16 ms·

And what exactly should be done about it? If they hypothesis is true, that a bunch of these UFO are actually drones / balloon trying to provoke a response and

by calyth2018 4y ago

And what exactly should be done about it? If they hypothesis is true, that a bunch of these UFO are actually drones / balloon trying to provoke a response and gather telemetry, then isn't the act of reacting to it and trying to light up the drone is exactly what your opponent wants? If this is a telemetry probe in drone / balloon form, this is honestly nothing new. That's why subs are routinely in opponent waters, or tailing training exercises while trying to remain undetected. Or just outright fly a plane into opponent territory, provoke a response, record it so that the home team gets something to work on. The US is the masters at this and it's acting surprised that others are trying to play the same game?

everdrive 4y ago
>then isn't the act of reacting to it and trying to light up the drone is exactly what your opponent wants? Honestly, probably not in a lot of cases. If the intent is to collect, then destroying the drone ends the collection.
- crote 4y ago
  That depends on what you are trying to collect, doesn't it? It probably isn't optical data. Satellites are more than good enough for that, and near-realtime high-resolution data is even commercially available. It probably isn't electronic transmissions either. Having a field operative hide a SDR would be way easier, and way less conspicuous. However, it could be trying to determine how the military responds to hostiles. Sending a jet after it and shooting it down might be exactly the kind of data it is trying to collect.
  - everdrive 4y ago
    It could be, but it's specific and situational. If you're the one sending the balloons, you don't really know what the response will be. Further, whatever the response is will not be a good test for an actual military test, (foreign fighters or bombers) which will surely have a different response.
  - wang_li 4y ago
    The balloon was 10-20x closer than satellites. Can get 100-400x better resolution photos.
crazygringo 4y ago
Well, the main point of the article seems to be that we should be developing far more effective anti-drone measures, and developing them faster. The opponent wants to spy and probe and test. Destroying those drones is exactly what we should want, and what your opponent doesn't want. The only reason to allow these drones/balloons to operate freely is if we already have effective anti-drone measures that we're keeping secret, in order to goad an enemy into a false sense of security -- which the article also considers but then dismisses as unlikely. But aside from that hypothesis, I fail to see why destroying invading military technology would be "exactly what your opponent wants".
- ender341341 4y ago
  > The only reason to allow these drones/balloons to operate freely is if we already have effective anti-drone measures that we're keeping secret, in order to goad an enemy into a false sense of security -- which the article also considers but then dismisses as unlikely. My question is what do we gain from showing them we can shoot them down? how much more detailed of info are they getting from these drones that they aren't getting from LEO satellites? Shooting them down just gives whatever opponents test data for getting past our defences when they potentially actually need to in the future when they're actively hostile.
  - crazygringo 4y ago
    The article explains they could be collecting "extremely high-quality electronic intelligence data on... America's most capable air defense systems... that is very hard to reliably obtain otherwise. These radar emissions, and the datalink communications that go along with them, underpin highly networked counter-air architectures that are unmatched anywhere on earth. By gathering comprehensive electronic intelligence information on these systems, countermeasures and electronic warfare tactics can be developed to disrupt or defeat them." That's the stuff you don't get from LEO satellites.
    - andy_ppp 4y ago
      There’s always an imagination that China is better than us at this and from reading between the lines at what the TLAs are able to do they aren’t even close.
WalterBright 4y ago
> The US is the masters at this In 1968, my dad spent a year at Galena AFB in Alaska. This was the closest base to the USSR. Their entire job was to counter the Soviet incursions. The Red Air Force was constantly testing and probing and provoking the US air defenses. The usual thing was the Soviets would send over a bomber. Once they got close enough, Galena would send out a fighter or two to snuggle in close and let the bomber know that we saw 'em and we'd bwast 'em if they came any closer. It was the cold war, and that's how it was played.
- andy_ppp 4y ago
  We did/do the same thing to them I believe. There’s no one side playing nice in this, but hopefully everyone behaves in a way where a Nash equilibrium is the best outcome.
  - moose_man 4y ago
    It's not about warm and cuddly. It's about everyone understanding the ground rules. When there were incidents like the Cuban missile crisis it was because the ground rules weren't clear to all the players. The Soviets didn't think the US would react the way it did. In the Able Archer crisis we didn't understand the Soviets would react to NATO exercises as if it was preparation for nuclear war. I think we exist today is mainly down to the fact that for most of the Cold War, everyone understood what was in bounds and what wasn't.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      I give Kennedy credit for being the 2nd greatest American President because he averted nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
