4 ms·
I probably agree. Allowing the rival to surveil you to an extent is not a bad thing. You want to reduce informational asymmetries because rival leadership often
by hackerlight 4y ago
I probably agree. Allowing the rival to surveil you to an extent is not a bad thing. You want to reduce informational asymmetries because rival leadership often fills in the fog of war with assumptions of malevolence which then leads to escalation risk. It's a tale as old as time in the history of geopolitics and cold war rivalries.
The fact they shot down the balloon after it left airspace rather than just as it entered suggests it was a response to the jingoistic media circus and domestic politicking, ie not wanting to look weak compared to hawkish Republicans, rather than anything with a real calculated military purpose.
- seanmcdirmid 4y agoShooting a balloon down over land risks having it come down on someone. Though there really isn’t a lot in Kansas/Nebraska/South Dakota, they would probably not have gotten unlucky, but if they did the Republicans would have pounced also.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- hackerlight 4y agoWhy couldn't they shoot it down before it flew over land but after if flew into airspace? What is the national security benefit of waiting for it to fly over the country first? My guess is they hoped it would pass over mostly unnoticed but then they saw people picking up on it and decided they had to get in front of the news story so as to not look incompetent. Then once the news story picked up steam their hand was forced by the jingoistic media circus and domestic political reality to take action.
- seanmcdirmid 4y agoWe didn’t notice it first, Canada did. And the Canadians would definitely not let us shoot it down over BC.