This is without a doubt the smartest use of DOGE engineers I've heard of yet.
[1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1956955/000168316824...
[2] https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/umac-stock-climbs-amid-trump...
i'm sure I'll get downvoted for this comment, but it always feels like a way to enrich themselves.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-10-13/the-banke...
But also we need to look at it from the perspective of leaders as well. You want to spin up manufacturing capacity so you roll out policies to do that and what happens in a republic? Every leader demands the manufacturing be in their district/state. No matter how ill suited that district/state is to that manufacturing. Political considerations become the driving factor as opposed to ability, resiliency and sustainability.
So sometimes just providing demand side of a market can spin up manufacturing without having to wade into all that nonsense. And believe me, it would be nonsense.
So the double fail of their brazen corruption could inadvertently end up being a positive long term in this particular instance. Like multiplying two negative numbers.
A million drones won't last long in a peer conflict. Most of the drone parts come from china. What we really need is to build our own drone supply chain that does not rely on china.
The drones aren't important. The manufacturing capacity is.
America should be using every opportunity it can to subsidize reindustrialization. Especially for key industries, components and inputs, places where we make our money, critical supply chain items we rely upon, and dual use / defense tech.
Everything important. Machining, electronics, chemicals and plastics, pharmaceuticals...
It's going to be painful to play 20 years of catch up. But we need to bite the bullet and do it.
This is where subsidy and government purchases can really help.
we only "need" to bite the bullet if we want to make WWIII economically possible
The US domestic industrial base is tightly coupled to a China. You need to bite the bullet if you want independence from an adversary and if you want to preserve global hegemony.
Defense.
Peace through mutual respect.
Economic stability and prosperity.
Self-reliance, resilience, competence.
Anti-fragility.
I'm not just suggesting preventing a hot war, but also ensuring we remain an economic peer.
America can't just "not lose" a war. It needs to maintain its economic growth and comfort of living for its citizens. We need lots of opportunity surface area in the future, and that means making sure we're broadly capable and competitive. Not painted into a corner, feeble, dependent.
Playing chess with decades of foresight.
I expect China to do the same. I expect that this rivalry will make both of our nations stronger.
In the three decades since the collapse of the Soviet Union, we've been resting on our laurels. Competition will inject a much-needed sense of mission and urgency.
It just so happens that competition pushes technology further. It puts a sharp edge on investment dollars and intellectual capital. A lot of money gets spent, but it gets spent smartly.
WWI and WWII - horrible and tragic - pushed us so hard that people alive as teenagers during the invention of flight lived to see a man walk on the moon.
The cold war created the PC, internet, and planted the seeds for the smartphone and AI.
We had a whole lot of incrementalism in the 00's - 20's. Ad tech, emojis on smartphones, so many social networks. I want to see all of that turned on its head, everything pushed forward 10x. By the time I die, I want to see robots, whole body transplants, autonomous everything, brain uploads, VR indistinguishable from life, cures to every cancer, decelerated aging, widespread access to middle class standard of living. I have so much desire for this and it's all I want for.
That's going to require pushing through an economic and technological salient. Competition accelerates that.
It's time for America to stop being weak and naive. Lazily greedy. To stop spending on ad tech upgrades and instead sow the seeds of a scientific and industrial powerhouse.
When we focus on protecting rather than optimizing eyeball engagement and becoming pilfering middle men, we make the greatest strides.
“Driscoll said his priority is getting the United States into a position where it can produce enough drones for any future war, stimulating domestic production of everything from brushless motors and sensors to batteries and circuit boards.”
There simply isn't enough engineers, capital expenditure and factory space to move away from this paradigm
I won't try to shoehorn the past into the present, but for the very specific point about intertwined economies, it has in fact happened before.
If the U.S. got into a serious peer conflict, the relative lack of human capital is a huge problem. In WW2 we could get away with a few scientists and engineers designing military equipment that's produced in bulk and then lots of foot soldiers employing it. Today, with the increasing complexity of modern weaponry and the ability for the weaponry itself to be an incredibly lethal force, the bottleneck is in building out the supply chain. Each component requires a skilled engineering team optimizing it and ensuring it fits into the overall whole.
NCLB was cooked up by Republicans along with defunding schools, school choice, and the homeschooling. You are correct that it is performative but there is nothing progressive about the last 20 years of public education.
> destroy teacher's unions
States have tried doing essentially that and it's not worked for decades. So I say we should actually fund schools, pay and support teachers like we actually want educated kids before we try yet again to blame underpaid, undersupplied teachers trying to wrangle ballooning class sizes of rowdy kids.
[0] https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/how-money-matter...
> "And we expect that at the end of one or two years from today, we will know that in a moment of conflict, we will be able to activate a supply chain that is robust enough and deep enough that we could activate to manufacture however many drones we would need."
