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…
>But the US public saw this massive balloon and demanded it be shot down 1. Where can one find evidence of this mass demand? 2. How does the US government gauge this mass demand without formal voting/polling? Were people phoning their senators, "SHOOT IT DOWN!"? I'm sure crazies phone in all kinds of things from time to time - what's the threshold for acting on demands/mass demand?
US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada
501–510 of 526 posts
Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada
#502Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not so common any more. I bet less than 5% of gen Z know it.
It's an uncommon expression then. The commenter might be British. Anyway, anyone reading this thread knows it now. 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.
Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada
#503Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are probably not wrong about this since we know China wants to take Taiwan at some point in the future. It makes sense that they would map out any vulnerabilities of potential adversaries who might be involved in defending Taiwan since the battle for Taiwan will not be easy.
China invades Taiwan and the entire free world beats it into submission, no contest whatsoever. Straight up steamroll. That’s why China wants to triple their Nuclear stockpile in less than 10 years. They know they don’t stand a chance otherwise. https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2022/11/29/pentagon-china-...
There will be no time for the "free world" to meet and decide how to respond since it will be every man for himself at that point. There will be no true winners.
When the dust settles, most of the world's population, including everyone north of the equator, will be dealing with the fallout of something that did not have to happen.
If anything of American society remains then they will find themselves needing to manage their own affairs with no central government or services to fall back on. Other adversaries may try to land forces here to sweep across the nation while we are down. It will be up to us to stop them and to restore some local semblance of law and order so that we can all organize a strong defense.
China doesn't have the industrial ability to build a navy strong enough to counter the US Navy so they have to carry out these intelligence operations in order to identify any exploitable weaknesses in communications infrastructure, military capabilities, etc. They have the manpower that they can call on to conduct a large scale invasion of Taiwan but they have no way at the moment to transport them to the island in large enough numbers to hold a beachhead. They are rapidly expanding their landing craft fleet though and their "civilian" navy is large. We need to arm Taiwan to the point where it is obvious that any attempt to float an invasion fleet across the straights will be a disaster. We also need to maintain regular patrols through the South China Sea including past all of the recently fortified islands claimed and manned by China so that we have the assets in position to mount a credible defense and to deny China the opportunity to prevent reinforcements or to blockade the island.
We have gamed this many times over the years but all things considered, we wasted the opportunity to prevent it entirely. Had we taken economic steps to prevent the growth of China's economy and the strong dependence of the west on cheap Chinese products by bringing industries back onshore in the US and Europe then we could have moderated their growth in a more controlled fashion instead of dumping cash into their economy that effectively set us up as the financiers of our own destruction. Today, we are looking at the near certainty, unless Xinping is replaced, of a war with China after several decades of allowing them to make up a huge technological deficit by stealing intellectual property on a huge scale so they could turn it against us. We can always strike first. That would make us the asshole though so it is better that we exhaust every other option before pushing those other buttons while we scramble to produce things we developed years ago but put on the back burner since there was no pressing need for them against less capable adversaries.
Like the Russians, China can throw millions of men at any adversary and many of those men know, because of the One Child policy, that there is a demographic situation where they will never marry or have families. The next 10 years will be quite interesting.
Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada
#504Earlier quoted context omitted.
China invades Taiwan and the entire free world beats it into submission, no contest whatsoever. Straight up steamroll. That’s why China wants to triple their Nuclear stockpile in less than 10 years. They know they don’t stand a chance otherwise. https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2022/11/29/pentagon-china-...
There is some truth to this. We don't want to have to find out though since this will go nuclear as soon as military operations start to affect mainland China. They will launch first and then hope for the best. They know they will only have one shot at it. There will be no time for the "free world" to meet and decide how to respond since it will be every man for himself at that point. There will be no true winners. W…
and, yet, . . .
As China Expands Its Fleets, US Analysts Call for Catch-up Efforts
The disparity has prompted U.S. maritime experts to call for a "Ships Act" comparable to the recently enacted "Chips Act" that supports the return of chip manufacturing to the United States.
.. Bryan McGrath, managing director at The FerryBridge Group, told VOA Mandarin that the shipbuilding bases of the U.S. and China are simply not comparable.
"The Chinese industrial base is a behemoth, and the U.S. shipbuilding industrial base is freakishly undersized as a function of the size of America's economy and its influence in the world," McGrath said.
