4 flying objects have been shot down over North America: “Spy balloons and UFOs up to no good” (1 Viewer)

[Doug B]

Photos of balloon being pulled out of the ocean.

Another article with some more details (ABC News, 2/7/2023):

Officials have said the debris field is approximately the size of 15 football fields by 15 football fields [a square-mile-ish - db] and that the balloon had propellers and a rudder.​

​

...​

​

The Pentagon has said FBI experts were aboard recovery vessels and a senior government official has said pieces would be brought to the FBI lab in Quantico, Virginia, for analysis.​

​

...​

​

Another official confirmed that the balloon was equipped with self-destruct explosives [!!! - db], but so far, no explosives have been found.​

​

The same official confirms that U.S. U2 spy lines [sic -- I think this is supposed to be 'spy planes' - db] were used to photograph the payload area carrying the sensor equipment, adding that allowing the balloon to fly over the U.S. provided valuable information about how they operate.​

---

I had previously read about the use of U2 planes to photograph the balloon's payload over the US Midwest ... but it was on only semi-reputable websites. This time it's ABC News running with it.

 

[fatness]

You just know those Navy guys recovering the balloon were trying to huff little pockets of leftover helium and talking in funny voices.

 

[the moops]

Seems odd to scrutinize the military in t

China Has an Extensive Satellite Network. Here’s Why It Would Use a Balloon to Spy (Time, 2/3/2023)

This article is from before the shoot-down. I'm posting it here because it gives a lot of good background information about the applicability of balloon surveillance in the modern world.

They're beta launches in case China wants to EMP the US. What the article pointedly fails to mention screams loudest.

Couldn't you do an EMP attack with a ballistic missile?

Yes, but we're equipped to knock those down.

And now we know we are equipped to knock down a balloon too

 

[jamny]

Seems odd to scrutinize the military in t

China Has an Extensive Satellite Network. Here’s Why It Would Use a Balloon to Spy (Time, 2/3/2023)

This article is from before the shoot-down. I'm posting it here because it gives a lot of good background information about the applicability of balloon surveillance in the modern world.

They're beta launches in case China wants to EMP the US. What the article pointedly fails to mention screams loudest.

Couldn't you do an EMP attack with a ballistic missile?

Yes, but we're equipped to knock those down.

And now we know we are equipped to knock down a balloon too

But can they now detect them all?

The Pentagon said over the weekend that Chinese spy balloons had briefly flown over the United States at least three times during President Donald Trump's administration and one previously under President Joe Biden. Air Force General Glen VanHerck, head of U.S. North American Aerospace Defense Command and Northern Command, said the latest balloon was 200 feet (60 meters) tall and the payload under it weighed a couple thousand pounds.
He did not provide details on previous balloons, including where over the United States they flew.

"I will tell you that we did not detect those threats, and that's a domain awareness gap," VanHerck said.

That's not very reassuring.

 

[fatness]

Good, long article about balloons, satellites, laws affecting each, abilities to track each:
Balloons vs. satellites: Popping some misconceptions about capability and legality

And it seems the high-flying balloons can slip through what US Northern Command chief Gen. Glen VanHerck called a “domain awareness gap” in US defenses. Today former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told CNN that the military is good at tracking objects under around 50,000 feet and in space, but apparently not as good in the “gray area” between the two.

Stilwell further noted that in recent years there have been “some breakthroughs in technology” stemming from Google’s Project Loon, inaugurated back in 2011 to provide internet access to unconnected areas of the globe via a fleet of high-altitude balloons.

While Google’s parent Alphabet shut down the effort in 2021, the project did result in a number of technical achievements, including the development of computer algorithms to precisely gauge wind currents and thus, in essence, steer the balloon — rather than the balloon being simply swept along by whatever draft caught it. It also enabled balloons to extend loiter time over any one spot on Earth.

“One of the things that the Loon Project overcame … is the navigation issue,” Stilwell said. “And they were able to put balloons where they wanted,” thus enabling them “to loiter over a more precise area.”

“The vast majority of intelligence collection these days is done by satellites because they have the freedom of overflight,” he said. Balloons, however, do not. Like other aircraft, they are subject to international aviation law which sets out that a nation’s airspace is sovereign territory that cannot be traversed without express permission. “The difference is there is a treaty that says there is no sovereignty for objects in space, and there is a treaty that says there is absolute sovereignty for aircraft over the territory of a country,” Stilwell said.

 

[fatness]

The main provision is Article 1, which states: “The contracting States recognize that every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory.”

