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

U.S. military shoots down suspected Chinese surveillance balloon

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 1001 posts

Re: U.S. military shoots down suspected Chinese surveillance balloon

#341

Post by lagmos »

sandworm101 wrote: post #295
inawarminister wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Sending balloons i to the airspace of other countries makes china's intention undeniable: they do not care for any rules-based international system https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/american-u-2-spy...

60+ years ago, almost beyond living memory. Comparing the military/intelligence realities of the early cold war to now is tenuous at best. If anything, such historical incidents made everyone realize then the need for rules-based international order.

I think it's very idealistic to assume that the us has moved to accept rule of law or limitations when it comes ones to foreign policy and spying. We've had a sufficient examples (prism, renditionS, etc)

Re: U.S. military shoots down suspected Chinese surveillance balloon

#342

Post by [deleted] »

calderknight wrote: post #311
strulovich wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sort of calculations are slightly silly. F22s take off for training flights all the time, having one training flight switch to operational does not affect the cost. It’s similar for using missiles. The opportunity to shoot a real one at a real target is good training. Those things costs this money perhaps, but it’s not a useful way to think of it this way for such a case.

I think the implication is not that the cost in this specific case was very high. I think the point was that there is an assymetry in cost. So, if someone wanted to have balloons over the USA, it would be much cheaper for them to try than it would be for the USA to stop them. By the time someone starts sending 1000's of balloons, the costs to destroy them may add up.

[deleted]

Re: U.S. military shoots down suspected Chinese surveillance balloon

#343

Post by InTheArena »

akjetma wrote: post #325
rhaway84773 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s ironic to see a South Korean say this when all you need to do is look across the border to see what a Chinese supported alternative looks like.

The United States carpet bombed North Korea, destroying 90% of all structures in the country, killing 300,000 in the immediate bombing run, then sanctioned them into the stone age. The relative poverty of North Korea is not a consequence of Chinese support.

[flagged]

Re: U.S. military shoots down suspected Chinese surveillance balloon

#344

Post by sandworm101 »

beedeebeedee wrote: post #323
sandworm101 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But would you want to go recover it in the alaskan wilderness, possibly on a mountain, in winter? They waited until it got somewhere more convenient.

I don't think they are really that interested in recovering it- if you look at the photos, they targeted the payload instead of just the balloon. Only going to be litte bits leftover. https://news.usni.org/2023/02/04/3-navy-warships-fbi-now-hun...

They hit it with a sidewinder, which has a warhead more akin to a shotgun blast. Nothing will be totally destroyed. Enough will remain of its various sensors and antennas to tell exactly what it was doing.

Re: U.S. military shoots down suspected Chinese surveillance balloon

#345

Post by mlindner »

akjetma wrote: post #325
rhaway84773 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s ironic to see a South Korean say this when all you need to do is look across the border to see what a Chinese supported alternative looks like.

The United States carpet bombed North Korea, destroying 90% of all structures in the country, killing 300,000 in the immediate bombing run, then sanctioned them into the stone age. The relative poverty of North Korea is not a consequence of Chinese support.

The US did worse to Japan. Also South Korea was similarly carpet bombed in the process of re-taking it from the north as almost all territory was lost and the north almost won.

Re: U.S. military shoots down suspected Chinese surveillance balloon

#346

Post by pixl97 »

calderknight wrote: post #311
strulovich wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sort of calculations are slightly silly. F22s take off for training flights all the time, having one training flight switch to operational does not affect the cost. It’s similar for using missiles. The opportunity to shoot a real one at a real target is good training. Those things costs this money perhaps, but it’s not a useful way to think of it this way for such a case.

I think the implication is not that the cost in this specific case was very high. I think the point was that there is an assymetry in cost. So, if someone wanted to have balloons over the USA, it would be much cheaper for them to try than it would be for the USA to stop them. By the time someone starts sending 1000's of balloons, the costs to destroy them may add up.

'someone'

I mean it would be pretty easy to figure out who it was, if at nation state level enact things like embargos against them which would cost them quite a bit more. If not at nation state level they'd likely be taken care of much more quietly.

Re: U.S. military shoots down suspected Chinese surveillance balloon

#347

Post by orange_joe »

14u2c wrote: post #274
pxc wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? It's not derogatory. It's just shorter and in some ways better specified than 'American'. I also used the word 'American' in the same post! Just didn't feel like writing the whole thing out the second time. -_-

I don't care either way, but generally the term is used in specific context where the writer feels "American" would be too imperialistic as it excludes all others that live in the Americas. It devolves into debates about whether the US "stole" the demonym. Right or wrong, it's going to trigger some people.

Seems short sighted given Mexico is officially the United States of Mexico.

Re: U.S. military shoots down suspected Chinese surveillance balloon

#348

Post by rayiner »

SantalBlush wrote: post #326
mc32 wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're only examining one side of the story. Live in China for some time and see how they look at the rest of the world and people. And look at how we treat other current threats on the world stage at the moment. We do not make a special case for China --if anything the US has wishfully thought that if we treat them like a democracy they'll become a democracy and that has proven incorrect.

