Remix.run Logo
sva_ 6 hours 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...

boringg 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>. "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

noelsusman 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Doesn't really pass the sniff test. Why would you need a 10 day closure to deal with a drone incursion?

I'm guessing DoD and the FAA were squabbling over a test the military wanted to run, and it didn't go up the chain fast enough to get resolved before testing was scheduled to begin.

Edit: Here's the actual notice from the FAA[1]. Note that it was issued at 0332 UTC, but the restrictions weren't scheduled to go into place until 0630 UTC. Either the FAA is clairvoyant, or Sean Duffy is lying.

[1]https://tfr.faa.gov/tfr3/?page=detail_6_2233

HillRat an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Recent updates say this was a unilateral call by FAA because DOD was refusing to coordinate with them for creating safety corridors for DOD drones and/or HEW usage. Issues came to a head after DOD shot down a highly threatening mylar party balloon, which FAA evidently considered to be a somewhat reckless use of military weaponry in a US city's airspace.

cornellwright 19 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Can you share a source for this? It's not in the updates to the NYT article.

Hikikomori 10 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Balloon looked brown?

downrightmike 32 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

reckless use of military weaponry in a US city's airspace.

nkrisc 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Charitably guessing that if they don't know how long they'll need to keep airspace closed then you give yourself plenty of time and rescind early if necessary, as opposed to continually issuing extensions which could cause confusion.

hshdhdhj4444 an hour ago | parent [-]

Or you say “until further notice”.

Indeterminate end dates are not a new problem.

zthrowaway an hour ago | parent [-]

FAA restrictions aren’t applied in a hand wavy fashion.

afavour an hour ago | parent [-]

This story would suggest otherwise.

zthrowaway an hour ago | parent [-]

In what way?

indoordin0saur 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Was it meant to be "up to 10 days" rather than 10 days? If the drones are no longer flying over the airport it makes sense they'd open it back up.

noelsusman 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The closure was for 10 days full stop. I can't think of a reason to do that in response to an active threat.

brynnbee 39 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I think the point was to get headlines and attention, as someone else said it sounds like the FAA is frustrated that the DoD isn't cooperating, and this seems like a possible attempt to make this frustration public to pressure DoD into playing more nicely.

schiffern 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is OpSec 101. Making the public closure too "tight" around the operational timeline could (negligently) leak operational details. You can always cancel a closure later.

iAMkenough 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Is saying "indefinitely" or "until further notice" any worse than "10 days?" The specificity of the timeline was what caught my eye.

vachina an hour ago | parent [-]

Indefinitely infers permanence. You’ll scare everyone off with that language.

an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
stefan_ 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Ding ding. Always assume weaponized incompetence in this administration:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/airspace-closure-followed-spat-...

> FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford on Tuesday night decided to close the airspace — without alerting White House, Pentagon or Homeland Security officials, sources said.

In the meantime, the politician responsible of course made up a quick lie and yall ran with it, fantasizing about cartel MANPADs:

> Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in a statement, "The FAA and DOW acted swiftly to address a cartel drone incursion."

ajross 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

schiffern 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

  > yup, it was a lie
Note that Rep Crockett doesn't claim inside information, she was just entering a newspaper article into the record. Presumably you also want to fact-check the newspaper article.

https://www.texastribune.org/2026/02/11/el-paso-air-space-cl...

ajross an hour ago | parent [-]

Reuters has it too. It was indeed a lie.

boringg 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm merely passing on live information to update the conversation. Don't shoot the messenger.

mrWiz 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Is it OK to comment on and critique the message, though?

yunnpp 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

When you have multiple paragraphs in a quotation, each paragraph must start with a quote. Only the last paragraph in the quotation ends with a quote. Just pick up any book with dialogue in it and see for yourself. This is why I think your comment came across as you personally endorsing the official statement; it's not clear at first glance where the quote ends. The correct/incorrect placing of quotes is the kind of subtle thing that would lead someone to interpret one thing or the other without actually realizing what just happened.

mercanlIl 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Which writing style standard does that correspond to?

