Spy ballons.

[-gg-]

You need to read about the capabilities of balloons. In some cases they are more effective than satellites. Especially when it comes to picking up radio transmissions or other communications. They can also get in for better pictures.
Or they can jam things and test responses. There's a million things that they can do that a satellite probably can't do as well.
Also they can loiter over an area longer. And they are much cheaper than putting a satellite over a target.

And they're not easy to shoot down either. That F-22 that shot it down was at its maximum service ceiling and was still well under it when it hit it with the missile. And that was at about 60 to 65,000 ft. The raptor was at about 58,000 they said 55,000 maybe? That's above its reported maximum altitude.

There are definitely advantages that balloons have.

[-gg-]

And a big advantage is that they could drop drones. Along their route and I doubt the drones would be easy to detect. A satellite couldn't do that. But they could drop a drone and bring it very close to a Target. Probably undetected.

[CptTrips]

There are definitely advantages that balloons have.

So that is an argument for a surveillance balloon not a weapons platform.  That is probably the highest likelihood.

It will be interesting to see what they find.

[-gg-]

Both.
I just googled it for the hell of it and found that US spy balloons can carry suicide drones, like dropping a bunch of killer bees from a beehive. In that article they said the Chinese could do the same. And of course they could. Think about it. Even a few stealth drones dropped over its path and controlled from the balloon would be pretty interesting.

The other thing that the balloon could be doing would be testing defenses.

No matter what it was doing, it's a threat. Shouldn't be allowed in our airspace.

It also said in the article that it could be a test run for an attack. I mean an EMP attack would be devastating and those things could carry that for sure. A lot less detectable than a ICBM..

I mean you can just Google the stuff. It's not hard. I use my own brain just out of curiosity to think of what a balloon might be able to do and then I googled stuff. It's not hard

[CptTrips]

And a big advantage is that they could drop drones.

Well, IMHO a weapons platform is the least likely scenario.

But not much point in debating it.  There is as much evidence for that as maybe it was filled with rubber duckies. 

We'll see what they found soon I hope.  If it is filled with drones, we'll hear about it.

[CptTrips]

then I googled stuff. It's not hard

Yes, yes yes.  You can find all kinds of whacky stuff on the internet.  Just ask DmonSlayer.

We'll see what we see.

[-gg-]

You think that's wacky stuff? It came from serious sources. I just am on my cell phone right now and too lazy to link stuff.

I don't know what your issue is. Seems like you're just trying to downplay any possibility that it's any kind of threat. That's pretty ignorant.

Even if we don't know exactly what was on board, the possibilities make it a threat. You got to realize that, right?

[CptTrips]

I don't know what your issue is.

My issue is that there is limited utility in arguing about what was in it at this point because there is no evidence yet. 
When they dredge it up, then we can talk about what was found on it.
 

[-gg-]

I think the only argument (maybe I'm wrong) is from you downplaying the POTENTIAL threat of these balloons. Of THIS balloon

There is a reason why the balloon was tracked by NORAD and determined (after seeing how it maneuvered and it's target areas) that they needed to notify the President. Things like this do not normally go right to the president. And how many times have you ever heard of us shooting down a surveillance balloon?

what we do know is that it was considered enough of a threat to be shot down and recovered. Biden wanted to shoot it down over Montana.

You seem to be waiting for it to be discovered that it had some kind of weapon on board before you'll even conceded that these balloons should be considered a threat.

Just the potential of what could be on  board - now or in the future, is enough.

My guess is that we are not just going to allow balloons to float across the United States without doing something about it.

[Meatwad]

You think that's wacky stuff? It came from serious sources. I just am on my cell phone right now and too lazy to link stuff.

I don't know what your issue is. Seems like you're just trying to downplay any possibility that it's any kind of threat. That's pretty ignorant.

Even if we don't know exactly what was on board, the possibilities make it a threat. You got to realize that, right?

Some people rather stick their head in the sand and pretend nothing is wrong and listen to what certain sources spoon feed them, rather then face reality over some situations.  Then act all shocked when it then becomes an incident that is too late to prevent and scream about how they never saw it coming and why didn't anyone do something to prevent it

[Gman]

Ward Carroll made a decent vid regarding the shoot down today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2xz21HvLs8

[BoilerDown]

Just watched this:

[CptTrips]

I think the only argument (maybe I'm wrong) is from you downplaying the POTENTIAL threat of these balloons. Of THIS balloon

Show me the link where I said it was impossible for it to be a weapons platform.  I'll wait.

