Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

Comments

  • edited February 2023
    Most interesting. Of course it was relaying mountains of data by way of satellite link right back to China. I’m sure it was a tough call when to shoot it down. As it was, 3 airports in the area, including very large CLT, were shut down for safety reasons during the mission to destroy it. NBC reports it’s in only 47 feet of water. I hope we learn a lot from studying the rubble. One wonders how this might affect funds with investments in China on Monday. I’ll guess not much - but stay tuned.

    Bingo - There may have been a decision to down it over water to better preserve the equipment on board for inspection. Water landings being softer. Of course, if true, this would be ”classified” information …:)
  • edited February 2023
    I can't help but wonder what "information" it supposedly acquired that was so important that their satellite systems couldn't see. Also, why would they deliberately choose to torpedo the visit from Anthony Blinken? If they didn't want his visit it seems to me that they would have made a more dramatic propaganda point by simply telling the US that they had nothing to talk about right now. Why deliberately sabotage his visit indirectly this way?

    There's just a lot about this whole "spy in the sky" characterization that doesn't add up for me.

    As far as shooting it down, it will be very interesting to find out what it was really capable of... if, of course, our own government decides to actually tell the truth about that. If this was a deliberate incursion surely the Chinese government anticipated that it would be shot down and it's equipment closely investigated. So it's highly likely that not much of anything very "secret" or technologically advanced will be found.

    This whole thing seems a bit farcical to me.

  • edited February 2023
    The Following excerpted from source

    ”What might it be spying on? According to Layton*, the suspected Chinese balloon is likely collecting information on US communication systems and radars. “Some of these systems use extremely high frequencies that are short range, can be absorbed by the atmosphere and being line-of-sight are very directional. It’s possible a balloon might be a better collection platform for such specific technical collection than a satellite,” he said.

    Retired US Air Force Col. Cedric Leighton, a CNN military analyst, echoed those thoughts. “They could be scooping up signals intelligence, in other words, they’re looking at our cell phone traffic, our radio traffic,” Leighton told CNN’s Erin Burnett. Intelligence data collected by the balloon could be relayed in real time via a satellite link back to China, Layton said.


    * Peter Layton, a fellow at the Griffith Asia Institute in Australia and former Royal Australian Air Force officer.

    Source
  • If the Chinese have nothing better to do than eavesdrop on "cell phone traffic" then good luck to them. And exactly what useful technical information can be obtained by looking at a local US radar beam? Radar technology is hardly a secret.

    How hard is it to find retired "experts" who are happy to expound on anything and everything, as if they have some impressive secret knowledge that isn't generally known? Nothing more than the military version of the hundreds of "financial experts" with whom we are so familiar.

    An old working associate summarized the whole thing very succinctly: "The world runs on bullshit". I've never found the slightest reason to contradict his observation.
  • Old_Joe said:

    I can't help but wonder what "information" it supposedly acquired that was so important that their satellite systems couldn't see. ....

    There's just a lot about this whole "spy in the sky" characterization that doesn't add up for me.

    +1.
  • edited February 2023
    @0ld_Joe,

    Your initial remark here was “I can't help but wonder what "information" it supposedly acquired that was so important that their satellite systems couldn't see.”

    I took time to run down and post for your benefit and for that of other participants here one possible theory on the subject. I’m sure there are lots of other theories floating around out there (no pun intended). Sorry if you felt I was directly refuting your interpretation. Please know it was not not my intent to promote Mr. Layton or Col. Leighton as possessing an understanding of espionage techniques / methods that match or exceed your vast knowledge on the matter. Nor was it my intent to give their interpretation greater weight than all the others under discussion. Simply put - Mr. Layton and Col.Leighton offered up a somewhat different theory from yours and I would have thought you might want to hear it.
  • edited February 2023
    Hey @hank, easy there... wasn't commenting on you- just how easy it is to find any kind of BS to "explain" anything that you care to mention. Surely we learned that from seeing the reaction to the Covid pandemic (from the President on down), and of course we all see that from financial "gurus" about twenty times each and every day. Truly, the world does run on BS, and there's an endless supply of that.
  • edited February 2023
    I think military / national security decisions should be left to the national security agencies and the military chain-of-command, including the President and his Defense Department advisors. The R’s bitching about the balloon don’t know piddly s*it about its capabilities, our own security actions taken in regard to it or, very likely, the top secret installations it passed over. I remember when “politics stopped at the water’s edge” - figuratively speaking.
  • ++1 @hank

    And medical decisions should be left to doctors and their patients. For the life of me I can't understand why this is so hard.
  • I absolutely agree with both of you, as usual.
  • "The R’s bitching about the balloon don’t know piddly s*it about its capabilities, our own security actions taken in regard to it or, very likely, the top secret installations it passed over." aka: The world runs on...
  • Anything to bitch about that they feel their kiddie crowd will wave a flag for.... 'R' or 'D' or 'L'. When folks only need a little bit to get their pee sized brains and mouths into a fit with little knowledge....this is the scary stuff. There are some folks here who have had access to serious information and know that others without that access wouldn't understand actions from the information, without having full access.
    Dear wife and I discussed this weekend, had the shoot-down taken place in Montana and the reported mass of 3 bus sizes fallen onto downtown Butte and killed folks......well then. Probably worse yet, to fall onto one of the mansions in the countryside, owned by a 'R'.
  • A few bullets instead of a missile could have brought this "weather" balloon to a some what gentile landing. I might be a hair off on this summation, but if you can put a man on the moon , one should be able to know how to deflate this target in a better manner.
  • You would need to get pretty close to use guns: the service ceiling of many of our fighters is "only" 50,000 feet, and the balloon was at 60,000 ft.

    In any case no matter how "gently" something the equivalent of "three large buses" lands on your roof, it's not going to be a pretty picture, is it?
  • edited February 2023
    @Derf, I agree with @Old_Joe. First time at this - better to drop it over water. If another one comes by I think we’ll probably be ready to snag it in mid-air or override its controls and land it at Langley.

    Thought folks might enjoy Ed Wynn’s hilarious ”balloon act” from a great old film. Always makes me laugh.

  • I'm surprised that China didn't admit to making a sequel to Around the World in Eighty Days.
    I'll admit to looking down more than up , so you can see how I missed the first 3 or 4 balloon fly overs, but just how did our security forces miss seeing them ?

    Have a good week, Derf
  • I thought it might be interesting to add today's letter from Heather Cox Richardson to the discussion.
  • edited February 2023
    Thanks @Mark - Excellent piece.

    One news report alluded to military U-2s circling the balloon while over the country. LOL - We used those in the 60s before satellites became common to spy on Russia. Very high ceiling. Had no idea they were still in service.
  • "Had no idea they were still in service."

    Same here. According to Wickipedia they are very much still active, and in fact at least some were upgraded in 2012.
  • edited February 2023
    hank said:

    I think military / national security decisions should be left to the national security agencies and the military chain-of-command, including the President and his Defense Department advisors. The R’s bitching about the balloon don’t know piddly s*it about its capabilities, our own security actions taken in regard to it or, very likely, the top secret installations it passed over. I remember when “politics stopped at the water’s edge” - figuratively speaking.

    Yes, let the military deal with it, and the President. This first incident can be a precedent. If it happens again, there can hardly be any doubt that the Chinese are up to something. Already, that's a safe bet. So, a 2nd and 3rd balloon can be disabled and directed to Langley or wherever. Surely the USA has the capability. Can't trust a word uttered by the Chinese regime. Same as the Poot-member and his henchmen.
Sign In or Register to comment.