No apologies necessary, just trying to clarify - that was an unintentional implication.
I do not even want the UK to use 100% US gear, never mind think they strategically should use 100% US gear. My argument is only that becoming reliant (whether defined as a critical 1% of the network or the entire 100% of the network) upon the US is not analogous to the same level of reliance upon the CCP - at least from the perspective of the UK.
I was deliberately not talking about the political aspect of this. I have my own views, but this is a technical forum and I thought I would highlight the technical implications of this decision for those that might not be familiar with them - notably people not from the UK.
"I dont get why people keep thinking the UK has a special relationship with the US anymore"
I can't say I am a fan of the "special relationship" (I'm in the UK) - but worth noting that I don't think the US sells Trident missile technology to anyone else? UK warhead designs are probably US based as well although we do manufacture them ourselves.
IMO this was introduced so UK security architecture is more in line with US/AU when it come to PRC as pre-req for getting piece of multibillion AUKUS nuclear sub deal.
I think (as a Brit myself) you're being overly defensive and inferring insult where there was none.
Suggesting that the market size of the UK might not be big enough to make up for the costs of complying with a law like this is not at all the same as saying that people from the UK are not capable of making using industry contributions.
Britain and the US are politically, and economically entwined with each other. As a country, keeping core technology at home is tied to defense (don't buy your guns from your competitor). If they don't intend to go to war with the US, then there isn't any real defense loss (I'd also point out that making IP "blueprints" for a core is different from manufacturing the core itself). If Britain were to have a real issue, it would be the US locking down F35 jets they sell to their allies.
Not irrelevant at all, military technology is a large part of the UK's tech sector, and arms exports to countries with poor human rights records are in the billions.
That's a great point, actually. I suppose, rather ignorantly, I was talking with regard to the public as opposed to the corporations. Most Brits, at least, don't grasp the true implications of this sort of shit, and will buy into the spin about 'increased' security and terrorism prevention.
So you're saying my original comment could be clarified to something like, "you have the US and UK taxpayers to thank for this industry, lest anyone forgets"?
As an island country the UK is still highly dependent on global trade. It makes sense to invest in a strong navy plus some expeditionary land and air forces in order to keep their sea lines of communication open. They need to have their own capabilities as a matter of national survival rather than relying on the US.
It also makes sense for the UK to continue funding a proxy war in Ukraine. This allows them to bleed Russia to death and eliminate that threat for years to come at a minimal cost.
I think the onus here was more on the UK than the US because the UK was the one with an agreement with the Chinese government that was broken. I agree that the US response has already been a lot.
I do not even want the UK to use 100% US gear, never mind think they strategically should use 100% US gear. My argument is only that becoming reliant (whether defined as a critical 1% of the network or the entire 100% of the network) upon the US is not analogous to the same level of reliance upon the CCP - at least from the perspective of the UK.
reply