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

221–230 of 864 posts

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

#221

Post by justinclift »

mancerayder wrote: post #63
justinclift wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the above hypothesis is true, it means ... In your comment, you say "it means the US is trying to rile up / ready /etc" the population. That's not the only plausible (or even most likely) scenario though. The publishing of this info could indeed be for that purpose. Or it could be for something else, such as to influence the currently-ongoing negotiations with other players (eg European) at a critical time. Or i…

You mean influence the population of European allies or their leaders? The hypothesis above is roughly connected to this wider idea about international relations that the 'big ideas' happen behind closed doors, and there is a second 'public' face. Here the balloon type incidents leak to the public strategically while other incidents go unmentioned except in private or in some esoteric place. If true, why would the US…

> You mean influence the population of European allies or their leaders?

Their leaders, and the people representing them during negotiations.

> If true, why would the US press and mainstream media be headlining it when of course it'll enrage the population.

No idea. Possibly a side effect, maybe wanted, maybe not.

Potentially so "the population" gets onboard with whatever the outcome of the EU negotiations are.

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

#222

Post by wheelie_boy »

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…

Part of the provocation is that China has been seen testing balloons as a weapons delivery platform for high-speed gliding munitions

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/23758/video-appears-to...

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

#223

Post by jcynix »

pixl97 wrote: post #132
markdown wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely the appropriate response is to release some "weather" balloons from Taiwan.

I'm pretty sure they'd head towards the US too, but I'm not exactly sure of the prevailing winds.

You can check wind conditions with https://www.windy.com to find out …

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

#224

Post by consumer451 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #188
consumer451 wrote: post #47

> Officials said the object was far smaller than the previous balloon, did not appear to be maneuverable and was traveling at a much lower altitude. "Not maneuverable" and "previous balloon" so is it fair to assume that it's a balloon as well?

No, it is just as likely to be a reporter's garbled understanding of an explanation. In mysterious matters wait until you have 2 or 3 datapoints before using a heuristic.

Agreed, but the "previous balloon" part may be unnecessary.

User dTal is on the same train of thought as I was regarding the "not maneuverable" part.

What other type of object exists which can fly and yet does not have the ability to maneuver?

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

#225

Post by buildsjets »

Scoundreller wrote: post #37
petre wrote: post #33

> An F-22 fighter jet shot down the object using an A9X missile What a waste if $200k, shooting Chinese baloons. These shold be zapped using lasers.

Lots of zaps needed. But I guess if you cut a big enough line (or circle) it’ll do the job.

The YAL-1 747 Airborne Laser had a megawatt class chemical oxygen-iodine laser. In an unclassified presentation I was at they claimed a hubcap-sized (30cm-ish?) spot diameter firing from Seattle to Wenatchee (~200 km) with the capability to melt thru an aluminum ICBM skin in just a few millisecond pulses. I think we could pop that balloon.

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

#226

Post by thedorkknight »

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…

That was actually similar to a concern from CIA director Walter Bedell Smith:

>According to Smith, it was CIA’s responsibility by statute to coordinate the intelligence effort required to solve the problem. Smith also wanted to know what use could be made of the UFO phenomenon in connection with US psychological warfare efforts.

https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/cias-role-in-t...

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

#227

Post by x3n0ph3n3 »

voldacar wrote: post #133
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…

Pringles cans have never been observed to move in ways that violate Newton's laws

Nor has there been good evidence of UAPs doing so.

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

#228

Post by cpursley »

r3trohack3r wrote: post #126
themodelplumber wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny, though tbh it seems like there are cheaper ways to cause the US to spend gobs of cash. I even hesitate to mention some ideas that immediately come to mind that would be easier/more efficient to really nail than the Pringles can idea. Plus many of the more prominent base-personnel sightings land quite a bit far from that particular ballpark. Take a look into the Rendlesham Forest incident for example. The probl…

Had never heard of the Rendlesham Forest incident - what a rabbit hole. Thank you for sharing.

Knowledge like this is what keeps bringing me back to HN.

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

#229

Post by arcticfox »

bailoon wrote: post #169
next_xibalba wrote: post #108

I've wondered if these incursions are intentional on the part of the Chinese to provoke a precedent setting response to airborne (and beyond) surveillance. "They shoot down our surveillance balloons, giving us precedent to shoot down their high altitude drone planes or satellites in the future."

> I've wondered if these incursions are intentional on the part of the Chinese to provoke a precedent setting response to airborne (and beyond) surveillance. It's more likely a coordinated event to get people to talk about something other than covid and the last 3 disastrous years. Lets be honest here, neither china nor the US wants people asking uncomfortable questions about covid. Now that the covid era appears to…

>Lets be honest here, neither china nor the US wants people asking uncomfortable questions about covid

at least in the US, I don't think anyone is really interested in covid anymore enough to require any distraction. Maybe that argument makes sense in China.

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

#230

Post by tsimionescu »

kazmerb wrote: post #186
sschueller wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see much difference between Chinese routers having back-doors and what Cisco has peddled to its customers all these years either willfully or just incompetence.

I'd rather my own government spy on me than China. I'd rather Hannibal fucking Lecter be able to see me through my webcam than China.

Your own government has a much higher ability to affect your life than China does, so what you're saying is completely irrational. Not that it's OK for the Chinese to spy on us, mind you, or to claim that they don't have nefarious purposes.
Post reply on HN