[pydry]

If there is a large war, those countries will prioritize domestic consumption and the UK will immediately stop being able to produce weapons.

Domestic steel production is an essential element of being sovereign, as opposed to being the handpuppet of a larger power (like the US).

[pjc50]

Now check where the inputs to steel production come from.

The UK built a lot of refining to use local iron ore and coal deposits. It used those deposits. They are now substantially used up. Subsurface mining is uneconomic, and open mining is politically unthinkable.

There is actually a really high quality government review of the whole subject: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/690b868714b04...

Lots of discussion of moving to EAF/DRI from traditional blast furnaces.

[timcobb]

When there's a war and you need sovereignty how would open mining be unthinkable

[RandomLensman]

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

[nradov]

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

[t0mpr1c3]

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.

[nradov]

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...

[t0mpr1c3]

When bald men fight over a comb, you need teeth.

That's right: the bald man with nuclear weapons won it back.

And as combs go, it was one with considerable geopolitical significance.

[illliillll]

The UK has nuclear weapons.

[t0mpr1c3]

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.

[illliillll]

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.

[t0mpr1c3]

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.

[mrguyorama]

Are you under some absurd notion that NATO has ballistic missile defense in Russia? Or can magically reach out and intercept a ballistic missile anywhere on the globe?

If there was the right Arleigh Burke right next to the submarine (which there wont be), and the captain was insanely paranoid enough to contravene standing rules of engagement to already be prepared for a surprise ally launching a weapon, there's about a 50% chance they could intercept each missile.

[illliillll]

NATO has no capabilities for doing that, what you are suggesting is very very far from what is actually possible today.

But yes, Britain could lose its nuclear deterrent. That’s not going to matter for any conflict which starts in the near future though.

[0x3f]

> If there is a large war, those countries will prioritize domestic consumption and the UK will immediately stop being able to produce weapons.

Same with the iron we'd need to make our own steel.

And a current glut just makes it even cheaper for us to stockpile, vs spending on votes by propping up a failing industry.

[15155]

> Domestic steel production is an essential element of being sovereign, as opposed to being the handpuppet of a larger power (like the US).

How did self-sufficiency shake out for Europe as a whole during WWII?

[georgeecollins]

Really? There is a large war going on right now and the key material is chips. Drone don't use a lot of steel, neither do missiles or modern airplanes.

Yes you need artillery and particularly shells. But you are so much more limited by the capacity of your munition factories that how much steel you have would not be an issue. One of the main things you would need for a new munitions factory is trained workers.

The World Wars were wars of mass mobilization and industrial capacity. People went into the first thinking cavalry was important, the second thinking battleships still mattered. My point is I have no idea what the next great war might be like, but thinking the winner will be who chugs out the most tanks in five years may be looking in the rear view mirror.

[hylaride]

You can't occupy territory with drones (yet). You will need people and moving people in a drone-infested environment will mean protecting them with armoured vehicles. Yes, these vehicles will need enhancements and other new tech to counter drones, but armoured vehicles aren't going away (MAYBE the tank's days are numbered, though).

If you are really interested in this, I highly recommend subscribing to war on the rocks. Their articles and paid podcasts have legit defense industry people publishing studies on this subject. https://warontherocks.com

[georgeecollins]

Thanks, I subscribe.

I am not saying drones are everything. My point is, where is the war in which steel is critical ?

[nradov]

It's a myth that battleships didn't matter in WWII. They ended up being critically important in the Pacific Theater for carrier escort and amphibious fire support. They didn't stop mattering until the widespread deployment of guided missiles and other precision munitions.

[georgeecollins]

They found a use for them but no reason to build anymore.

[timcobb]

Drones are only part of the equation you need to be able to forge things