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

US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 864 posts

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#211

Post by anigbrowl »

elmomle wrote: post #79
api wrote: post #59

So what’s the deal with these balloons? Provocation? Do they think nobody will notice?

It's boundary-pushing. They're unmanned and ambient, yet are clearly a provocation and give China an information advantage over where it would be without the balloons, and in a geopolitical sense it asserts Chinese ascendency. At the same time, it's hard for the US or other powers to figure out an appropriate response. Very similar to Russian/NK/Chinese/Israeli/American state-sponsored hacking groups--it continually…

If I were Russia (which is not far from Alaska) I would launch these at random intervals with junk COTS electronics just to confuse matters. The cost of each launch can probably be denominated in thousands.

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#212

Post by riku_iki »

pixl97 wrote: post #148
riku_iki wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they could buy western vaccine

And admit weakness?, autocracy doesn't like doing that much.

They not necessary need to tell population it is foreign vaccine.

But maybe they were trying to solve the problem of aging population that way.

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#213

Post by LarryMullins »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #198
api wrote: post #59

So what’s the deal with these balloons? Provocation? Do they think nobody will notice?

It's not like this is new. We know there were 3 during the T administration. Now for some reason we've decided we need to be paranoid about them.

> Now for some reason we've decided we need to be paranoid about them.

That last one getting noticed by the public probably had something to do with it.

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#214

Post by arcticfox »

serf wrote: post #190
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The sidewinder missile + F-22 flight time costs are an order of magnitude greater than the total cost of launching one balloon. This seems like conjecture. Is there any reliable data on how much said balloon cost?

>This seems like conjecture. It's conjecture for me to presume the sky is blue without looking out of my window, but it's a safe bet on days with good weather. Unless this balloon -- or whatever it was -- was diamond-bedazzled and platinum-plated and filled with alien technology it's a safe bet that it was a fair amount cheaper to produce/launch/maintain than sortieing one of the most expensive and exclusive modern a…

Right, but presumably F-22s need to fly and pilots need to shoot down things with live ammo occasionally anyways to stay in shape? And logistics needs to know how to supply, and intelligence needs to know how to scramble them etc.

This seems like what amounts to a training program to me, unless a lot more start coming.

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#215

Post by xwdv »

r3trohack3r wrote: post #95

There was a fun theory on UFOs I saw recently. The general premise is this: U.S. adversaries realized they couldn't compete with the U.S. on spending. So they got creative and loaded the equivalent of Pringles cans up with a bunch of sensors, hooked them up to either a balloons or relatively cheap unmanned aircraft, and sent them through U.S. airspace to collect intelligence. They'd occasionally get caught (perhaps o…

They need to stop doing this. If they send out thousands of cheap balloons it would be like a denial of service attack!!

We don’t have the bandwidth to basically dog fight thousands of aircraft simultaneously!! We’ll go bankrupt!

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#216

Post by billyhoffman »

thinking001001 wrote: post #13

I dread to think of all the state-funded technology companies with backdoor-ed firmware/software coming out of China

While RSA isn't a state-funded technology company, they did accept a $10M payment from the NSA to make their BSafe security product default to use the DUAL_EC_DRBG cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator. Which the NSA had designed and backdoored...

https://www.theverge.com/2013/12/20/5231006/nsa-paid-10-mill...

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#217

Post by password11 »

motohagiography wrote: post #185
password11 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's that America's adversaries know they can do it without consequences There was a consequence -- we shot it down. > That is the irreversible change it signifies, imo. It's not irreversible. Additional consequences can be initiated at any time.

You don't need to convince me, convince the people who keep sending the ballons, invading allies, and using NATO countries as rocket flyover paths.

[flagged]

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#219

Post by gattilorenz »

nonethewiser wrote: post #163
BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 wrote: post #80

Pot calling kettle black. The US has been sending armed drones into several countries without coordination with local ATC or consent of the local government. Soleimani and a number of Iraqi military officers were taken out by a US drone.

> Soleimani and a number of Iraqi military officers were taken out by a US drone. Good. Right?

Wasn’t Soleimani Iranian? Are you at war with Iran? Did he receive a fair trial?

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#220

Post by rocqua »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #20

We need a cheaper way to down these spy balloons. The sidewinder missile + F-22 flight time costs are an order of magnitude greater than the total cost of launching one balloon. Send over the High Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-dazzler (HELIOS) to protect the west coast.

What keeps a cannon from working? That would already reduce the costs by a lot, and from the visual identification it seems that 40,000 feet is well within the flight ceiling of fighter jets
Post reply on HN