As of 2020, the U.S. Navy had 297 battle force ships, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service. China surpassed the U.S. as the world's largest navy with an inventory of about 355 vessels, according to a U.S. Defense Department report released in 2021. The Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) projects that China will have 400 battle force ships by 2025 and 425 by 2030.
https://www.voanews.com/a/as-china-expands-its-fleets-us-ana...Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada
#505Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is some truth to this. We don't want to have to find out though since this will go nuclear as soon as military operations start to affect mainland China. They will launch first and then hope for the best. They know they will only have one shot at it. There will be no time for the "free world" to meet and decide how to respond since it will be every man for himself at that point. There will be no true winners. W…
> China doesn't have the industrial ability to build a navy strong enough to counter the US Navy . . . and, yet, . . . As China Expands Its Fleets, US Analysts Call for Catch-up Efforts The disparity has prompted U.S. maritime experts to call for a "Ships Act" comparable to the recently enacted "Chips Act" that supports the return of chip manufacturing to the United States. .. Bryan McGrath, managing director at The…
The one thing that is not covered well there is the type of ships in the Chinese versus US Navy. Even with fewer ships we have more tonnage. A large part of the Chinese Navy consists of coastal defense assets which are smaller vessels. With that said they do have excellent anti-ship defenses and are gaming to be able to manage a conflict where we bring our carriers and air assets to bear.
https://www.defenceprocurementinternational.com/features/mar...
This is the reason that we have inked defense agreements in the region. Spreading the costs of defending the free passage of goods through the South China Sea with other nations allows us an opportunity to build a larger, more modern navy and buys time.
We should be investing in naval assets too since some of the most recent programs ended up with us buying fewer vessels than originally contracted and with those vessels being ill suited for the original task they were designed to handle.
As the VOA article mentions, we will likely run into problems mobilizing for a ship-building effort since it already is hard enough to find skilled workers (welders, etc) for industries that employ most of them today like the pipeline and oil and gas industry. A return to teaching trades in high school would be a great start that would pay dividends nearly immediately as the first class graduates into the work force.
Feel free to double check everything I posted. I could be totally wrong about any or all of it. Thanks.
Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada
#506Earlier quoted context omitted.
> China doesn't have the industrial ability to build a navy strong enough to counter the US Navy . . . and, yet, . . . As China Expands Its Fleets, US Analysts Call for Catch-up Efforts The disparity has prompted U.S. maritime experts to call for a "Ships Act" comparable to the recently enacted "Chips Act" that supports the return of chip manufacturing to the United States. .. Bryan McGrath, managing director at The…
This is true and I actually read that report so I obviously forgot about all that. The one thing that is not covered well there is the type of ships in the Chinese versus US Navy. Even with fewer ships we have more tonnage. A large part of the Chinese Navy consists of coastal defense assets which are smaller vessels. With that said they do have excellent anti-ship defenses and are gaming to be able to manage a confli…
I'm Australian and aware that China buys from our state alone (Western Australia) 16x more iron ore per annum than the US has ever managed to produce in a year .. this figure alone undercuts many arguments about China's perceived industrial capacity.
They are easily capable (for example) of producing 14x more shit steel than the max US steel capacity .. while at the same time producing 2x the max US quality steel capacity.
Any China-US naval engagement could very well see a new strategic inflection in any case.
Theres's been ironclad supremacy, an age of battleships, and a time of carriers as king.
China has put up (and taken down) several videos of highly coordinated unmanned drone swarms, in the air, on water, under water.
Very large swarms of drones that are nothing but sensors, engines and explosives that can react and maneuver are very asymmetric in cost.
Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada
#507Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "It had multiple antennas to include an array likely capable of collecting and geolocating communications," the official added. https://www.ft.com/content/96992b83-58f7-4cdb-9900-a2bc59677...
It had multiple antennas? Holy cow that's bad. That definitely rules out weather balloons then.
Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada
#508Earlier quoted context omitted.
Forced labour camps, genocide, authoritarian, cyber warfare against other nations, salami slicing neighbours, purposefully violating air space over other nations. I don't think China needs any demonisation. This is just showing its reality. If anything both sides of the political spectrum doesn't want to get into showing China as the demon because unlike the previous cold war, they are not sure if they can win it or…
China is weakening. Centralization of power is making the government brittle. The government is deeply unpopular domestically, and there is no outlet for this resentment so it's continually building. China has no real allies; most countries, especially their neighbours, deeply distrust them. China's demographic outlook is terrible; the population has peaked and they've transitioned directly from enforced one-child to…
Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada
#509Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pilots always claim sensor interference- it covers any mistakes they may have made.
F-22 pilots are not scrubs that got the job by luck. To be one, means being among the best. If it is being reported accurately, that the F-22 pilot says there was some kind of interference coming from the object, then there likely really is something to it.
"How do you become an F-22 pilot?" - https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/e76db/how_do_you_...
Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada
#510Earlier quoted context omitted.
It had multiple antennas? Holy cow that's bad. That definitely rules out weather balloons then.
Does it not? Or are you being sincere?