      - moose_man 4y ago
        Definitely lucky that there was someone like Kennedy in charge instead of someone like Nixon. I think the scariest part of the crisis, is neither the Soviet or the US leadership knew how close we were to going over the edge. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2022/10/27/23426482/cuban-missile-crisis-basilica-arkhipov-nuclear-war https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2022/10/27/23426482/cuban... "The end in this case meant not just the fate of the submarine and its crew, but potentially the entire world. Cut off from outside contact, buffeted by depth charges, its air conditioning broken, and temperatures and carbon dioxide levels rising in the sub, the most obvious conclusion for the officers of B-59 was that global war had already begun. But the sub had a weapon at its disposal that US officers didn’t know about: a 10-kiloton nuclear torpedo. And its officers had permission from their superiors to launch it without confirmation from Moscow. Two of the sub’s senior officers wanted to launch the nuclear torpedo. That included its captain, Valentin Savitsky, who according to a report from the US National Security Archive, exclaimed: “We’re gonna blast them now! We will die, but we will sink them all — we will not become the shame of the fleet.”"
mike_d 4y ago
> And what exactly should be done about it? Re-form the Treaty on Open Skies, which already addressed and solved this problem in the early 90s. You simply let the other country know that you are flying surveillance equipment overhead and the target country grants overflight. It doesn't fundamentally change either sides ability to conduct surveillance operations, but it does avoid situations like this that may escalate to armed conflict. We had a good thing going until the previous administration let Russia out of the agreement, enabling them to build up for the invasion of Ukraine.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > Re-form the Treaty on Open Skies The Treaty is based on "allowing countries to openly surveil each other...to prevent misunderstandings" [1]. That has not panned out. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Open_Skies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Open_Skies
- partiallypro 4y ago
  I am pretty sure the Russian invasion of Ukraine has basically nothing to do with Russia leaving the treaty. That also happened under the CURRENT administration, not the previous one. The withdraw was in 2021.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > That also happened under the CURRENT administration, not the previous one. The withdraw was in 2021. Yah, sure-- but are you being deliberately misleading? After the US announced withdrawal in May 2020 under Trump (in response to Russian violations of the treaty), Russia did leave in 2021. This need to mislead about politics and events is so annoying. Arguably the Trump administration had good reasons to withdraw, but pretending that the Russian withdrawal was because of Biden is wack.
    - foverzar 4y ago
      > This need to mislead about politics and events is so annoying Agreed. The increasingly post-truth nature of public narratives is disturbing. But I wonder what do you consider to be "good reasons" (even if arguably)?
FrontierPsych 4y ago
Light 'em up. You can't send huge flying things across another country's airspace without permission and flight plans. I don't know, maybe the USA should start flying planes over Moscow and Beijing. How do you think they'd react? I don't get what the pushback against blowing up a balloon would be. If I was president, I'd make sure I'd be flying balloons over China all the time, see how they like it. shit, they are getting pissy about ships being in the South China Sea. Fuck China.
- abenga 4y ago
  Do you honestly believe there are no, nor have there ever been, American spy drones and planes flying over Moscow/Beijing?
  - FrontierPsych 4y ago
    In 1960, "a United States U-2 spy plane was shot down by the Soviet Air Defence Forces" It's ok to try, but expect your shit to be shot down if you're a dick about it. Nothing happened when the U2 was shot down. But I personally am ok with the Soviet Union shooting it out of the sky. Why should the USA do nothing when a balloon, by a massive military power and the USA's new competitor, fly over the USA without a polite, "Hey, do you mind if we fly this "weather balloon" with cameras over your military installations?" I admit Americans have, and have been shot down. Why is it so weird the other way around? Why are you defending China indirectly by trying to equate it with the USA? If the USA gets shot down, why is that not mentioned by you and others? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. And, China certainly is getting weird about not having people sail ships through the South China Sea, despite it being ruled as international waters.
- foverzar 4y ago
  Who says you aren't? Googling with a date range filter set (to filter out recent Chinese balloon news) yields results like "Pentagon using spy balloons". We'll have to see if China starts shooting down random civilian (or not) probes within a few months. Many countries try not to fuss about stuff other countries do to avoid unnecessary escalations and tensions.
runnerup 4y ago
> And what exactly should be done about it? Historically for a large preponderance of cases, absolutely nothing. By law of international treaty that the USA signed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Open_Skies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Open_Skies We've since left the treaty though, so now our own spy planes can legally be shot down when they fly over Russia.