To complicate matters somewhat, there isn’t a legal definition, or even an agreed technical one, of exactly where airspace ends and outer space begins. Because of the differing laws of physics that line is generally defined as about 100 kilometers (some 62 miles, or 328,000 feet). But Stilwelll stressed that the debate “has nothing to do with where that balloon was” — which was some 60,000 to 90,000 feet and well inside what is legally described in the US as “controlled airspace” within the ICAO framework.

So, the bottom line is that the US has a pretty solid legal case for shooting down the Chinese balloon. (Note that the Chinese said the shoot down violated only the “spirit” of international law.)

China, by contrast, has no legal right to shoot down a spy satellite during peacetime. “There is zero rationale — militarily, politically, or legally — for China to destroy a US satellite in response to this, and doing so would be a gross escalation of the situation, one that could be seen as an armed attack depending on the specific satellite,” Weeden said.

 

[Orange&Blue]

For whatever any of us thinks this is worth - NORAD's commander held a press conference about the balloon today. There is no video -- transcript below:

Gen. Glen VanHerck, Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command and United States Northern Command, Holds an Off-Camera, On-The-Record Briefing on the High-Altitude Surveillance Balloon Recovery Efforts (US Dept of Defense, 2/6/2023)

CNN is leading with this part:

GEN. VANHERCK: So those balloons, so every day as a NORAD commander it's my responsible to -- responsibility to detect threats to North America. I will tell you that we did not detect those threats. And that's a domain awareness gap that we have to figure out. But I don't want to go in further detail.

That's honestly pretty amazing, if true. I know our air defenses are based mainly around intercepting bombers and stuff like that, but how does a giant balloon with a bunch of electronics visible to the naked eye slip by undetected? What the hell?

Our radar software probably dismissed the signal as noise because it was moving so slow.

 

[fatness]

I know our air defenses are based mainly around intercepting bombers and stuff like that, but how does a giant balloon with a bunch of electronics visible to the naked eye slip by undetected? What the hell?

Altitude. We can see accurately up to a certain height, and then further up we can see accurately again, but there is a gap between those 2 areas. Which obviously the Chinese knew since they face the same problem. The naked eye and long visibility time gave this one away.

 

[3C's]

I know our air defenses are based mainly around intercepting bombers and stuff like that, but how does a giant balloon with a bunch of electronics visible to the naked eye slip by undetected? What the hell?

Altitude. We can see accurately up to a certain height, and then further up we can see accurately again, but there is a gap between those 2 areas. Which obviously the Chinese knew since they face the same problem. The naked eye and long visibility time gave this one away.

This one actually did not slip by undetected, they saw it before it reached Alaska but determined it wasn't a threat. The previous ones were possibly on radar as well but those monitoring radar (or the monitoring s/w) missed them which could be the "awareness gap" the general spoke of.

As for the shoot it down over land crowd, shoot it down with what? The shells from a jet's cannon would travel for miles, and if they miss with a missile or it doesn't explode in air that would be a huge mess. So it's not just the payload they had to worry about. But as has been speculated, likely the main reason they waited was to gather more intel.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I'm supportive that we didn't shoot it down. We showed, for once, that we are capable of restraint.

Even better though, we forced the Chinese to walk around with their fly open for a few days. This was very embarrassing for a country that hates to be embarrassed.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm supportive that we didn't shoot it down. We showed, for once, that we are capable of restraint.

Even better though, we forced the Chinese to walk around with their fly open for a few days. This was very embarrassing for a country that hates to be embarrassed.

TBH, it's pretty alpha to let the balloon make it all the way across the continent only to shoot it down just as it was about to leave our air space. That's a pretty effective way of communicating the message "This doesn't scare us, but we're still blowing it up anyway just on general principle."

 

[Keerock]

I had previously read about the use of U2 planes to photograph the balloon's payload over the US Midwest ... but it was on only semi-reputable websites. This time it's ABC News running with it.

This made me laugh.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

China wants their stuff back.

Sure thing, China. Just fill out this form, pay a small processing and handling fee, and we'll send it on its way. Expect a slight delay in turn around time.

 

[The General]

I'm supportive that we didn't shoot it down. We showed, for once, that we are capable of restraint.

Even better though, we forced the Chinese to walk around with their fly open for a few days. This was very embarrassing for a country that hates to be embarrassed.

Yep. China’s reaction was about as much of a mea culpa as you could possibly get, they said we “seriously violated the spirit of international law and international practice”.

Oh no!

 

[jamny]

So if another one comes into our airspace, we let it through again?

 

[Doug B]

China wants their stuff back.

Sure thing, China. Just fill out this form, pay a small processing and handling fee, and we'll send it on its way. Expect a slight delay in turn around time.

