Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

OmarLittleFinger t1_j81xmwp wrote

Is the attention to this balloon because of how absurd it is at the same time?

27

TheValgus t1_j821goi wrote

Its because they violated our airspace and lied about what they sent in.

Pretty hostile shit.

122

Diligent-Kangaroo-33 t1_j84wbi1 wrote

Balloons "hostile shit" you are drinking too much of the kool-aid. What's next Balloons are weapons of mass destruction ??

−41

backcountrydrifter t1_j84xfdk wrote

Raise your lens.

A balloon with an EMP charge on it could cripple 1/3 of the US power grid.

As a SIG-INT ISR tool it could intercept and divert critical defense communications.

N.B.C. Warfare isn’t really my area of expertise, but anything aerosolized at that altitude would be a highly effective weapon.

Xi Jinping said “I will control the internet” and he has a 14 year head start.

There is a lot more going on here than a stray balloon.

https://open.spotify.com/show/62dyKz8nKOOCjoU3E5ECdn?si=aUyQMg5VTLqD1REEZWRokg

19

AdminsAreLazyID10TS t1_j86iurk wrote

Lul, just letting the full jingo flap in the breeze. This is just as absurd in the other direction as pretending these are just weather balloons.

−12

thefugue t1_j82gh6z wrote

To some extent, yes.

At the start of last week, the idea of a balloon based spy technology was absurd and absolutely news worthy. In the worldview of the average person it would have been worthy of a punchline about Cuba or North Korean espionage.

19

genericrich t1_j84dfds wrote

You do this before a war to get a baseline of what you can gather with a balloon.

In the war, the satellites will all get shot down. It will be hard if not impossible to put up new ones after that. Look up Kessler syndrome.

So now you can fly your cheapie spy balloons over the ravaged USA to see what the Americans are up to next, and compare it to what you learned before the war.

−8

decomposition_ t1_j84j4es wrote

Source: trust me bro

12

genericrich t1_j865dcx wrote

Oh, sorry, I wasn't aware Reddit was the place you had to cite your sources for speculation about how folks aren't seemingly aware of how useful a balloon is for surveillance, and under what scenarios they might be critical.

Will leave the basic googling to you. Look into how cheap and useful balloons are, and why you might want to use them to understand and prepare for a conflict your military has been tasked with getting ready for, regardless of whether or not you intend to really fight a war.

−1

WestSixtyFifth t1_j84or2r wrote

China isn't going to war with the US and the West. Don't be ridiculous. They depend on importing way too much shit and there's only one earth. They can't find a replacement West.

They're just pushing the boundaries of what they're allowed to get away with. They know they're squarely the second power in the world, and that the US isn't going to escalate things without Americans being harmed. So they can pretty much do anything, like fly a spy balloon over 40 countries, and across the entire continental United States. With minimal, if any consequences.

9

genericrich t1_j8649zy wrote

News Flash: Militaries whose governments may not want war nevertheless plan for war. We have plans for invading Belgium, updated annually, for example. Not because the USA wants to invade Belgium, but because we want to be ready to do so if we need to.

Making the US agitated serves very little purpose, other than escalate tensions. You don't build and fly sophisticated spy rigs hanging from balloons without a plan, and China is known for long-term planning. It's not ridiculous notion to suggest that an otherwise nonsensical surveillance platform might have a use in a post-war scenario with the USA.

−3

rusty_programmer t1_j87rzs1 wrote

Lmao did you just casually drop some secrets to prove an argument? I wasn’t aware of our invasion plans being public except in certain places.

1

[deleted] t1_j823wlx wrote

[deleted]

−16

andoesq t1_j8277n4 wrote

I dunno, I saw in that article the referred to doing U2 flybys...

Which is a spy plane from 1954.

I guess absurd is relative? The US spies on an absurd Chinese balloon with (absurdly) a 1954 plane?

−18

SomeDEGuy t1_j82locf wrote

New models from 80s, with an upgrade a decade ago.

We have a limited number of planes that can do flybys at extremely high altitude.

Plus, if we did have a secret plane that could do it, we'd not want to reveal that and just use a u2, sinces it's flight performance is fairly well known.

16

apalebear t1_j81zwof wrote

I think Americans focus heavily on the visible and obvious, especially when it's initiated by other countries.

−29

thefugue t1_j82gnsw wrote

Everyone does. The CIA had a project where they were trying to install spy equipment in a cat’s body in the 70s or 80s. A lot of spy craft takes advantage of what people refuse to take seriously. Sometimes it works, other times it doesn’t.

13

skrilledcheese t1_j82y1me wrote

Good old project "Acoustic kitty"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_Kitty

>Sometimes it works, other times it doesn’t.

It never stops spy agencies from trying weird shit though.

Case in point, CIA project "Midnight Climax", which involved prostitutes and LSD... for reasons.

6

Inquisitive_idiot t1_j857yot wrote

That’s completely unacceptable.

$20 million dollars and they couldn’t at least come up with:

> “pussy whisperer”

Why even bother at this point 🤦🏽

2

jayrocksd t1_j822bfj wrote

The attention is because it isn't any different than the US flying a U-2 over China.

−31

TintedApostle t1_j823hen wrote

It is in that the capability of the U2 is known. The intent of a balloon and its payload is not.

18

jayrocksd t1_j825jld wrote

The capability of the Chinese balloon and the U-2 aren't well known. The intent of flying a U-2 over a foreign country is pretty obvious. The U-2 observing the Chinese balloon was able to determine the balloon was doing intelligence gathering as well, so the intent is also obvious.

It is also an incontrovertible fact that doing either in foreign airspace without permission is a violation of international law assuming the payload of the balloon weighs more than 5kg (approximately 40 bananas.)

5

TintedApostle t1_j826iz7 wrote

Actually the open skies treaty said otherwise until Trump withdrew from it. China was never party to the treaty.

−5

jayrocksd t1_j82adry wrote

Open Skies required notification, certification and pre flight inspection.

Edit: and China was never a signatory.

9

TintedApostle t1_j82ahes wrote

and so satellites were positioned to do the covert work.

2

Vostok_Gagarin t1_j823j67 wrote

And when that was happening those were shot down so it’s funny they act surprised lol

3