There are some related efforts to boost domestic manufacturing. I do not disagree and think we have a very long way to go.
That depends on the geostrategic context of the peer conflict. If the belligerents are separated by 1000 miles, then saturation attacks with drones don't work. Drones occupy only a small niche in this context, such as reconnaissance or sabotage. The Iran-Israel war was a clear-cut example of this.
In my view, the more important thing is to ensure you have the capability to disable the enemy's industrial production (meaning: only the key nodes relevant to the armament supply chain) with stealth bombers. This is the X-factor that flips the script. In the Ukraine-Russia war, neither party has aerial superiority because they lack the technology to achieve it, so it becomes a WW2-esque war where industrial production is paramount.
The US, on the other hand, does have such capabilities thanks to modern stealth bombers, and using that capability is no more escalatory than sending 1,000,000 attack drones at the enemy.
Drones (and anti-ship missiles) in my view are more crucial to Taiwan itself, both because of their proximity to their likely belligerent and because they lack stealth bombers.
Russia is doing a masterful job doing this to the U.S. Biden's foreign policy also was pretty brilliant - get Russia bogged down in a quagmire with Ukraine, while supplying just enough weaponry to Ukraine to keep the war going but not enough to win it. Strategy is also used throughout the globe; see all the various proxy wars going on.
If the U.S. honestly wanted to have the best chance defeating China, the optimal strategy would probably to protect and fund Chinese billionaires political ambitions, so that they could provide a countervailing (and ultimately rivalrous) force to the ruling Communist Party.
The role of drones in this is largely in protecting supply lines and information collection/dissemination points. If you want to arm your enemy's adversary and give them a shot at challenging the ruling power structures in their country, you need to be able to get weapons and information to them.
I would classify these as two different things - hybrid warfare and offshore balancing. But they are both tools that can create more strategic depth and push conflict further away.
Stealth bombers exist to deploy nukes, and were created to match the number of Soviet cities that the US Airforce planned on hitting if/when WW3 happened.
No amount of modern stealth bombers, even the F-35, could seriously crush a national-level industrial production regime. Esp. not China's which is massive.
The US would have better luck setting off nukes underwater near the coast and letting the tsunami wash away most large Chinese urban areas.
In an actual shooting war most surface vessels are going to last about 10 seconds, so it's the subs and their munitions that are going to carry the war, combined with air power.
They're also relying mostly on human operators rather than autonomy, human operators come with all the usual caveats of reaction time and requiring video to be sent back.
I don't want people to think I'm denouncing their drone operators though, they're doing what needs to be done with limited resources, stress and psychological tolls.
Yes, a lot - but not all - are fly by wire. (And actually literally wire, or rather fiber optic cable to avoid RF jamming.)
I think they're definitely working on more autonomy etc but I think it kind of proves that even the current ones are actually pretty effective. A well designed drone with AI/autonomous capabilities is terrifying. People could point to switch-blade but the cost per unit for the functionality you get is just absolutely insane.
China has more or less stopped selling those bits to Ukraine
And is China restricting sales of drone motors to the US? As part of the rare earth trade embargoes?
Wherever that happens to be will be a good candidate for the kind of warfare we see in Ukraine right now. There's basically no way it doesn't reach that at some point unless it's a very brief skirmish and even then for some pairings there's the inevitable border sparing even if there's minimal direct land conflict.
Drones for Ukraine provide cheap low material risk precision strike options that would normally be done by the US using precision artillery/missiles (expensive per shot cost and very vulnerable to counter battery fire) or airstrikes (relies on establishing air superiority which has proven difficult for Ukraine and Russia, anti air is long enough range it's difficult to strike so no one has fully knocked their opponent's system offline). Russia proved to be a bit of a paper bear but there's no guarantee the US would be able to establish the kind of air superiority we enjoy in all our recent conflicts (heavily punching down power wise) in a fight with China or maybe even Russia.
Russia's AA has been seriously degraded -- still more than enough to dominate the AFU's aircraft, but not a real airforce -- and Ukraine's limited AA has been enough to check the VVS's air dominance.
there is a reason its mostly a ground war involving disposable drones.
It's very unlikely that the US, on the other hand, is going to find itself in a position at all similar to Ukraine's anytime soon. It's not going to put its forces anywhere that they don't have air superiority, and its strategy will focus on utilizing its large and technically advanced forces to maximize overall impact, not minimizing cost per shot. That doesn't mean that the US won't be able to make any use of drones, but it means that the rate it would use drones is going to be different (and almost certainly lower). The US may want the capability to supply its more vulnerable allies with drones, but the limiting factor there is probably going to be the supply lines and political will rather than manufacturing capacity; and it would make sense to help build up these capabilities in allied nations. This buys time and frees up resources for the US to provide the high end, war winning equipment that it specializes in.