To be fair ... in 2001, they sent us back our EP-3 signal intelligence plane -- in nicely boxed-up parts -- after three months.

 

[brun]

I know our air defenses are based mainly around intercepting bombers and stuff like that, but how does a giant balloon with a bunch of electronics visible to the naked eye slip by undetected? What the hell?

Altitude. We can see accurately up to a certain height, and then further up we can see accurately again, but there is a gap between those 2 areas. Which obviously the Chinese knew since they face the same problem. The naked eye and long visibility time gave this one away.

This one actually did not slip by undetected, they saw it before it reached Alaska but determined it wasn't a threat. The previous ones were possibly on radar as well but those monitoring radar (or the monitoring s/w) missed them which could be the "awareness gap" the general spoke of.

As for the shoot it down over land crowd, shoot it down with what? The shells from a jet's cannon would travel for miles, and if they miss with a missile or it doesn't explode in air that would be a huge mess. So it's not just the payload they had to worry about. But as has been speculated, likely the main reason they waited was to gather more intel.

We could repurpose the lawn darts that can't be sold anymore.

 

[sho nuff]

So if another one comes into our airspace, we let it through again?

Maybe? Depends on the threat assessment.

 

[the moops]

So if another one comes into our airspace, we let it through again?

Maybe? Why so distrustful of people who are paid lots of money to protect us?

 

[3C's]

China wants their stuff back.

Sure thing, China. Just fill out this form, pay a small processing and handling fee, and we'll send it on its way. Expect a slight delay in turn around time.

Come get it!

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

I'm supportive that we didn't shoot it down. We showed, for once, that we are capable of restraint.

Even better though, we forced the Chinese to walk around with their fly open for a few days. This was very embarrassing for a country that hates to be embarrassed.

TBH, it's pretty alpha to let the balloon make it all the way across the continent only to shoot it down just as it was about to leave our air space. That's a pretty effective way of communicating the message "This doesn't scare us, but we're still blowing it up anyway just on general principle."

I like this angle even if I don’t give them that much credit. Hope you’re right.

 

[The General]

So if another one comes into our airspace, we let it through again?

I’ll defer to the opinion of the dudes who have the uniforms with all the flair and medals.

 

[jamny]

So if another one comes into our airspace, we let it through again?

Maybe? Depends on the threat assessment.

So they deemed this one as no threat but also say it could have contained explosives. Which is it?
If there was any chance that it actually did contain explosives, it should not have been able to make it over populated areas, especially since they admit it has happened 3 times previously.
One time, shame on them....

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Explosives? There was zero chance it had explosives. China isn't going to run the risk of bombing the USA with a stupid balloon.

 

[jamny]

Explosives? There was zero chance it had explosives. China isn't going to run the risk of bombing the USA with a stupid balloon.

Asked about the potential hazards if the balloon had been shot down over land, VanHerck said the device had “glass off of [its] solar panels; potentially hazardous material, such as material that is required for batteries to operate in such an environment as this; and even the potential for explosives to detonate and destroy the balloon that could have been present.” He stopped short of confirming that the balloon was, in fact, carrying explosives.

Sounds like there was more than a zero chance.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Explosives? There was zero chance it had explosives. China isn't going to run the risk of bombing the USA with a stupid balloon.

Asked about the potential hazards if the balloon had been shot down over land, VanHerck said the device had “glass off of [its] solar panels; potentially hazardous material, such as material that is required for batteries to operate in such an environment as this; and even the potential for explosives to detonate and destroy the balloon that could have been present.” He stopped short of confirming that the balloon was, in fact, carrying explosives.

That's a technicality. Explosives of a self destruct variety are of zero concern.

I'm more concerned about the loss of objectivity in this country.

This is so sounding like Dwayne T Robinson complaining that he has about a hundred people all covered in glass.

"Glass? Who gives a #### about glass?"

 

[jamny]

Explosives? There was zero chance it had explosives. China isn't going to run the risk of bombing the USA with a stupid balloon.

Asked about the potential hazards if the balloon had been shot down over land, VanHerck said the device had “glass off of [its] solar panels; potentially hazardous material, such as material that is required for batteries to operate in such an environment as this; and even the potential for explosives to detonate and destroy the balloon that could have been present.” He stopped short of confirming that the balloon was, in fact, carrying explosives.

That's a technicality. Explosives of a self destruct variety are of zero concern.

I’ll defer to the opinion of the dudes who have the uniforms with all the flair and medals.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

We could repurpose the lawn darts that can't be sold anymore

As long as they were the ones made in China. That would really make them think.

