The looming U.S. anti-drone military-industrial complex

If history is any guide, rest assured (insecure): a key issue of future (if not current) U.S. military policy will be how to build an anti-drone system to protect the "homeland," George W. Bush's ear-busting name for our country that is now a sad part of our common American vocabulary.

Given that drone technology, so far I understand it, is not the most complex of rocket science, "enemy" nations/entities will have/already have drones.

How will you keep drones from hittin' U.S. farms, now that we've hit Pakis?

That will be a big, big issue, I bet, sooner rather than later to surface in Congress: We need an anti-drone system! The Chinese are building drones! Soon we'll see them flying over the Capitol if we don't do something!

The U.S. military-industrial complex, as President Eisenhower called it perhaps too superficially  (and it does need an updated categorization), will see a golden financial opportunity, at a time of declining Federal dollars for "defense," in promising Americans to "stay safe" in the imperial capital (Washington D.C.), not to speak of protecting every inch of the USA from enemy drones, including in the heartland.

But how much will it cost a debt-ridden country (our very own America) to build an anti-drone system, a technological challenge if there ever was one (I venture to think, as a non-specialist)? Much harder and more expensive than producing drones themselves.

Lots, lots of money, which, to be obtained, will need another weapons "star-wars" salesman like our dear actor-president, Ronald Reagan. So, time to resurrect the Gipper, if you want to annihilate the foreign drones before they hit us as ours have hit "them."

At least Reagan was able to talk directly with enemies in charge (supposedly) of their country, the USSR. Today, I would say, no high-ranking diplomat, not to speak of other Washington government officials, can assume that she can sign a "treaty" with persons, hate them or not, who disdain American "foreign policy."

But to get serious:  Should we not, instead of producing/deploying more drones, be talking about/taking immediate steps to ban drones internationally as a weapon of war -- if it's not already too late, since the genie is out of the bottle?

But controlling drones internationally today? It could be a pipe-dream. Think of trying to limit the number of guns in our murderous homeland, where for many years more people in Chicago, the USA's president adopted town, were killed than U.S. troops in Afghanistan.