Based on what?
> further hatred of Russia
Russia, being an agressor terrorist state perpetrating a genocide on Europe's doorstep, is already hated by anyone with half a brain half following the news. Be it the bombing of children's hopitals or sending incendiary devices via DHL or bombing munitions depots in Czechia and Bulgaria or assasinating defectors with gruesome indiscriminate chemical or radiological warfare, they are well known, well documented, pieces of shit. Did we mention them kidnapping Ukrainian children to resettle and give for adoption to Russian families? Torturing POWs and civlians? Genuinely, they're not even trying not to be comically evil. Whatever heinous act you can think of, they've probably done it as an official state sanctioned policy.
Why would European states need to invent stuff - and note, nobody has said that it was Russian drones, a ship was impounded and its crew arrested off France for failing to provide documentation, and there have been hints it's suspected of being the drone launch platform that impacted Copehnagen Airport, but nothing has been officially said - when there is so much shit, which is publicly documented and widely accepted? We know they tried to kidnap journalists, assasinated people all over Europe, etc etc etc. If European countries wanted to respond more heavily, most of the population would be for and the main argument against would be the fact that the terrorist state has nuclear weapons, which drastically complicats the equation. If they didn't have them, things would have been so much simpler and better for everyone.
For the US, which has effectively zero consumer drone companies, we must massively subsidize defense-specific drone manufacturers to keep them up to date, build millions of basically useless military drones that quickly become outdated unless there's actual war, and fail to control our own supply chain in the event Chinese parts are cut off.
That's a feature not a bug, it's called the military-industrial complex, some people benefit from it, a lot
The deindustrialization that creates this reality has nothing to do with the military-industrial complex. They benefit from it but they didn't create the context.
The inversion of state capitalism vs free markets here is amusing.
The general point -- the DoD puts a lot of money into Silicon Valley research -- stands, however.
Defense contractors already cover small batches of super-specialized drones.
Hilarious when someone with decent maker experience can plug shit together in a shed to easily make a hunter-killer drone these days. Just missing the explosives.
The war in Ukraine has proved that even basic commercial drones work very well with an explosive practically duct taped to them. There's certainly the issue of "military equipment gets more extensive testing", but capitalism has answered that somewhat; defective products are extremely bad for corporations and I do wonder if the failure rate of modern electronics approaches that of some military hardware specs (though not necessarily in ruggedness).
That was like 18 months ago. Since then both sides have been forced to iterate at an insane speed.
A million drones is a rounding error in China. Increasing this number by orders of magnitude would require the state administering some pretty big pills, which I doubt the average American would want to swallow.
If they can't produce a million per month, we're going to lose any actual war.
lysace•2mo ago
Edit: Foreign perspective: Saab (Sweden) is pitching drones as a service (DaaS?) to Sweden as a way to enable short development cycles, similar to those in Ukraine, while minimizing waste due to purchasing bureaucracy.
lenerdenator•2mo ago
The only way you don't see the value of drones is if you were knocked into a coma in January 2022 and just woke up. The US can make good weaponry if it keeps the usual bureaucratic shitheadery and cronyism to a manageable level. Only time will tell if that plays out.
edm0nd•2mo ago
slacker7081•2mo ago
edm0nd•2mo ago
nostrademons•2mo ago
I do think that they're making a mistake by considering drones as ammunition rather than as ammunition delivery vehicles. Because the next phase of the conflict, after both sides have a million drones, comes down to who has better software. If one side has a million drones and the other side is stuck with traditional military hardware like tanks and helicopters and fighter jets, the side with a million drones wins, just like how in WW2, if one side had an aircraft carrier and the other side had a fleet of battleships, the aircraft carrier won. But as soon as both sides started having aircraft carriers, things like the quality of the pilots and planes started mattering. Same here - once you have drone parity, the side with the better software wins.
psunavy03•2mo ago
This is not how militaries work. Military forces exist to complement each other's strengths and weaknesses. Combat is literally the ultimate team sport. A world full of drones still has a need for F-22s or similar. Just with proper short-range air defenses around their airfields.
It's not who has the coolest piece of gear; it's who can employ everything and everyone they have in the most effective fashion to accomplish the goal of national leadership.
nostrademons•2mo ago
giardini•2mo ago
Timing!
F-22s could destroy drone factories, drone manufacturers' supply chains, factories, etc. A million drones don't just appear in the air battle-ready. And vice-versa.
So it boils down to timing and finding the right tool for the job.
fennecfoxy•2mo ago
Turns out when you don't have a human in an aircraft that you need to keep alive, you can get away without a lot.
TiredOfLife•2mo ago
stocksinsmocks•2mo ago
lysace•2mo ago