Comment by kiba 2 days ago
We were only temporarily good at shipbuilding in the world wars. The United States just don't have much of an aspiration to be world class in building ships.
Given that we have the largest navy in the world, it would behooves us to grow our shipbuilding capabilities to be at least competitive.
> Well, you can (partially) thank the Jones Act for US ship building being so abysmal.
Or you can thank it for there being any shipbuilding left at all.
I would like to hear the case for how repealing the Jones Act would strengthen the US shipbuilding industry. I imagine it would be quite amusing.
It's pretty easy to make a limited case that should convince you, though not very amusing, I'm afraid.
> [The Jones Act] requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried on ships that have been constructed in the United States and that fly the U.S. flag, are owned by U.S. citizens, and are crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents.
Repeal all provisions save for the requirement of having to be constructed in the US.
It's not what I would suggest (an outright repeal would be better), but it's easy to see how this partial repeal would strengthen the US shipbuilding industry: you are making their products more useful and cheaper to operate.
For comparison, you can have a look at eg German shipbuilding. Germany isn't exactly a low-cost country, has no equivalent of the Jones Act, and is doing some shipbuilding. (They aren't the biggest player in building whole ships, but the world loves to import German Diesel engines. Division of labour and all that.)
The US was a shipbuilding superpower because it had what Europe did not, access to vast untapped timber. It wasn't until globalization that the US lost its shipbuilding industry.
> The US was a shipbuilding superpower because it had what Europe did not, access to vast untapped timber. It wasn't until globalization that the US lost its shipbuilding industry.
Where did you get this information? The Spanish-American war wasn't considered much of a war by Americans at the time since the American fleet had been built with steel vs the Spanish that still used wooden ships. Those ships were run on coal. The US lost its shipbuilding industry because of cheaper competition from Japan and S. Korea in the civilian sector and Congress favors aircraft carriers over smaller ships like frigates and destroyers from what I read.
It was the same situation for Spain. Its rise as a naval superpower in the 15th and 16th centuries came at a high environmental cost too. To build its fleet, including those iconic Spanish galleons, Spain logged high amounts of oak and pine, especially from northern regions like Cantabria and the Basque Country.
As ship production ramped up, there were growing concerns about resource depletion. To the point that by the late 16th century, Spain was forced to start importing timber from its colonies to keep up with demand.
They didn't have enough.
>The Swedish Navy planted oak trees on the island beginning in 1831 to provide strategically important timber for future ship construction. Once the timber was ready to harvest it was no longer required for ship construction.
We have forests, but not like the US. We had to carefully manage our forests in order to keep them.
how is this measured? Because if it's by total vessels it's a poor comparison. If it's by total aircraft carrier, it's also a poor comparison.
Basically measuring this is difficult, but this is contrary to my only knowledge of this which was a Wendover video (that was an enjoyable watch), but I wouldn't hold in the highest standard.
Before adding up ship tonnage, we should subtract one US carrier for every, I dunno, two ASBMs possessed by the PRC, and if (lol, I mean when) we get to zero, move on to, say, the Arleigh Burke class.
I guess we can give the US some bonus points here for each SM-6 they have, but pretty sure those'll run out in a week too.
On the "plus" side, China is food-insecure, so the US can cause millions of civilian deaths via famine. So it can/would still win, just via genocide. It would take a decade though, and require a strong campaign by the media to maintain domestic support.
Actually, no, I'm overstating things. The strategy would not be so much to kill so many people, as to "make the economy scream" (as in South and Central America), so as to hopefully bring about regime change. The net result might actually be an increase in immigration from China to the US (to the extent that people are able to make that migration). In the long run that'd be a net win for the US, actually.
Indeed, you could say that the first shots of that campaign have already happened. Look at Chinese youth unemployment.
I think the number is a lot higher than two ASBM per carrier. There's always a group of carrier, cruiser, and a destroyer squadron that provide a layered defense. So it's probably not that simple.
https://totalmilitaryinsight.com/aircraft-carrier-defense-sy...
America innovates. China replicates.
China and the US have been at war for decades now. Both an economic war and cyber war. Chinese nation-state hackers have hacked into tons of Fortune 500, Aerospace and defense companies, and tech companies to steal R&D from them. They take this R&D and use it for themselves but additionally, they also give it to private industry to use for themselves as well. China plays the long con game. Whatever it takes to make China the number one super power country eventually.
Well, you can (partially) thank the Jones Act for US ship building being so abysmal.