4 ms·
If drones are a threat to national security, then all existing drones should be grounded, regardless of the manufacturer. Or, if Chinese drones are the threat,
by bambax 10mo ago
If drones are a threat to national security, then all existing drones should be grounded, regardless of the manufacturer. Or, if Chinese drones are the threat, then all existing Chinese-made drones should be grounded?
I don't understand how banning future drones helps national security in any way.
- kortilla 10mo agoWell this would be step one to try to motivate some US company to start manufacturing. Then once it ramps up they can step in with banning existing stuff without causing too much disruption.
- zarzavat 10mo agoWouldn't you want the opposite? Once domestic production ramps up you gradually lift import restrictions to create more competition. I guess that's if the intention is to improve the domestic market in the national interest, rather than to just make people rich.
- flessner 10mo agoThat is exactly what you never want to do under protectionist policies. Domestic producers are shielded from Chinese competitors. This means they are under less pressure to reduce prices and innovate. I wouldn't read too much into the national security justification. It's a political argument to an economic policy.
- jepj57 10mo agoThe national security justification is that we need expertise building/designing drones. We won't get that if we allow China to out-compete domestic manufacturers.
- zarzavat 10mo ago> I wouldn't read too much into the national security justification. It's a political argument to an economic policy. Have you seen what's been happening in Ukraine? OTC drones are critical military equipment now. Not having a domestic drone industry is like not having a domestic rifle industry, you cannot have an infantry without it.
- flessner 10mo agoIf this is about military capability, why ban all foreign manufacturers, including proven innovators like Helsing and Baykar? Instead of blanket bans, targeted contracts could leverage Ukraine tested designs while building domestic capacity. Innovation happens under competitive pressure. The US just created a domestic vacuum.
- palmotea 10mo agoExactly, it's about supply chains. Banning existing drones with no replacements on offer would be unnecessarily disruptive. Though the US should probably just learn from China: Does DJI want to sell in the US? Setup a 50-50 JV with domestic production, skill and technology transfers, or go away.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- sandworm101 10mo ago>> banning future drones It is about money. If they ban drones that are already inside the US, they risk lawsuits by drone owners/importers for expropriation of their property. Banning things that are not already inside the country is easier as nobody has an absolute right to import stuff. It is akin to weapons bans. Banning future sales of machine guns is far far easier to implement than outlawing those already sitting in gun cabinets across the country. The former is free to implement, the later very expensive.
- bell-cot 10mo agoThe goal (assuming rational policy) is improving security over time. The economic and political costs of grounding everything now are too high to do that. Even if the FCC somehow had the manpower to enforce such a ban.
- takoid 10mo agoThe grandfathering clause is the tell. If these drones were an active national security threat, they wouldn't let civilians keep flying them. This looks like industrial policy masquerading as defense in order to clear the board for domestic manufacturers just as the Pentagon starts handing out contracts to politically connected players. Case in point: Unusual Machines just secured a massive Army contract for drone motors. Their advisor and major shareholder? Donald Trump Jr. [0]. Banning the import of foreign "critical components" conveniently forces the market into their funnel. [0] https://www.ft.com/content/4cedc140-4a02-4ab6-9f78-93dd8c51aeef https://www.ft.com/content/4cedc140-4a02-4ab6-9f78-93dd8c51a...
- asah 10mo agoagree re policy, but technically... it's possible that today's drones are OK but they're worried about future drones including something new...
- close04 10mo agoIf that was the reason, a case by case analysis would make more sense than blanket ban. There’s no plausible technical explanation for this that doesn’t apply to any other devices, components, or software. If it could be made dangerous in theory then preemptively assume it will maybe at some point and ban it. This is from the same people who brought you “let’s break all your encryption because you might become a criminal in the future”.
- _DeadFred_ 10mo agoIt's just how these things normally work. Assault rifle bans. Magazine capacity bans. Automobile safety requirements. The old, determined unsafe items are allowed to remain, only new are prevented. In this case the geopolitical shift is relatively recent, so the fear is companies will be pushed to do more than they were in the past.