everdrive 4y ago

>then isn't the act of reacting to it and trying to light up the drone is exactly what your opponent wants? Honestly, probably not in a lot of cases. If the intent is to collect, then destroying the drone ends the collection.

crote 4y ago
That depends on what you are trying to collect, doesn't it? It probably isn't optical data. Satellites are more than good enough for that, and near-realtime high-resolution data is even commercially available. It probably isn't electronic transmissions either. Having a field operative hide a SDR would be way easier, and way less conspicuous. However, it could be trying to determine how the military responds to hostiles. Sending a jet after it and shooting it down might be exactly the kind of data it is trying to collect.
- everdrive 4y ago
  It could be, but it's specific and situational. If you're the one sending the balloons, you don't really know what the response will be. Further, whatever the response is will not be a good test for an actual military test, (foreign fighters or bombers) which will surely have a different response.
- wang_li 4y ago
  The balloon was 10-20x closer than satellites. Can get 100-400x better resolution photos.

crazygringo 4y ago

Well, the main point of the article seems to be that we should be developing far more effective anti-drone measures, and developing them faster. The opponent wants to spy and probe and test. Destroying those drones is exactly what we should want, and what your opponent doesn't want. The only reason to allow these drones/balloons to operate freely is if we already have effective anti-drone measures that we're keeping secret, in order to goad an enemy into a false sense of security -- which the article also considers but then dismisses as unlikely. But aside from that hypothesis, I fail to see why destroying invading military technology would be "exactly what your opponent wants".

ender341341 4y ago
> The only reason to allow these drones/balloons to operate freely is if we already have effective anti-drone measures that we're keeping secret, in order to goad an enemy into a false sense of security -- which the article also considers but then dismisses as unlikely. My question is what do we gain from showing them we can shoot them down? how much more detailed of info are they getting from these drones that they aren't getting from LEO satellites? Shooting them down just gives whatever opponents test data for getting past our defences when they potentially actually need to in the future when they're actively hostile.
- crazygringo 4y ago
  The article explains they could be collecting "extremely high-quality electronic intelligence data on... America's most capable air defense systems... that is very hard to reliably obtain otherwise. These radar emissions, and the datalink communications that go along with them, underpin highly networked counter-air architectures that are unmatched anywhere on earth. By gathering comprehensive electronic intelligence information on these systems, countermeasures and electronic warfare tactics can be developed to disrupt or defeat them." That's the stuff you don't get from LEO satellites.
  - andy_ppp 4y ago
    There’s always an imagination that China is better than us at this and from reading between the lines at what the TLAs are able to do they aren’t even close.

WalterBright 4y ago

> The US is the masters at this In 1968, my dad spent a year at Galena AFB in Alaska. This was the closest base to the USSR. Their entire job was to counter the Soviet incursions. The Red Air Force was constantly testing and probing and provoking the US air defenses. The usual thing was the Soviets would send over a bomber. Once they got close enough, Galena would send out a fighter or two to snuggle in close and let the bomber know that we saw 'em and we'd bwast 'em if they came any closer. It was the cold war, and that's how it was played.

