Live data from Hacker News

US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

bbc.com

411–420 of 526 posts

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah. I'm kind of flabbergasted by 99.9% of the comments on this topic, which assume the US is just chasing these things blindly without taking countermeasures. The F-22 and other "stealth" jets can carry radar reflectors to intentionally make themselves EXTREMELY visible on radar. https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/82798/how-does-... Why would they carry such a thing? For one, it helps reduce the risk of a…

Tangential, but you may also want to fill the skies with noise when flying a stealth mission.

The rationale being that you may be able to hear a cat's claws on floorboards in the middle of the dead night, but you'd never hear it in the middle of a rave party. So pairing F-22s with eg F-15s becomes a valid strategy.

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly only success was killing a church group out on a Sunday school picnic.

Which was censored until after war because the idea that CONUS is vunerable to JP attacks is itself significant. Media spasms around PRC balloons reflect that. Except with current capabilities, it won't be 9000 primitive balloons with single digit % arrival rates and ineffective incendiary payloads but 100,000s of modern balloons with high chance of arrival and potential to deliver guided bombs. Possibly sufficient t…

Sending 100,000 armed balloons towards a nuclear-armed adversary doesn’t sound like 10d chess strategic thinking.

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#413
post #64

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…

US officials explicitly said recovering the payload was a high priority. In part, that is why they chose that particular location to shoot it down. https://www.businessinsider.com/us-officials-recovering-chin...

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#414
post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which recent activities? House hearings on weaponization? Hersh's article on Nord Stream? Something else?

There's a war happening in Europe right now. That's a pretty major recent activity.

Don't worry, a border dispute involving Germany and Russia would never get out of hand.

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#415

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…

[flagged]

How about China stops flying those things? While we are at it, how about the forever friends China and Russia stop dragging the world towards World War 3?

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which was censored until after war because the idea that CONUS is vunerable to JP attacks is itself significant. Media spasms around PRC balloons reflect that. Except with current capabilities, it won't be 9000 primitive balloons with single digit % arrival rates and ineffective incendiary payloads but 100,000s of modern balloons with high chance of arrival and potential to deliver guided bombs. Possibly sufficient t…

Sending 100,000 armed balloons towards a nuclear-armed adversary doesn’t sound like 10d chess strategic thinking.

US warplanners considers sending 100,000s of bombs on PRC mainland targets in case of TW scenario all the time. Is that 10D thinking? It's basic escalation dynamics of recipricating homeland attacks with home land attacks, the difference is up until recently CONUS has been shielded from both precise and volume of long range strikes from her adversaries, largely due to technologic limitations, enabling US to project power with impunity. This is PRC incrementally establishing mutual homeland vunerability to deter US from messing in her back yard. It's trying to deter US from intervening in TW by raising costs to CONUS, just like US is trying to deter PRC from moving on TW by raising cost to PRC mainland. Except until recently, only PRC had to factor in homeland attacks due to asymmetric US power projection capabilities. More and more, and for the first time since revolutionary war, US now has to factor in serious homeland attacks with respect to PRC. Demonstrating CONUS is vunerable, especially if it influences public thinking, is as strategic as it gets. Lots of Americans are still operating off the notion that Fortress America is impervious and US mil actions abroad stays abroad, and generally that's true, until it's not.

Ability to generate simultaneous bandwith of 100,000s of fires is also significant, most conventional long range strike / projection platforms are severely limited in how much fire they can deliver / unit of time. It's not feasible to sortie past limit of carriers or air bases, but the amount of balloons (or land based missiles) that can be delivered is much easier to scale, which means it's easier to satuate defenses. At the end of the day PLA is going to have very limited traditional methods of projecting power to CONUS (lack of carriers, or local basing), so they're going to latch onto any asymmetric platforms that can reliably bring war to CONUS. TBH I was not really anticipating mass balloons, and PLA planners probably weren't either. But the idea of hitting strategic targets with expensive long range missiles (i.e. prompt global strike) is something PLA is pursuing, now I imagine PLA planners are likely going to explore the virtues of cheap balloons that can scale more economically than missiles.

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#417
post #391

I feel like I'm thrown back to the 80s, all this military and fear mongering and propaganda and war.

For all its flaws, I'd take a democracy over the Soviets in the 80s, or CCP/North Korea today. I can't imagine what the world would have looked like if the Soviets had won the cold war, or if the CCP wins the next.

95% of humanity would also, if they were given a fair choice and knowledge of all those systems.

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#418
post #366

China seems to be testing the US air defense system, is this a sign that China is getting serious over Taiwan?

I think so; the volume of comments implying that either: 1. The US is just amplifying this to justify a war 2. The balloons are totally civilian 3. Aliens Strike me as a relatively coarse influence campaign, notable mainly for its volume. Not sure if the ramp up is to save face, or part of a larger effort. Similar efforts were notable before Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

The confusing part is: why would enemy propaganda be focused on this relatively obscure board?

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#420

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…

They are probably going to keep making blunders like this, now that internal leadership (source of many internal blunders in recent years) has been consolidated / stabilized, and they are still aiming for more international power. The degree of de facto stabilization will dictate whether e.g. the US may be able to transform this opportunity into an effective new policy framework aimed at leverage in rather obvious bl…

It's the classic dilemma that most people who prefer expedient governance don't always understand. When a government is paralysed by too much bureaucracy and corruption, everyone craves for something lean and expedient. Anyone who wants to combat that will want to consolidate power. Once they have successfully consolidated - usually by eliminating anyone in the way irrespective of whether they're someone who speak truth to power or a bureaucrat trying to preserve their fiefdom - all that's left are the yes-men. Then starts the bungling and fumbling and doubling down and over-corrections.
Post reply on HN