 

[fatness]

Another official confirmed that the balloon was equipped with self-destruct explosives, but so far, no explosives have been found.
The same official confirms that U.S. U2 spy lines were used to photograph the payload area carrying the sensor equipment, adding that allowing the balloon to fly over the U.S. provided valuable information about how they operate.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nav...rveillance-balloon-recovery/story?id=96950346

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Explosives? There was zero chance it had explosives. China isn't going to run the risk of bombing the USA with a stupid balloon.

Asked about the potential hazards if the balloon had been shot down over land, VanHerck said the device had “glass off of [its] solar panels; potentially hazardous material, such as material that is required for batteries to operate in such an environment as this; and even the potential for explosives to detonate and destroy the balloon that could have been present.” He stopped short of confirming that the balloon was, in fact, carrying explosives.

That's a technicality. Explosives of a self destruct variety are of zero concern.

I’ll defer to the opinion of the dudes who have the uniforms with all the flair and medals.

What you're talking about is their saving face. They had no good explanation for why they missed it so they gave a BS one why they couldn't/shouldn't shoot it down.

Now, I'll agree that it should have been handled before it got here. But now that we know what we're looking for I'm 100% sure it'll be handled better from this point. Our guys don't like getting caught with their pants down either.

 

[jamny]

Another official confirmed that the balloon was equipped with self-destruct explosives, but so far, no explosives have been found.
The same official confirms that U.S. U2 spy lines were used to photograph the payload area carrying the sensor equipment, adding that allowing the balloon to fly over the U.S. provided valuable information about how they operate.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nav...rveillance-balloon-recovery/story?id=96950346

I'm not saying it had explosives, but there was a non-zero chance that it did according to Air Force General Glen VanHerck. That's why I said if there was any chance that it did, it should not have been able to make it over populated areas, even just to prevent an accident. If this had been the first one, ok. But this was the 4th one.

 

[the moops]

Explosives? There was zero chance it had explosives. China isn't going to run the risk of bombing the USA with a stupid balloon.

Asked about the potential hazards if the balloon had been shot down over land, VanHerck said the device had “glass off of [its] solar panels; potentially hazardous material, such as material that is required for batteries to operate in such an environment as this; and even the potential for explosives to detonate and destroy the balloon that could have been present.” He stopped short of confirming that the balloon was, in fact, carrying explosives.

That's a technicality. Explosives of a self destruct variety are of zero concern.

I’ll defer to the opinion of the dudes who have the uniforms with all the flair and medals.

So you defer to them on this but ignore all the other stuff they say?

That is some sweet selectiveness

 

[The General]

So if another one comes into our airspace, we let it through again?

Maybe? Depends on the threat assessment.

So they deemed this one as no threat but also say it could have contained explosives. Which is it?
If there was any chance that it actually did contain explosives, it should not have been able to make it over populated areas, especially since they admit it has happened 3 times previously.
One time, shame on them....

Why do you think they determined that the best course was to let it float then blow it up over the Atlantic?

 

[Doug B]

Another official confirmed that the balloon was equipped with self-destruct explosives, but so far, no explosives have been found.
The same official confirms that U.S. U2 spy lines were used to photograph the payload area carrying the sensor equipment, adding that allowing the balloon to fly over the U.S. provided valuable information about how they operate.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nav...rveillance-balloon-recovery/story?id=96950346

The wording of the bolded part makes me wonder if they were able to somehow visually confirm a self-destruct apparatus with the U2 fly-bys ... but just haven't found the same apparatus in the water yet. Or else a bit of smoke being thrown

 

[fatness]

I'm supportive that we didn't shoot it down. We showed, for once, that we are capable of restraint.

Even better though, we forced the Chinese to walk around with their fly open for a few days. This was very embarrassing for a country that hates to be embarrassed.

You could tell they were really embarrassed when they fired their head meteorologist over it. I guess he didn't control the winds correctly.

 

[fatness]

The wording of the bolded part makes me wonder if they were able to somehow visually confirm a self-destruct apparatus with the U2 fly-bys ... but just haven't found the same apparatus in the water yet.

That's the way I read it --- the U2 saw the apparatus but they haven't found it yet.

 

[Doug B]

The wording of the bolded part makes me wonder if they were able to somehow visually confirm a self-destruct apparatus with the U2 fly-bys ... but just haven't found the same apparatus in the water yet.

That's the way I read it --- the U2 saw the apparatus but they haven't found it yet.

They won't be made public anytime soon ... but I believe there must be copious close-up photos of the balloon's payload. The U2's are purpose-built for that sort of thing.

