4 ms·

I wonder how much this is because the war in Ukraine showed that drone manufacturing capacity is a strategic asset?

• mothballed 10mo ago
  Doesn't Ukraine also import most of its drone technology?
  • pixl97 10mo ago
    Hence they are vulnerable to their suppliers....
    • mothballed 10mo ago
      The lesson learned from Ukraine is that importation of drones is a terrific asset, rather than a liability. Maybe you think that lesson would not apply to the USA, but that wouldn't be a lesson learned from Ukraine, rather the lesson learned would be the opposite.
      • gordonhart 10mo ago
        The lesson learned from Ukraine is that a robust drone supply chain is very important. For some countries it doesn't matter if this supply chain is rooted in China, for others it matters a lot.
      • jjk166 10mo ago
        The lesson from Ukraine is the importance of having access to drones. It doesn't take any remarkable mental feats to realize that if your primary source of drones is China, then that access may not be reliable in the event of conflict with China.
        • mothballed 10mo ago
          Reducing the diversity of your supply chain and instead making your self so incredibly vulnerable that all an adversary has to do is fubar your own domestic supply chain (because imports have long been banned) is way less robust than maintaining imports. If you actually wanted what you claim, you'd allow imports while taxing or subsidizing until they look roughly break even with domestic offerings.
          • jjk166 10mo ago
            > all an adversary has to do is fubar your own domestic supply chain "All you need to do to defeat the US is completely destroy its entire industrial base"
            • mothballed 10mo ago
              Your position is completely untenable here and relies on it being easier to destroy multiple 'industrial bases' plus the US drone industry rather than your straw man of just the "entire" US industrial base. Even going off your theory that the US drone industry is not easily sabotaged, it can't possibly be easier to sabotage the US drone industry plus all the import pathways (which you would otherwise have to re-establish). That is why you chose this dismissive fake-quote rather than address what I've said.
              • jjk166 10mo ago
                I am not arguing it is easier to destroy the world's industrial capacity than just the US industrial capacity. I am saying that in the situation where you have so utterly devastated the US mainland that it is incapable of producing drones, the war is over. If you defeat the US then you defeat the US. Of course I am rather dismissive of the claim that this is a small feat. I accuse you of not fully thinking through what exactly it would take to fubar domestic drone production.
                • mothballed 10mo ago
                  I see, you think my argument is moot because a successful sabotage or halt of domestic drone production is a victory condition for war. It's an interesting strategy to sidestep the conversation; rather than acknowledging the superiority of having redundant international supply chain you can just suggest it doesn't really matter anyway if US drone capacity is gone because at that point the war is lost. I don't see the evidence for why this must be true, whether you think it is a 'small feat' or not.
        • dylan604 10mo ago
          > then that access may not be reliable in the event of conflict with China. Some might call that poor pre-planning. If you're about to go to war with your biggest supplier, you'd be well advised to stock up on supplies before firing the first shot.
• blitzar 10mo ago
  The administration best set about seizing the means of production.