I just said that to me, it seems like the lowest probable case.  Not all potentials have equal probability.  It has a potential to have been filled with rabid flying squirls they intended to be released.  Probably not the most likely scenario.  I'm sure somewhere on the intardnet there is someone claiming that.  Maybe Q has the evidence.  There are an infinite number of possibilities, most not worth considering seriously.  Even if someone on the internet said so.

I already stated that IMHO, a surveillance balloon is the most probable case.  Just seems weird to me. 

I already said I don't consider it an invalid act to have shot it down.  I do have doubts to if it was the most prudent action. But it is the POTUS' call.

Sorry if I don't have the exact opinion you want me to.  You'll get over it. 

I'll change my position as evidence changes.  What do you do?

   



 

[Gman]

When someone resorts to Ad hominen attacks, it's because they've lost.



I'd forgotten about this incident.  Two RCAF Hornets mag dumped their M61 20mm rounds into a rogue balloon, and didn't bring it down. 

https://news.yahoo.com/weather-balloon-went-rogue-almost-161314996.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9mb3J1bXMuYmV5b25kLmNhLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAMiD2sbqmWXQpS2UDVR6zR1tceycdR4xXMPgK1asLdL3cyG1L85i7uv_HXrTIG-4Yue5KyvfUJ3uM8Vk4nQ5mS5kyBSk46aCrJf6gw10R8qoo9RBYO1d9QGHlNvtXDeR8SX5fgPQF3XdfCjEI6jGY-4ciVI9CpOfMkq5Jg_nx1w6

About 25 years ago, a rogue weather balloon wouldn't come down after over 1,000 rounds were fired at it.

The balloon entered Icelandic air space and drifted north towards Norway.

Balloons, like the suspected Chinese "spy balloon" over the US, don't always pop or explode when shot.

Almost 25 years ago, a large runaway weather balloon proved to be quite challenge a for a pair of fighter jets trying to shoot it down, staying in the air even after more than 1,000 rounds were fired at it.

The research balloon was measuring ozone levels above Canada, the Associated Press reported at the time. It went rogue in August 1998, passing across Canada, over the Atlantic Ocean, and through British airspace before entering Iceland's airspace and then drifting northward.

Two Royal Canadian Air Force CF-18 fighter aircraft spotted the balloon over Newfoundland and fired more than 1,000 rounds at it. The AP reported that the jets, Canadian variants of the American F/A-18 Hornet, hit the balloon, but rather than popping or exploding and crashing to the earth, it slowly began leaking helium. The big balloon was still in the air.

A Canadian military spokesperson, a lieutenant named Steve Wills, told BBC that it was difficult to target the balloon, even though it was about the size of a 25-story building, and that the failure to take it out wasn't embarrassing.

"With something like this, which is stationary in the air when the CF-18s are flying very, very fast, it is difficult to shoot it," Wills said.

The CF-18s were reportedly equipped with air-to-air missiles, but Canadian Major Roland Lavoie told AP the pilots refrained from using them.

"Citizens would not have appreciated having a missile blowing over their heads,″ he said. "Also, it might be overkill spending a couple of hundred thousand dollars on a missile to shoot down a balloon that's drifting away."

The balloon, BBC reported, also survived encounters with British and American aircraft.

According to BBC reports from the time of the incident, the 300-ft helium balloon prompted air traffic controllers to divert and delay transatlantic flights. If deflated, the balloon would cover an area of about five football fields, The Irish Times reported.

The US currently has a Chinese balloon, which Pentagon officials say is an intelligence-gathering spy balloon but China argues is a research asset, in its airspace, and there have been questions about shooting it down.

Brigadier Gen. Pat Ryder, the Pentagon press secretary, said Thursday that the balloon is operating at a higher altitude than commercial air traffic and "does not present a military or physical threat to people on the ground." Nonetheless, the US scrambled F-22 Raptors and other aircraft in response.

[CptTrips]

Just watched this:

That was a great shot.

It also provided information that I didn't know (1:43).  That this was the (4th?) balloon incursion. 

3 under the previous admin.

So one of my views was that maybe we should have tracked and monitored the object and not shot it down unless it became an obvious threat and then warn China not to let that "accident" happen again.  THEN if they did it again shoot it down.

But if the was the 4th event (3 under the previous admin) then maybe they had already given those warnings privately.  In THAT case, yeah, light it up.  By the 4th event we have shown more than enough restraint.

So there is a lot about this situation that we are still getting facts on.  Why the previous admin let it happen 3 times, I'm not sure.  But as I said, my position will change with the evidence.

[edit]

Sorry,  this would be the 5th event then.    So at first I was shocked, starting shooting at first sight seemed imprudent.  Now it makes more sense.