This is an internet discussion board with people from diverse backgrounds. Informal quotation style is common. Your comment is the first time I’ve seen someone assert that new paragraphs should start with a quote.

phlakaton 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's common practice when dealing with sites and clients that don't have fancy quoting features, going all the way back to USENET forums and probably before. It avoids just this ambiguity when you might be mixing quote and commentary.

notpushkin 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Hmm, honestly I’ve mostly seen > used for quotations in plain-text-y environments. Not sure about USENET, but ever since email it seems to be the de-facto standard everywhere. (On HN, I mostly see >, italics, or monospace as the quotation indicators.)

notpushkin 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Not sure which particular standard it is but it is a thing. Agreed that it’s nitpicking though, it’s pretty easy to understand the boundaries of the quotation either way.

ajross 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And I was merely commenting on the likely veracity of the quote you posted. No shooting happening here.

pavel_lishin 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

HackerNews will be shut down for 10 days as we deploy counter-messenger technology.

Spooky23 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Good news, the messenger has been neutered. You may continue messaging.

boringg 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Thats true - and I noticed that (but I wanted clarity from shots fired). Though the other follow on comments are interesting - say I may or may not endorse by how I wrote it, that my grammar/punctuation (it was just a fast cut copy) makes it look like i'm endorsing.

My comment is a non statement but people are clearly riled up these days.

codys 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It seems like the messenger might endorse the message though, and is attempting to be coy.

Folks should be careful of people using the "messenger" title to attempt to obtain the appearance of impartiality.

ndiddy 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 an hour ago | parent [-]

Good thing they allocated 10 days of airspace shutdown for taking out a single drone.

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?

SoftTalker 28 minutes ago | parent [-]

How do we know it was a "single" drone, or that they knew for sure that it was?

tclancy 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well this could get ugly. https://x.com/Acyn/status/2021613820553335090

guerrilla 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

pjc50 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Starting a war with Mexico would be a pretext for interning everyone of "Mexican" ethnicity, citizen or otherwise, as was done to Japanese nationals.

_heimdall 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Its mincing words a bit, but an attack targeting drug cartel assets wouldn't necessarily be viewed as a war with Mexico. It could lead to that for sure, and the Mexican government could declare it an act of war, but we did just see the US literally invade a foreign country and arrest their sitting leader without war being declared on either side.

guerrilla 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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.

staticassertion 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It is, of course. What they mean, I assume, is that it would reach a tipping point where intervention would be more broadly supported. Virtually everyone is willing to say "that's bad" with regards to something happening somewhere, it is far less agreed upon that the US should intervene in that bad thing. An effective tipping point is probably something on the order of "we feel attacked".

starkparker 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Much of the world was against Saddam Hussein, but it took the wholesale invention of an Iraqi nuclear program to justify and get authorization for deposing him through international military action. Iraq didn't attack us, though in attacking an oil partner they might as well have, but the public certainly didn't feel attacked until someone dreamed up the prospect of Iraq nuking Israel, Europe, and/or us.

In that case, the justification was a prerequisite to Congress authorizing a war without losing elections, and then selling it to the US's allies so we wouldn't have to send quite as many troops and thus lose elections. This administration demonstrably doesn't care about justification, authorization, alliances, or elections. So why bother? If they're going to stage an arbitrary Venezuela-like military operation in Mexico because of "cartels", they wouldn't wait for a civilian mass-death event, or for Congress, or regional allies, or public opinion. They didn't wait for any of that in Venezuela.

TBQH this just felt like a cheap and easy way for them to perpetuate the idea that we're always at war with terrorists. Now they're "narcoterrorists", but they're still "terrorists". And this administration might not like obstacles like authorization and due process, but it loves cheap, easy terrorists.

dylan604 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There were plenty of people that were not against Pablo Escobar as he spent a lot of money back in his home town. Once the violence escalated, like when they took down a civilian flight, even that support waned. So I can see where GP is saying similar that by the time cartels get to the point of shooting down civilian aircraft even those that did support them would consider that the final straw.

downrightmike 30 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The world where Americans buy billions in illegal drugs every year and turn a blind eye to cartels. "My dealer is nice"

djcapelis 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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

I think you’re getting tripped up by some specific wording and managing to miss the point the poster was making. The point should be taken seriously even if imprecisely articulated. While most folks are against the cartels, there’s a much wider range of belief on how much they warrant government or military intervention and to what degree we should be spending various resources on them. The historical state of play was(is?) that cartels are criminal organizations which are generally a policing matter that has escalated to specialized policing agencies and multinational networks of policing agencies. The marked escalation of the military into this is a more recent piece that is somewhat more controversial. One doesn’t have to be “in favor of the cartel” to ask questions about whether our military should be bombing boats or invading countries to ostensibly neutralize organizations that historically have been subject to policing operations.

