There is a clearer way to subsidize than to require the purchases. One is to literally directly subsidize the industry. Another is cheaply lend or even grant mo

There is a clearer way to subsidize than to require the purchases. One is to literally directly subsidize the industry. Another is cheaply lend or even grant money to the customers buying the product but only when buying domestically made units. It also strikes me that the percentages mentioned in the article are very high. 75% US crew? 75% US owned? 100% US built? Revising the statute to operators needing 55% of their domestic fleet being US built, and requiring 55% US ownership, and a 55% US crew should be more than sufficient. Give tax incentives for newer, more efficient craft both to the manufacturer and the buyer. The US uses a lot of military power for non-combat purposes. We move supplies for natural and humanitarian disasters. We have water purification ships, hospital ships, and generator ships. We transport weapons systems as cargo, and even those ships themselves could be mostly protected by a surrounding fleet. If we could get a design made that's fitting for heavy movers suitable for both military and civilian use the US government's purchases could bolster domestic shippers' orders. One even more unusual option since it's a national security concern is the US government could buy large numbers of newer, more efficient craft and lease them on affordable terms (or lease to own even) to cargo companies.