andy_ppp 4y ago
We did/do the same thing to them I believe. There’s no one side playing nice in this, but hopefully everyone behaves in a way where a Nash equilibrium is the best outcome.
- moose_man 4y ago
  It's not about warm and cuddly. It's about everyone understanding the ground rules. When there were incidents like the Cuban missile crisis it was because the ground rules weren't clear to all the players. The Soviets didn't think the US would react the way it did. In the Able Archer crisis we didn't understand the Soviets would react to NATO exercises as if it was preparation for nuclear war. I think we exist today is mainly down to the fact that for most of the Cold War, everyone understood what was in bounds and what wasn't.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    I give Kennedy credit for being the 2nd greatest American President because he averted nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
    - moose_man 4y ago
      Definitely lucky that there was someone like Kennedy in charge instead of someone like Nixon. I think the scariest part of the crisis, is neither the Soviet or the US leadership knew how close we were to going over the edge. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2022/10/27/23426482/cuban-missile-crisis-basilica-arkhipov-nuclear-war https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2022/10/27/23426482/cuban... "The end in this case meant not just the fate of the submarine and its crew, but potentially the entire world. Cut off from outside contact, buffeted by depth charges, its air conditioning broken, and temperatures and carbon dioxide levels rising in the sub, the most obvious conclusion for the officers of B-59 was that global war had already begun. But the sub had a weapon at its disposal that US officers didn’t know about: a 10-kiloton nuclear torpedo. And its officers had permission from their superiors to launch it without confirmation from Moscow. Two of the sub’s senior officers wanted to launch the nuclear torpedo. That included its captain, Valentin Savitsky, who according to a report from the US National Security Archive, exclaimed: “We’re gonna blast them now! We will die, but we will sink them all — we will not become the shame of the fleet.”"

mike_d 4y ago

> And what exactly should be done about it? Re-form the Treaty on Open Skies, which already addressed and solved this problem in the early 90s. You simply let the other country know that you are flying surveillance equipment overhead and the target country grants overflight. It doesn't fundamentally change either sides ability to conduct surveillance operations, but it does avoid situations like this that may escalate to armed conflict. We had a good thing going until the previous administration let Russia out of the agreement, enabling them to build up for the invasion of Ukraine.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Re-form the Treaty on Open Skies The Treaty is based on "allowing countries to openly surveil each other...to prevent misunderstandings" [1]. That has not panned out. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Open_Skies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Open_Skies
partiallypro 4y ago
I am pretty sure the Russian invasion of Ukraine has basically nothing to do with Russia leaving the treaty. That also happened under the CURRENT administration, not the previous one. The withdraw was in 2021.
- mlyle 4y ago
  > That also happened under the CURRENT administration, not the previous one. The withdraw was in 2021. Yah, sure-- but are you being deliberately misleading? After the US announced withdrawal in May 2020 under Trump (in response to Russian violations of the treaty), Russia did leave in 2021. This need to mislead about politics and events is so annoying. Arguably the Trump administration had good reasons to withdraw, but pretending that the Russian withdrawal was because of Biden is wack.
  - foverzar 4y ago
    > This need to mislead about politics and events is so annoying Agreed. The increasingly post-truth nature of public narratives is disturbing. But I wonder what do you consider to be "good reasons" (even if arguably)?

FrontierPsych 4y ago

Light 'em up. You can't send huge flying things across another country's airspace without permission and flight plans. I don't know, maybe the USA should start flying planes over Moscow and Beijing. How do you think they'd react? I don't get what the pushback against blowing up a balloon would be. If I was president, I'd make sure I'd be flying balloons over China all the time, see how they like it. shit, they are getting pissy about ships being in the South China Sea. Fuck China.

abenga 4y ago
Do you honestly believe there are no, nor have there ever been, American spy drones and planes flying over Moscow/Beijing?
- FrontierPsych 4y ago
  In 1960, "a United States U-2 spy plane was shot down by the Soviet Air Defence Forces" It's ok to try, but expect your shit to be shot down if you're a dick about it. Nothing happened when the U2 was shot down. But I personally am ok with the Soviet Union shooting it out of the sky. Why should the USA do nothing when a balloon, by a massive military power and the USA's new competitor, fly over the USA without a polite, "Hey, do you mind if we fly this "weather balloon" with cameras over your military installations?" I admit Americans have, and have been shot down. Why is it so weird the other way around? Why are you defending China indirectly by trying to equate it with the USA? If the USA gets shot down, why is that not mentioned by you and others? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. And, China certainly is getting weird about not having people sail ships through the South China Sea, despite it being ruled as international waters.
foverzar 4y ago
Who says you aren't? Googling with a date range filter set (to filter out recent Chinese balloon news) yields results like "Pentagon using spy balloons". We'll have to see if China starts shooting down random civilian (or not) probes within a few months. Many countries try not to fuss about stuff other countries do to avoid unnecessary escalations and tensions.

runnerup 4y ago

> And what exactly should be done about it? Historically for a large preponderance of cases, absolutely nothing. By law of international treaty that the USA signed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Open_Skies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Open_Skies We've since left the treaty though, so now our own spy planes can legally be shot down when they fly over Russia.