 

[jamny]

So if another one comes into our airspace, we let it through again?

Maybe? Depends on the threat assessment.

So they deemed this one as no threat but also say it could have contained explosives. Which is it?
If there was any chance that it actually did contain explosives, it should not have been able to make it over populated areas, especially since they admit it has happened 3 times previously.
One time, shame on them....

Why do you think they determined that the best course was to let it float then blow it up over the Atlantic?

I would never say for sure and we may never know. But to speculate, I'd say indecisiveness and the hope it wouldn't be known about in the public so let it pass through like the previous 3. No idea when they actually detected it, especially considering their comments about how difficult it is.

 

[Doug B]

No idea when they actually detected it ...

Quite early on, over Japan.

They wanted eyes (and hands if possible) on that payload. Would've been better (cleaner) if civilians had never seen the thing, but them's the breaks.

 

[The General]

Regarding the explosives comments I would think were some type that would be enough to blow up the tech not delivering damage to a city. The issues with shooting it down were deemed greater threat / keeping it floating around more valuable.

 

[Doug B]

And for anyone wondering "Why not shoot it down over the Aleutians?": That likely would have made recovering the payload impossible. The pieces would have fallen into the 27,000-foot deep Aleutian Trench -- far too deep to recover anything. The 47-foot deep waters off South Carolina were a perfect set-up.

 

[jamny]

Regarding the explosives comments I would think were some type that would be enough to blow up the tech not delivering damage to a city. The issues with shooting it down were deemed greater threat / keeping it floating around more valuable.

I agree that any explosive weren't meant to attack us. But blowing up the tech probably brings the balloon down. Had that happened over a populated area, that would have been a mess. Once it cleared open land, like over Montana, I don't think there was a choice but to let it go. Even Montana might have been too late.

 

[massraider]

I'm not saying it had explosives, but there was a non-zero chance that it did according to Air Force General Glen VanHerck. That's why I said if there was any chance that it did, it should not have been able to make it over populated areas, even just to prevent an accident.

Guy

I’ll defer to the opinion of the dudes who have the uniforms with all the flair and medals

 

[jamny]

I'm not saying it had explosives, but there was a non-zero chance that it did according to Air Force General Glen VanHerck. That's why I said if there was any chance that it did, it should not have been able to make it over populated areas, even just to prevent an accident.

Guy

I’ll defer to the opinion of the dudes who have the uniforms with all the flair and medals

If you're trying to use my own words against me, you should use a different quote. The ones you use don't contradict each other. I'm deferring to his opinion on whether there could have been explosives.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The lack of reading comprehension in this thread is appalling. Can you guys really not tell that he's riffing on a post made by another poster?

 

[the moops]

The lack of reading comprehension in this thread is appalling. Can you guys really not tell that he's riffing on a post made by another poster?

Oh we can. He also believes there were explosives because someone told us there was. But doesn't believe it was of no danger depsite what someone told us

 

[jamny]

The lack of reading comprehension in this thread is appalling. Can you guys really not tell that he's riffing on a post made by another poster?

Oh we can. He also believes there were explosives because someone told us there was. But doesn't believe it was of no danger depsite what someone told us

If their were explosives there is no way it could have been deemed safe. We all pick and choose what to believe.

 

[quick-hands]

Explosives? There was zero chance it had explosives. China isn't going to run the risk of bombing the USA with a stupid balloon.

Asked about the potential hazards if the balloon had been shot down over land, VanHerck said the device had “glass off of [its] solar panels; potentially hazardous material, such as material that is required for batteries to operate in such an environment as this; and even the potential for explosives to detonate and destroy the balloon that could have been present.” He stopped short of confirming that the balloon was, in fact, carrying explosives.

That's a technicality. Explosives of a self destruct variety are of zero concern.

I'm more concerned about the loss of objectivity in this country.

This is so sounding like Dwayne T Robinson complaining that he has about a hundred people all covered in glass.

"Glass? Who gives a #### about glass?"

to be fair they where covered with it.

 

[quick-hands]

I'm enthused that people are ready to argue, ignore, put words into each others mouths. The Politics forum is missed.


edit.....oh and parsing words.

 

[sho nuff]

The lack of reading comprehension in this thread is appalling. Can you guys really not tell that he's riffing on a post made by another poster?

Oh we can. He also believes there were explosives because someone told us there was. But doesn't believe it was of no danger depsite what someone told us

If their were explosives there is no way it could have been deemed safe. We all pick and choose what to believe.

Sure it could be deemed not to be an overall threat to national security and allowed to float. It seems it very much was deemed that.