Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 526 posts

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#121

Post by ksherlock »

rgbrenner wrote: post #38

I think China erred by sending such a large balloon that was visible to the naked eye, causing the American public to demand it be shot down. There's no hard rule about where national airspace ends and space begins.. a lot of times they fly too high for planes to reach, and under certain circumstances balloons are allowed through national airspace.. so if the balloon isn't causing a problem (like being a hazard to ai…

> There's no hard rule about where national airspace ends and space begins

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? There's no hard rule about when life begins but killing a 5 year old isn't a 22nd trimester abortion, it's murder. 18-60'000 feet is class A, controlled airspace in the US and Canada.

When the US sent U2s over the USSR, the rationale wasn't that 70,000 feet was "space", it was that it was that 70,000 feet was too high for soviet radars detect and and soviet planes to intercept.

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#122

Post by unsupp0rted »

kneebonian wrote: post #65
mancerayder wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's much more likely that the US government is wanting to tell the press, leak to the press and get the spin cycle going. There are spy events all the time, it's rare something gets actually reported proportionally.

I've noticed that as well recently an increase in coverage of Ukraine and antagonistic articles of China while at the same time what could be termed as "anti-woke" media. Seems to me like the military-propaganda apparatus is spinning up to prepare the populace for a war. But it's more of a gut feeling at this point.

Why would they want a war now?

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#123

Post by notatoad »

detrites wrote: post #77

Is there a plausible explanation as to why the US government has not announced objects 2 & 3 are balloons, if they are balloons? They call them "objects", yet must know what they are. They wouldn't randomly missile unknowns. If it's for reasons of secrecy, why announce it at all? The second one was in the middle of nowhere, it could easily have been ignored, or dismissed as a military exercise if anyone had made a fu…

most plausibly it's because it's a balloon carrying something, not just a balloon, and the bit that is worth shooting down is the bit that's not a balloon.

they said the second object was freely drifting and not self-propelled or guided, so whether it's technically a balloon or just something that behaves like a balloon is kind of irrelevant to anybody who isn't working for whatever government department is tasked with analyzing it.

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#125

Post by colanderman »

s3p wrote: post #64
rgbrenner wrote: post #38

I think China erred by sending such a large balloon that was visible to the naked eye, causing the American public to demand it be shot down. There's no hard rule about where national airspace ends and space begins.. a lot of times they fly too high for planes to reach, and under certain circumstances balloons are allowed through national airspace.. so if the balloon isn't causing a problem (like being a hazard to ai…

I don't fully agree with the political assessment because the WH gave the Pentagon permission to shoot it down when they deemed appropriate. They didn't order the pentagon to do it immediately. I'm not sure (someone please chime in if you know) if the WH 'ordered' the Pentagon to shoot it down in the sense that it HAD to come out of the air at some point, or if the message was just "shoot it down if you think that's…

With respect to judging nuance, I think you're giving the American public too much credit.

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#126

Post by stirfish »

mmerlin wrote: post #50
ALittleLight wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would watch a TikTok of "F22 shoots down my balloon."

TikTok is like a spy balloon in your own phone (assuming the 100% clipboard-exfiltration-at-all-times and other data harvesting reports are true). Ironic if people are being spied upon by TikTok whilst watching a spy balloon video.

I would watch an F-22 shoot down my phone.

That's a good point though - people seem more worked up about the data collection balloon than they are about the little data collector in their pockets.

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#127

Post by ksherlock »

crystalmeph wrote: post #99
LarryMullins wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Large controllable balloons could probably be 'recalled' by instructing them to crash into the ocean. If any more big ones like the first balloon show up, it's probably on purpose.

I was wondering why China wouldn’t include a self-destruct feature. My daughter pointed out that crashing into a US city, even unintentionally, would probably be seen as even more hostile than sending the balloon in the first place. You obviously could choose to self destruct in a remote area or over water, but they may well have considered the escalation risk to be too high if they added potentially destructive capa…

Reportedly the NC balloon did have explosives to self destruct.

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#128

Post by mcphage »

dirtyid wrote: post #89
Overtonwindow wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question: was there ever any doubt that US military could shoot something down out of the sky no matter how high it flies? If they are doing this to determine capabilities, it's like staking at a grocery store to see if it sells milk.

Removing doubt has value. If US has to shift to another platform to hit 80k feet ballon reveals specific capabilities. Like if US has to start using advanced ground based interceptors, it will inform PRC on constraints relevant in IndoPac scenario. If US has to break out asat tier weapons, ASM135 cost 5B for ~15 missiles then PRC can start developing capabilities to accordingly to shift strategic math. Imagine if bal…

Of course, if the US expects that the Chinese are using this to test our capabilities, then they could use that to undersell their capabilities.

And then the Chinese, knowing the US would use it to undersell capabilities…

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#130

Post by georgeg23 »

Ancapistani wrote: post #76
dirtyid wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>erred by sending such a large I surmise you need large balloon to carry required instruments on one platform. Going forward IMO PRC just going to fly them higher, US can keep shooting them down... possible until they can't, both will reveal US capabilities. At minimum, finding out f22 + missile ceiling is worth the cost. PRC isn't going to stop program just because US domestic politics goes full retard, if anything,…

Higher would be more expensive to shoot down, but given that we have missiles designed to shoot down satellites - at least in LEO - I don’t think it’ll be possible to use altitude as a means of evading response.

These balloons could be an economical counter to the American Low Earth Orbit Military Constellation https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Development_Agency
Post reply on HN