US foreign policy is not about spreading democracy. That's a bedtime story told to young Americans who don't know any better. The US is fine working with dictators; it's when those dictators stop playing ball or are ousted that we suddenly want to spread democracy. Noriega, Hussein and the Shah are easy examples.

And the idea that america props up dictators or topples regimes because “it wants their oil” is a bedtime story for jaded American teenagers who don’t know any better. If that was true American foreign policy would look a lot different (and wouldn’t be such a money sink). Where’s all that Iraqi oil money again?

U.S. foreign policy is aimed at maintaining stability and facilitating liberal capitalist democracy. We don’t regard popular movements that are communist or theocratic as “democracy” so we’re willing to support dictators to forestall that. But at the same time our foreign policy is fundamentally ideological in nature.

Re: U.S. military shoots down suspected Chinese surveillance balloon

#349

Post by DonHopkins »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #31
pyuser583 wrote: post #17

Am I the only one with “99 Luftballoons” in my head?

Nena probably got an extra $5 in royalties this month from the large number of people who immediately thought of that song.

And Nina Hagen probably also got an extra $5000 royalties this month from the even larger number of people who immediately confused her with Nena.

(Well deserved royalties, to compensate her for all the confusion!)

https://auntie-anti.livejournal.com/576.html

>y'all look the same to me.

>99 red balloons. Nina vs Nena: the continuing saga.

>Nina Hagen= Nina Hagen.

>Gabriele Susanne Kerner= Nena (nickname band name).

>Yes, they are both german women who's music career heights were in the 80's, and their first "names" are very similar, but that does not make them the same person.

>Nina Hagen= "The Mother of Punk".

>Nena= some sweaty chick in a band that had one fluffy hit single, and yes, please know that i'm talking about "99 red balloons". psst...the german version is better.

>Recently-ish photos of Nina Hagen were posted in a decent and somewhat elitist (in a good way) lj makeup community. She's a good example of outrageous makeup, and "known", or so I thought, for her style...as much as for her voice and music, since hers is not like anyone else's. I was terribly terribly terribly dead wrong. With the many-o-many comments that were being made, each stating a similar; "omfg i LOVE Nina Hagen and i loooove her song 99 red balloons!!! it's my most favourite retro song i love the 80's!" There was no correction in sight amongst the gathering list of commenters declaring their love and 'hoping for cool points' knowledge of Nina.

>This is Nina Hagen... [...follow links for outrageous photos...] doesn't even scratch the surface of all the looks, but i'd be here all year posting photos to almost accomplish that. she's deliciously fucked.

>And now pay close attention. This is Nena, the singer of "99 red/luftballoons"... um...yeah... And i even got a photo of them together. not the same person!

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v732/stabbings/ninanena.j...

>The bigger difference is in their singing voices actually.

>Nena= nice, normal, regular chick singing voice.

>Nina Hagen= is a vocal genius. studied opera and incorporates that in her insane variety of deranged sweetness, down to an extreme that makes all death metal bands sound like a choir of girl scouts with mints thins in their nickers.

https://www.last.fm/music/Nina+Hagen/_/99+Red+Balloons

https://songmeanings.com/songs/view/87616/

https://twitter.com/optiblu2013/status/1466506526831611906

https://songsear.ch/song/Nina-Hagen/99-Luft-Balloon/1481506

https://teenage.cz/texty/nina-hagen/-/99-red-balloons-99-luf...

Herman Brood, Nina Hagen & Lene Lovich - Crocodile (1979)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFIjlxl-DLI

Nina Hagen New York New York

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oiscau0zJKc

The closest she ever came to covering 99 Red Baboons was Auf'm Bahnhof Zoo:

NINA HAGEN - Auf´m Bahnhof Zoo "Live" 1978

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oiscau0zJKc

99 Red Baboons

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz-z_JV6wSE

http://www.amiright.com/parody/80s/nana0.shtml

Re: U.S. military shoots down suspected Chinese surveillance balloon

#350

Post by jemmyw »

akjetma wrote: post #325
rhaway84773 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s ironic to see a South Korean say this when all you need to do is look across the border to see what a Chinese supported alternative looks like.

The United States carpet bombed North Korea, destroying 90% of all structures in the country, killing 300,000 in the immediate bombing run, then sanctioned them into the stone age. The relative poverty of North Korea is not a consequence of Chinese support.

It's a consequence of the political system in North Korea and Chinese support. The industry of the north grew faster and was larger than the south after the war. Eventually the economy of South Korea overtook and then greatly surpassed the north. China support = not wanting the Americans to win but wanting to keep North Korea a poor subservient state. Is America as bad? Sometimes, but I think plurality of leadership thought in the West always tempers the worst instincts of their nation states.
Post reply on HN