341–350 of 526 posts
UFOs are just spy drones with sensor jammers and detectors that are designed to look strange and unnerving to pilots so they will scope them out. Pilots are trained NOT to go by them or engage with them for fear of secrets leaking.
Cite your source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
War? Chill with the historonics. Surveillance is not war.
Shooting missiles at aircraft can be though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
But there's no reason for them to be able to do it on their own, because of NORAD.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But there's no reason for them to be able to do it on their own, because of NORAD.
There's no reason for a country to be able to defend their airspace without the help of their allies? That's a defensible viewpoint of course, but the opposite is too.
If for some reason Canada felt it could no longer rely on the US for shared air defense, then I would agree with you that it would be important to build up domestic capability to do so independently—but as far as I can tell, that isn't currently a concern.
...with Canada's permission; I think that should be said explicitly.
article states that it was on Canada's orders. I didn't know that was a thing, Canadian PM having the power to command US jets. Can anyone who knows more about NORAD weigh in with an ELI5?
The US and Canada have gameplanned for all sorts of scenarios similar to this, and up to and including full nuclear war. They have established playbooks for alllllll kinds of scenarios. Because when shit goes down, you there is NO TIME to gameplan. No, you pull binder #568 off of the shelf and get to work executing gameplan #568, "US jets pursue craft into Canada" or whatever.
There is a playbook for this kind of thing, and they are following it. The playbook possibly does include some kind of explicit authorization from the Canadian PM for the final shootdown.
So in reality this is certainly more "Trudeau authorized it" than "ordered it", because the US and Canada definitely can't order each other do things. However, for obvious optics purposes, they phrased it as "Trudeau ordered the shootdown." Because it looks sort of weak to the untrained eye if Trudeau just sort of allowed it.
However, the actual wording is sort of irrelevant. The reality is that it was a fairly seamless bit of cooperation between two close allies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but my point is UFO means alien craft in popular parlance, hence the clickbait.
It's good to remind people what UFO really means. I've heard some ridiculous things from very popular American podcaster Joe Rogan recently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“ Another official from the Department of Defense told the New York Times that the object broke into pieces when it hit the frozen sea” - Guardian article on the Alaska downing How could a balloon break into pieces? Doesn’t it need to be made of flexible material? Edit: WSJ is now reporting unnamed sources confirmed Alaska was a metallic balloon w suspended payload.
The balloon typically suspends hardware that serves the actual function; it was likely that hardware that broke into pieces on the ice.
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?
I feel like I'm thrown back to the 80s, all this military and fear mongering and propaganda and war.
I can't imagine what sort of lens you were using to view the last thirty years, such that those were the peaceful, propaganda-free times and all this shit with balloons is troubling.
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…
Maybe penetration testing, testing response times. Could even be trying to monitor various network traffic and communications signals in relation to activities around responses. Lots of possibilities, it's hard not to speculate.