Hacker News Reader

Comment by kortilla | Hacker News Reader

Well 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.

View on HN

Exactly, 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.

Wouldn'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.

That 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.

> 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.

If 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.

The 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com