I think that the capability to design a modern CPU is pretty essential for future defence independence. I think that ARM represents a good chunk of the UKs claim to be able to do that. If the UK wants a share of future US programs of all sorts then it needs to be able to make these claims - or face must less generous terms.

What's the point of being able to design CPUs if we can't make them? We certainly don't have defence independence at all.

I'm not sure about the second point but it seems premised on withholding IP from US which seems unlikely.

Much more likely that there is intense collaboration between say GCHQ and Arm (maybe both ways -> GCHQ gets to understand modern CPU security issues from Arm and Arm benefits from GCHQ input on threats). If that relationship swaps to NSA then there would be real damage to UK security apparatus.

We get our panties in a bunch (and I do too) about the real high end fabs for CPUs, but push-come-to-shove there _are_ fabs in the UK.

Infineon (German owned) and Nexperia (Dutch owned) both own fabrication plants in the UK, so it's possible to scale that up if we were at war, the knowledge is here.

Fair comment but no one is suggesting that we'll lose access to CPU designs that work on older nodes so the point still doesn't really stack up.

> What's the point of being able to design CPUs if we can't make them? We certainly don't have defence independence at all.

If you needed them for defence I'm sure you could set up a fab on older process nodes fairly fast. A tank consumes and generates so much power for moving that it doesn't matter if the CPUs in it will last only 2 hours in a cell phone...

Being dependent on the US turns out to be not a great strategic scenario in this decade.

(Speaking as a Canadian who has watched 30 years of continental economic integration and heard lots of friendly talk since the campaign for the 1988 Free Trade Agreement but now back of the line waiting for vaccines imported from Europe because the US won't export to us and our domestic manufacturing was sold off decades ago because of said continental integration.)

Also the US itself has used the "national security" excuse for trade issues multiple times over the last few years where it was seemingly not the case (steel & aluminum trade disputes, etc). So the precedent has been set. And there's little sign of Biden really doing much to reverse that.

Well, ok, but if you are going to go that route you also have to note that the US pays for your national defense as well to be balanced.

That said, what Trump pulled with steel and aluminum is BS.

National defense so we can defend ourselves from opponents that the US created, or act as an imperial arm for American interests?

Seem to recall some very agitated US commentators bashing Canada when we chose not to enter the second war in Iraq. How's that working out for you, BTW?

And it's time we all stopped being that dependent on the US, considering how unreliable and untrustworthy they are.