UK steel"

You'd be looking at a war against an opponent who can shut off your supplies of raw materials and that goes on long enough that you need to replace your attritional losses and have long enough to both build them from scratch and train new crew. Ultimately an all out modern war is a "fight with what you've got" situation.

Also consider that not much military equipment is built with large quantities of steel anyway (mostly ship hulls & vehicle engine/chassis/bodywork). Plenty of the stuff that goes inside is equally dependent on overseas supply/manufacture , I don't see a call for a strategic capability to produce computer chips

Andy_L

martinsurrey wrote: »

Dont hide behind the argument "what happens if we go to war" we're !!!!!!ed for steel either way if shipping is stopped, if they can stop steel they can stop ore

and, other than the Russians, who is capable of re-fighting the Battle of the Atlantic anyway?

kinger101

Andy_L wrote: »

I assume that should be "without UK steel"

You'd be looking at a war against an opponent who can shut off your supplies of raw materials and that goes on long enough that you need to replace your attritional losses and have long enough to both build them from scratch and train new crew. Ultimately an all out modern war is a "fight with what you've got" situation.

Also consider that not much military equipment is built with large quantities of steel anyway (mostly ship hulls & vehicle engine/chassis/bodywork). Plenty of the stuff that goes inside is equally dependent on overseas supply/manufacture , I don't see a call for a strategic capability to produce computer chips

Iron ore does exist in the UK. And scrap steel can also be used. The UK does have BAE and ARM, so it's not as if we don't have the capability to produce military hardware. I fact, if BAE were at risk, I'm sure the security issue would be flagged.

martinsurrey

kinger101 wrote: »

Iron ore does exist in the UK. And scrap steel can also be used. The UK does have BAE and ARM, so it's not as if we don't have the capability to produce military hardware. I fact, if BAE were at risk, I'm sure the security issue would be flagged.

In the time it would take to get the iron mines on stream you could have re stared the mills and furnaces, in case of war an easy job with conscription if necessary.

ARM design chips in the UK, there are 0 chip factories in the UK.

We can design the best in the world, but we rely on imports to produce almost anything (either raw materials, or processed goods).

If you want to support the furnace for national security, I assume you want the gov to open a gold/iron mine, rare earth metals mines, chip factories, as well (all for electronics)?

Generali

kinger101 wrote: »

Iron ore does exist in the UK. And scrap steel can also be used. The UK does have BAE and ARM, so it's not as if we don't have the capability to produce military hardware. I fact, if BAE were at risk, I'm sure the security issue would be flagged.

It's a specious argument. According to this lot, The BGS, Iron Ore production has basically ceased in the UK anyway.

The security argument is really one about self sufficiency. If the UK is going to require a steel industry then she also needs a pencil industry, a molybdenum industry and a manganese industry. Oh and the ability to make mobile phones, chip sets, operating systems, LCDs and LEDs and countless other things which the UK can't make at the moment.

antrobus

The conclusion I draw from the above is that, the more globalised the world economy becomes, the less it becomes a practical option for any one country to start a war with another country.

For some reason I regard this as a very good thing.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

It's a specious argument. According to this lot, The BGS, Iron Ore production has basically ceased in the UK anyway.

The security argument is really one about self sufficiency. If the UK is going to require a steel industry then she also needs a pencil industry, a molybdenum industry and a manganese industry. Oh and the ability to make mobile phones, chip sets, operating systems, LCDs and LEDs and countless other things which the UK can't make at the moment.

It would seem that there might be some benefits in having some contingency for survival that doesn't require long term total self sufficiency. so e.g. Jason Bourne may be able to inflict lethal harm with a pencil, for most of us, it wouldn't be the weapon of choice.

kabayiri

antrobus wrote: »

The conclusion I draw from the above is that, the more globalised the world economy becomes, the less it becomes a practical option for any one country to start a war with another country.

For some reason I regard this as a very good thing.

The modern war is fought in the patent courts, and by owning resources we all need.

The desire to own territory is over rated, unless you need to create buffer zones.

There may be an argument to retain steel plants which recycle, but not plants like Port Talbot IMO.

I suspect the real question is, how well placed are we when it comes to the materials which will replace steel?

martinsurrey

CLAPTON wrote: »

It would seem that there might be some benefits in having some contingency for survival that doesn't require long term total self sufficiency. so e.g. Jason Bourne may be able to inflict lethal harm with a pencil, for most of us, it wouldn't be the weapon of choice.

you do know that most of the UK ore left is unsuitable for the type of modern furnaces we have?

Even if we wanted to we'd need to build a new furnace to use UK ore, which we don't have mines for.