Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
But it still comes down to consent. If it’s not there at the consent of the host nation (either specific to that situation or via the Chicago convention), then the host nation has every right to take the object down, and the originating party bears most of the moral burden of the situation.
Now, I’d still want the host nation to act as responsibly as possible (for example, the US not shooting down the original balloon over land due to risks to people on the ground).
I still think the jump from the original moral scenario of “no human on board balloon with a potentially plausible argument for being there” to a “passenger aircraft full of people, clearly operating under the Chicago convention” is… quite the leap and really not fairly representative of the original question, and therefore quite unfair to hold to the people who answered the first scenario.
It feels like asking “who’s responsible if bomb disposal techs blow up abandoned luggage”, and then turning around and asking people who respond “Oh?! So what if those bomb disposal techs blow up a bus filled with people??” It’s just not close to the same scenario, to the point of feeling almost like bad faith.