3 ms·

> In the 1950’s the U.S. Military and the CIA enlisted balloons (some as tall as a 40-story building) as weapons systems targeting the Soviet Union. If caught,

by cs702 4y ago

> In the 1950’s the U.S. Military and the CIA enlisted balloons (some as tall as a 40-story building) as weapons systems targeting the Soviet Union. If caught, the US government might have said that those balloons were actually scientific civilian devices that had accidentally veered off-course "due to force majeure" and that it was just an unhappy coincidence that they had floated mainly over sensitive Soviet military installations. What else could they have said to save face?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
actionfromafar 4y ago
Look here[0] for what they did say during a similar incident. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_U-2_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_U-2_incident
- theptip 4y ago
  So, claiming it was for meteorological research: > Initially, American authorities acknowledged the incident as the loss of a civilian weather research aircraft operated by NASA, but were forced to admit the mission's true purpose a few days later after the Soviet government produced the captured pilot and parts of the U-2's surveillance equipment, including photographs of Soviet military bases.
capableweb 4y ago
> If caught, the US government might have said that those balloons were actually scientific civilian devices that had accidentally veered off-course "due to force majeure" and that it was just an unhappy coincidence that they had floated mainly over sensitive Soviet military installations. Wouldn't that be very easy to disprove if you took down the balloon some way and inspect the contents? They'll surely be differently built if were indeed civilian vs military. Also, not sure how saying "we don't know how weather/aeronautics works" is saving much face. We (humans) been doing ballooning since something like the 1800s if not earlier, modern balloons surely would have equipment on it to understand where they are going, and if going in the wrong way, automatically sink to the ground to be "rescued" before drifting too far away. Edit: seems parent was referencing a real-life event that I was unaware of, I thought we were discussing a hypothetical scenario. Ignore me.
- cs702 4y ago
  It was a reference to this: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-foreign-ministry-airship-over-us-force-majeure-accident-2023-02-04/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-foreign-ministry-a...
- techdragon 4y ago
  The problem is in taking down the balloon. It’s notionally operating in such a way that it’s ambiguous as to its intent. If it quacks like a high altitude science balloon, it could either be a high altitude scientific balloon or a military surveillance platform designed to imitate a high altitude surveillance balloon… The US defence establishment and executive branch are likely currently evaluating in deep detail every facet of this, and the entire history of this going back to Cold War era stuff like the program of balloons that lead to the whole Roswell incident… military balloons looking like science balloons is firmly in the “we did it before! How much of a leg to stand on do we have?” I expect they will tolerate it, and amplify a few teams by a person or two, in order to know ahead of time where these will be and to treat them as they do existing satellites that spy from higher up. They avoid many sensitive operations when surveillance is overhead as part of routine operational security best practices… to the point where they occasionally “make mistakes” in effort to sow false flags. TLDR… it’s just a new surveillance platform and there’s existing precedent for how to deal with this kind of threat, by the military… the politicians will just do the usual shit show attention seeking nonsense they always do.

by cs702 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

actionfromafar 4y ago

Look here[0] for what they did say during a similar incident. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_U-2_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_U-2_incident

theptip 4y ago
So, claiming it was for meteorological research: > Initially, American authorities acknowledged the incident as the loss of a civilian weather research aircraft operated by NASA, but were forced to admit the mission's true purpose a few days later after the Soviet government produced the captured pilot and parts of the U-2's surveillance equipment, including photographs of Soviet military bases.

capableweb 4y ago

> If caught, the US government might have said that those balloons were actually scientific civilian devices that had accidentally veered off-course "due to force majeure" and that it was just an unhappy coincidence that they had floated mainly over sensitive Soviet military installations. Wouldn't that be very easy to disprove if you took down the balloon some way and inspect the contents? They'll surely be differently built if were indeed civilian vs military. Also, not sure how saying "we don't know how weather/aeronautics works" is saving much face. We (humans) been doing ballooning since something like the 1800s if not earlier, modern balloons surely would have equipment on it to understand where they are going, and if going in the wrong way, automatically sink to the ground to be "rescued" before drifting too far away. Edit: seems parent was referencing a real-life event that I was unaware of, I thought we were discussing a hypothetical scenario. Ignore me.

cs702 4y ago
It was a reference to this: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-foreign-ministry-airship-over-us-force-majeure-accident-2023-02-04/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-foreign-ministry-a...
techdragon 4y ago
The problem is in taking down the balloon. It’s notionally operating in such a way that it’s ambiguous as to its intent. If it quacks like a high altitude science balloon, it could either be a high altitude scientific balloon or a military surveillance platform designed to imitate a high altitude surveillance balloon… The US defence establishment and executive branch are likely currently evaluating in deep detail every facet of this, and the entire history of this going back to Cold War era stuff like the program of balloons that lead to the whole Roswell incident… military balloons looking like science balloons is firmly in the “we did it before! How much of a leg to stand on do we have?” I expect they will tolerate it, and amplify a few teams by a person or two, in order to know ahead of time where these will be and to treat them as they do existing satellites that spy from higher up. They avoid many sensitive operations when surveillance is overhead as part of routine operational security best practices… to the point where they occasionally “make mistakes” in effort to sow false flags. TLDR… it’s just a new surveillance platform and there’s existing precedent for how to deal with this kind of threat, by the military… the politicians will just do the usual shit show attention seeking nonsense they always do.