To go back to the parallel… the public wasn’t in favor of Al Qaeda before 9/11 either, but there was a huge difference in the level of response the public was in favor of after. It turned from an intelligence monitoring level of response into an active military invasion of multiple countries.

vkou an hour ago | parent [-]

The best part about bombing the boats is that the second strikes on them were war crimes, while the few survivors that were picked up... All ended up repatriated.

If they were all drug runners, why weren't they put on trial? Why was so much effort made to sink all the evidence? Why did an admiral resign, when told to do this?

Everybody involved, starting from the people pulling the trigger, to the people giving the orders should be getting a fair trial and a swift punishment for that little stint of piracy and murder.

But these people all act like there is no such thing as consequences.

TitaRusell 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 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 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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
morpheuskafka 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 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.

mikeyouse 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's definitely already happening and should lead to a congressional inquiry if we had a functioning congress: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2gn93292do

nemomarx 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Isn't the whole idea of prediction markets to let insiders bet on things so that you'll get insider info leaked?

RiverCrochet 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut3I6gFmlls

matthews3 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> bets

Investments on Kalshi!

delaminator 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> reactionary

they want to overthrow the Jacobites

> accelerationists

how's that going to work ?

pjc50 3 hours ago | parent [-]

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).

delaminator 2 hours ago | parent [-]

My understanding is accelerationists or liberals to go full hog so that they can go "see".

dylan604 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

--one party was hoping we'd stop talking about Epstein

sowbug 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

influx 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I live in Seattle, decriminalizing drugs didn't turn out that way here.

sowbug 2 hours ago | parent [-]

"controlled" is key. Seattle decriminalized drug use. That's a tiny part of a larger solution rooted in harm reduction.

mikkupikku 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Singapore kills drug dealers. That works much better.

RiverCrochet an hour ago | parent [-]

Idk, if the number of people executed increases over time, maybe it doesn't.

https://www.afr.com/world/asia/singapore-executions-touch-22...

This article cites Singapore saying the existing laws mostly get low-level users and not kingpins because kingpins operate outside of the country.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/singapore-drug-executions/

Decriminalization of drug use doesn't have to mean decriminalization of anything else. Thieves and murderers should be prosecuted regardless of any state induced by the voluntary ingestion chemicals.

mikkupikku a few seconds ago | parent [-]

Decriminalization without legalization is something I can't support. If it's not illegal for me to have and use a drug, them why should I be forced to buy it from criminals? Either legalize it, or go whole hog on criminalizing it. Execute the dealers and put users into mandatory rehab, or let people buy it in shops. Any of these half measures are intolerable, they exist to make sure the situation is in a constant state of tension, to nobody's benefit but the governments.

Ideally we would pick one or the other on a drug by drug basis. Executing people for selling weed isn't something I actually want, but neither do I want them simply imprisoned or fined either. But with shit like fent? Trying to find a single policy to fit both drugs is inane.

projektfu 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Xylazine and fentanyl are already legally distributed in the US. I believe Xylazine is still unscheduled.

https://www.dechra-us.com/our-products/us/equine/horse/presc...

sowbug 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Those are the adulterants, not the drugs being adulterated such as heroin, meth, and MDMA.

For the most part, no customer wants fentanyl. The dealers like it because it's a cheap booster for cutting the drugs that their customers actually do want to buy. It just has this unfortunate side effect of making small overdoses lethal.

That's why "ending the fentanyl crisis" is a curious goal. We had a perfectly good War on Drugs going on, but fentanyl is making the illicit drug industry too dangerous. You'd think that if we wanted to stop drugs, and we knew how to do that, we'd stop drugs. Instead we're stopping fentanyl, so we can get back to the regularly scheduled version of the War on Drugs that was always intended to last forever.

2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
drstewart an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

belter 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"FAA abruptly lifts order halting El Paso airport flights for 10 days" - https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/11/faa-el-paso-airport.html

don't attribute to security concerns...what can be explained by incompetence...