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.
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.
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.
> I see, you think my argument is moot because a successful sabotage or halt of domestic drone production is a victory condition for war.
No, I claimed that to fubar the domestic supply chain was a victory condition of the war. Sabotage can be repaired or bypassed, halts can be unhalted. But to fuck up beyond all reason the US domestic industrial capacity, i.e. to render it so that it can not assemble basic electronics of the sort that are used in drones at all with no ability to get production back online within a strategically meaningful period of time, yes that means the war is over. At that point drones are the least of our concerns. Everything you are fighting for has already been destroyed, the death toll is already catastrophic, the enemy is clearly superior by a massive factor, continued fighting at that point would be suicide.
Now I am not arguing that a redundant international supply chain is a bad thing, I am opposed to banning all foreign drone firms. But that being said, the claim that it is obviously superior is the extraordinary claim requiring evidence. As we clearly saw in 2020, international supply chains are incredibly vulnerable to disruption. Can you be confident that a foreign nation supplying us drones would be on our side in the event of a major conflict? Would all of their suppliers be on our side? Even if they are all on our side, would they be able to ship materials and products between themselves and to us unimpeded? Would they still be able and willing to do so when we are being beat so bad that our domestic industry has collapsed? A strong international supply chain is a good supplement to domestic production capacity, but the claim it is a superior alternative can not be taken as a given.
Silly me, I thought we were talking about the supply chain of drones. You merely wanted to argue against a straw man that literally the entire US industry was destroyed. Since for some reason that is necessary to destroy the domestic supply chain of the thing we were talking about.
Again, not a straw man. It is necessary to destroy the entirety of US industry to destroy the supply chain of drones. Drones are incredibly easy to manufacture, among the very easiest. It does not require highly specialized machines or exotic skillsets. Components can easily be substituted and designs easily modified to match available resources. There are tens of thousands of manufacturers in the US with the capability to produce such devices. If something happens to a random electronics factory, that production can move to a different electronics factory.
To knock out out the domestic drone supply chain, such that it can not quickly be brought back online, you need to create a situation such that none of these manufacturers are able to make drones. Of course if there is no one who can make a drone, there's no one who can make a missile guidance system, there's no one who can make fighter jets, there's no one who can make radars, there's no one who can make radios, there's no one who can make spare parts for any of these systems and more out in the field. If you still had any of that capability, you would still be able to make drones. Losing the capability to make drones means you have been completely and utterly knocked out of the fight.
Again, I accuse you of not previously thinking through what the supply chain of drones is, and thus your argument is indeed quite silly.
> It is necessary to destroy the entirety of US industry to destroy the supply chain of drones.
I was hoping you'd say that, because it cleanly proves my case. Allowing importation of drones won't destroy the drone supply chain; in your own words that would require destroying the entirety of US industry, which importing drones cannot do even if Chinese drone imports or functionality is suddenly cut off.
You've thus crushed the premise and neatly rested the case in my favor. Because you can't possibly simultaneously argue destroying the entire US industry is required and also argue all it takes is flooding and then poisoning the market with import drones.
"All you need to do to defeat the US is completely destroy its entire industrial base"