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

Military shoots down another high-altitude object, over Lake Huron: officials

abcnews.go.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 593 posts

Re: Military shoots down another high-altitude object, over Lake Huron: officials

#281

Post by rcurry »

phpisthebest wrote: post #212
oneoff786 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People need to understand that if you’re being attacked by a FTL capable alien invader, you are so incredibly f**ed that it just does not matter. People don’t write popular sci fi novels about realistic alien invasions because they would be so utterly one sided and brief that it simply wouldn’t make a good story.

I am sorry, if the Aliens are invading we will just have ChatGPT upload a virus to their system while at the same time we fly one on of their space planes with a nuke to take out their mother ship

And, fortunately, the hero’s MacBook Pro will use the same graphics card as the alien mothership, so we’ll display a jolly Roger on their screens right before we set off the nuke.

Re: Military shoots down another high-altitude object, over Lake Huron: officials

#282

Post by travisby »

prawn wrote: post #254
nickysielicki wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if an agitator launches a missile at another country and a nation in question gets hit by it, thus releasing and activating an explosion, who is responsible?

I'm trying to think of potential grey areas in the middle where the agitator could say "It was minding its own business. It wasn't dangerous until you shot it down. That gas mix was part of the cooling system and would've been completely fine if you didn't launch a missile at it." And some portion of the host public could be convinced that this was a reasonable opinion and hold their government responsible. I don't t…

I think a good example for your hypothetical would be the sinking of a nuclear plant propelled ship. If country B invades the territorial waters of country A with a nuclear destroyer and country A destroys it, the fallout (morally and chemically) would still be on the aggressor for creating the situation where it's reasonable to expect their harmful payload would be destroyed.

Re: Military shoots down another high-altitude object, over Lake Huron: officials

#283

Post by ncallaway »

megous wrote: post #249
encoderer wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without a doubt, the person who flies the dangerous thing over the other people is the aggressor. Is this debatable to you?

So when MH17 was shot down, would Malaysia Airlines be responsible for harm done to people of Грабове, had it fell on this village directly? Any airliner is a flying object full of dangerous chemicals, flammable and toxic.

This seems like a bad faith twisting of the original question and response.

The original question was about a balloon filled with a dangerous substance, not civilian air traffic.

Civilian air traffic is regulated by the Chicago convention, and shooting it down would be undoubtedly be the responsibility of the nation shooting it down.

The difference is largely one of consent. Nations have the right to control what happens in their air space. But if they consent to civilian air traffic, then shoot down an aircraft that nation is responsible.

If they consent to a balloon filled with dangerous substances in their air space and then shoot it down, then the nation is responsible.

If they *do not* consent to the balloon filled with dangerous substances and shoot it down, then the originating party is responsible.

Re: Military shoots down another high-altitude object, over Lake Huron: officials

#284

Post by [deleted] »

prawn wrote: post #231

If an agitator puts up a balloon and payload, one of which contains a potentially dangerous substance, and a nation in question shoots it down, thus releasing and activating that substance, who is responsible? And who does the public deem responsible? (I don't think this is realistic, just musing about other schemes that could be going on.)

[deleted]

Re: Military shoots down another high-altitude object, over Lake Huron: officials

#285

Post by giantg2 »

elorant wrote: post #264
giantg2 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would they cost? $10k seems reasonably close given the price below. https://weatherscientific.com/collections/weather-balloons/p...

That’s just the fabric. What about all the equipment you’ll put inside? And for the US to bother to shoot them down my guess is that they’re doing something really funky with what they’re carrying.

If you fly dummies for the purpose of having them shot down, they wouldn't have to carry much. It's probably nothing too expensive or they'd put it on a satellite.

If they're flying really expensive stuff at commercial flight levels, that's pretty dumb since it will be shot down.

Re: Military shoots down another high-altitude object, over Lake Huron: officials

#286

Post by phpisthebest »

sangnoir wrote: post #275
phpisthebest wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure everyone knows they can take IR photos from the Plane... That is not really a secret. Plus I reject the idea of secrecy from the citizens, government can not be "for the people by the people" if they keep secrets from the people

The resolution is secret - and that matters a lot. Why do citizens need to know detailed specs of IR optics systems installed on fighter jets? I can come up with reasons why this information should be kept out of adversaries hands: and handing this info out to citizens makes the latter impossible

>>and that matters a lot.

Does it? and even if it does do they need to release the full resolution... you seem to be creating strawmen just to justify the government doing thing in secret, seems like an odd position.

And quit with the "adversaries" scare mongering, it will get you no where with me other then enteral cringe and eye rolling.

This "but the other baddies might do something" has been the straw man to justify all manner of immoral actions by the US government over the decades that I have no sympathy for that argument at all

>>Why do citizens need to know detailed specs of IR optics systems installed on fighter jets?

because we paid for it, because we own it, because we can not accurately hold elected government to account for their actions if we do not know what they actions really are. We have no idea what they are shooting down. Maybe it some private plane of of political enemy, maybe is a Alien Drone, maybe is some weather balloon, maybe is a Chinese Spy Drone......

We only have their word... and their word means nothing to me

This is the same reason all cops should be required to wear body cams and make the video public

Re: Military shoots down another high-altitude object, over Lake Huron: officials

#288

Post by prawn »

ncallaway wrote: post #283
megous wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So when MH17 was shot down, would Malaysia Airlines be responsible for harm done to people of Грабове, had it fell on this village directly? Any airliner is a flying object full of dangerous chemicals, flammable and toxic.

This seems like a bad faith twisting of the original question and response. The original question was about a balloon filled with a dangerous substance, not civilian air traffic. Civilian air traffic is regulated by the Chicago convention, and shooting it down would be undoubtedly be the responsibility of the nation shooting it down. The difference is largely one of consent. Nations have the right to control what hap…

The hypothetical was about a balloon filled with a "potentially" dangerous substance. e.g., something that had a plausible reason to be there and was likely to be fine if not shot down with a missile.

Re: Military shoots down another high-altitude object, over Lake Huron: officials

#289

Post by m4rtink »

they4kman wrote: post #260
CPLX wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In 2002, Griffin was President and COO of In-Q-Tel, a private enterprise funded by the CIA to identify and invest in companies developing cutting-edge technologies that serve national security interests. During this time, he met entrepreneur Elon Musk and accompanied him on a trip to Russia where they attempted to purchase ICBMs. They did what now?

Yeah, so the lore goes, Musk just wanted to send humans to Mars, and had no intention, originally, to build his own rockets. The first tactic was to retool an ICBM for spacier spaceflight, but the Russians laughed them out of the country.

IIRC originally Elon wanted to land a greenhouse on Mars, not people from the very start.

Re: Military shoots down another high-altitude object, over Lake Huron: officials

#290

Post by yalogin »

Do we have international agreement about what constitutes sovereign space in the sky and what doesn’t? I mean at what height does it make it not okay to shoot down an object another country sent up? Is it at the height of the low orbit satellites? Should it be out of the earth’s gravitational pull? Or can China shoot down one of US’ low orbit satellites saying it flew over its airspace?
Post reply on HN