311–320 of 526 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because that's how it's supposed to work. The US and Canada work together to defend their combined airspace. They're literally under the same chain of command, hence "NORAD". It would be rather inefficient to set that up and then have both countries redundantly responding everywhere.
I'm familiar with NORAD. Take a look at Canadian media, you'll see they are talking about the fact RCAF could not do it on their own.
I feel like I'm thrown back to the 80s, all this military and fear mongering and propaganda and war.
Does anyone else think these have been happening a long time but now they make front paper news because of recent activities?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a common expression https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_that_got_to_do_with...
It’s not so common any more. I bet less than 5% of gen Z know it.
I recently met someone who uses the expression "country mile" all the time. Hadn't heard it before but it's cool. "That's more popular by a country mile" Country miles are obviously better than city miles. So now I'll probably end up using it.
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,…
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.
But also, don't assume that the US was naive here. The USAF is pretty good at electronic warfare. It's very possible they were jamming the object's sensors in various ways.
I was curious about part of the description given by the pilots who shot down the object off the coast of Alaska. It was described as being at about 40000' altitude (12192 m) and moving about 40 mph (64 kph) with no visible means of propulsion. To me, that implies that it was drifting in the wind at that altitude since it had no visible means of propulsion. I took a look at Ventusky (ventusky.com) to try to get an id…
the chinese have been spying on us navy ships for a long time with drones. the public is just becoming aware because there was a big ufo awareness campaign that ran online for a few years and now we are shooting down their spy crafts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect finding a small balloon in the mind-boggling huge space that is American airspace is, can be surprisingly challenging. My understanding is that these UAFs are much smaller than that first Chinese balloon last week. It probably also costs a lot more money to shoot down a balloon than it costs China to put a balloon in the air.
Then stop using expensive missiles to pop a balloon. Are we so scared of a balloon to get into gun range? A short burst of 20mm would be pretty cheap compared to an AIM-9
Ordinance has a best used by if not a shelf life. Use it or lose it probably matters to someone.
Missiles can detonate near a painted target, instead of needing direct contact. If the thing being exploded is hazardous (when exploded), you don't want to be flying nearby.
This is not an exercise. Combat time is valuable, even if shooting down drones/balloons.
Politically popular optics. Everyone likes a boom, just to be sure. What happens if it falls to the ground and on to someone or someone grabs the wreckage or worse, it's never found? Bad optics.
The common tactic of dismissing high stakes situations as idiotic, is intellectually lazy.
Does anyone else think these have been happening a long time but now they make front paper news because of recent activities?
Which recent activities? House hearings on weaponization? Hersh's article on Nord Stream? Something else?