← Back to context

Comment by sva_

8 days ago

> Airline sources told Reuters the grounding of flights was believed to be tied to the Pentagon's use of counterdrone technology to address Mexican drug cartels' use of drones of the U.S.-Mexico border.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-halts-all-flights-texass...

183 comments

sva_

Reply
boringg  8 days ago

>. "The FAA and DOW acted swiftly to address a cartel drone incursion.

The threat has been neutralized, and there is no danger to commercial travel in the region.

The restrictions have been lifted and normal flights are resuming."

https://x.com/SecDuffy

ndiddy  8 days ago

Looks like they shot the drone down with a laser:

> UPDATE (CNN): Source briefed by FAA tells me that military activity behind the El Paso flight ban included unmanned aircraft operations and laser countermeasure testing in airspace directly adjacent to civilian routes into El Paso International. Airspace restriction just lifted.

https://x.com/petemuntean/status/2021586247827828812

  • lysace  8 days ago

    Good thing they allocated 10 days of airspace shutdown for taking out a single (edit: or a few) drone(s).

    I get the feeling this was a case of really wanting to test a new weapon combined with general organizational dysfunction for something unusual like this.

    On CNN, they talked about how a shutdown like this would be the first time something like this has happened since 9/11. Is that really correct?

guerrilla  8 days ago

I personally don't think that's the whole story. They're likely going to act against the cartels to take out cross-border drone capabilities and are preparing for S-A retaliation as well.

  • morpheuskafka  8 days ago

    A cartel using a SAM against a US civilian aircraft would massively solidify public opinion against them just like 9/11 or the Iran hostage crisis. The US has been trying to extent the "foreign terrorist" label and casus belli to drug activities forever to justify military operations (ex. the "arrest" of Maduro was for drugs, not oil/Cuba/political stuff). That would be a massive self-own on the cartels part. (And if it did happen, just like 9/11, it would be used as justification for anything even remotely immigration or drug related at every level.)

    • trenning  8 days ago

      My understanding over the US/MX cartel relations is performing an invasion and “act of war” would solidify asylum status claims by Mexican residents and throw a wrench into the whole immigration scheme every administration plays.

      But then again this time seems different, laws aren’t followed or upheld. Human rights are a fleeting staple.

      10 replies →

    • sh34r  7 days ago

      I take it you don’t know much about the Troubles, then. The SAM missiles would be saved for returning ICE Air flights, not Delta.

    • guerrilla  8 days ago

      > A cartel using a SAM against a US civilian aircraft would massively solidify public opinion against them

      In what world is public opinion not universally against the cartels? It's hard to take you seriously after that.

      14 replies →

  • anigbrowl  7 days ago

    What cross-border drone capabilities, drug deliveries? People are talking like the cartels are conducting Ukraine-style drone warfare and blowing up Americans on the regular. Let's stick to a factual baseline here.

  • TitaRusell  8 days ago

    What does that even mean? Cartels can buy those DJI drones from China by the container load.

    Russia and Ukraine can't stop drones. Does the US have a secret weapon?

    • dylan604  8 days ago

      > Does the US have a secret weapon?

      It sounds like that's what was being tested requiring the NOTAM. We just don't know if it did or didn't work. It could have failed so badly they decided to just shut it down, or it could have worked so successfully they decided no more testing was needed.

    • guerrilla  8 days ago

      > Russia and Ukraine can't stop drones. Does the US have a secret weapon?

      That does actually seem to be what they are saying now, yes.

datsci_est_2015  8 days ago

This admin is focused on the message of stopping the inflow of drugs to the US. There are probably some true believers, and there are probably some reactionary accelerationists. There’s also significant evidence of amateurism, misinformation, and incompetence.

All of that coming together, I see this action coming out of meeting where

  - one party was convinced that this would solve the fentanyl epidemic
  - one party was hoping this would escalate military action in Mexico
  - one party was convinced that America had lost its masculine bravado and taking swift and unprecedented action like this would make their wife respect them again
  - one party was busy making “bets” on Kalshi

  • sowbug  8 days ago

    If the US wanted to end the fentanyl and xylazine and nitazene epidemic, it would legalize the controlled manufacture, sale, and usage of the drugs being adulterated. This won't happen, because the 50-year-old War on Drugs is a load-bearing pillar of the US government.

    • drstewart  8 days ago

      It's like if Canada wanted to end gun smuggling and school shootings, it would legalize the controlled manufacture, sale, and usage of the guns being banned. But they won't.

      1 reply →

    • duped  7 days ago

      I mean, prohibition works while legalization just makes more people use whatever you legalize and increases the negative externalities of its use. You see that almost universally (alcohol, drugs, sex work). The exception is it gets rid of the black markets and some (but not all) of the violence associated with them.

      So if the goal is to put cartels out of business then yea, full legalization would help. If the goal is to stop overdoses and addiction then absolutely not.

      3 replies →

  • morpheuskafka  8 days ago

    > one party was busy making “bets” on Kalshi

    This would arguably be much more severe -- and quite likely already happening -- than the whole "congress trading stocks" thing because most of those (besides the sports ones) tie very directly to government actions in a way that the economy or a large company in generally doesn't as predictably.

  • delaminator  8 days ago

    > reactionary

    they want to overthrow the Jacobites

    > accelerationists

    how's that going to work ?

    • pjc50  8 days ago

      Reactionary accelerationists want a local war of some sort so they can grab war powers and then roll back all the US's post-WW2 social progress (and most of the New Deal too).

      4 replies →