5 ms·

Spying happens all the time, even between allies. From what I read/understood about past spying incidents, it's only when someone starts mentioning it to the p

Spying happens all the time, even between allies. From what I read/understood about past spying incidents, it's only when someone starts mentioning it to the press that they want the rest of the population to be up an arms about it. Why that might be true: there are probably tons of Chinese spy events (and American spy events on China) that never made it. Was the balloon the first? Come on. If the above hypothesis is true, it means the U.S. is trying to rile up / ready / etc. the population to view China as a threat. Kind of ironic given the intense scrutiny and fears prior to Trump getting elected that he would trigger a depression or war because of his isolationist attitude about China specifically. But more importantly what does that mean now? Will it justify laws passed to further isolate China?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
justinclift 4y ago
> If the above hypothesis is true, it means ... In your comment, you say "it means the US is trying to rile up / ready /etc" the population. That's not the only plausible (or even most likely) scenario though. The publishing of this info could indeed be for that purpose. Or it could be for something else, such as to influence the currently-ongoing negotiations with other players (eg European) at a critical time. Or it could be for some other purpose again, that's neither of those. :)
- mancerayder 4y ago
  You mean influence the population of European allies or their leaders? The hypothesis above is roughly connected to this wider idea about international relations that the 'big ideas' happen behind closed doors, and there is a second 'public' face. Here the balloon type incidents leak to the public strategically while other incidents go unmentioned except in private or in some esoteric place. If true, why would the US press and mainstream media be headlining it when of course it'll enrage the population. It was a choice to publicize it and a choice for our political parties to point fingers at each other over it, as part of the typical spin cycle.
  - justinclift 4y ago
    > You mean influence the population of European allies or their leaders? Their leaders, and the people representing them during negotiations. > If true, why would the US press and mainstream media be headlining it when of course it'll enrage the population. No idea. Possibly a side effect, maybe wanted, maybe not. Potentially so "the population" gets onboard with whatever the outcome of the EU negotiations are.
bspammer 4y ago
The thing was visible to the naked eye, and so was its demise. I don’t see any reason to believe there was some agenda at play on the US side. They couldn’t have covered it up if they wanted to.
- Rebelgecko 4y ago
  I dunno, AFAICT the previous 3 or 4 balloons over the US weren't noticed by the general public
  - matthewdgreen 4y ago
    According to CNN that’s because they weren’t noticed by anyone at the time. The US discovered them by examining retrospective satellite data for signals we found emanating from a recent (2021) balloon. Presumably that one didn’t travel over populated areas or it would have been noticed by the public as well. https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/10/politics/us-balloon-tracking-method/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/10/politics/us-balloon-tracking-...
- mancerayder 4y ago
  Really? It's all over the press. I didn't happen to notice the balloon floating in the sky. We don't all have one collective eye. The press and politicians platformed the story.
  - tempestn 4y ago
    In the US the government doesn't control what the press reports.
    - mancerayder 4y ago
      The government makes statements to the press, leaks to the press and when politicians throw barbs at each other over an issue, the press reports their statements about the issue and the issue. No one said the press was being controlled.
death_to_satan 4y ago
[dead]
yamtaddle 4y ago
> If the above hypothesis is true, it means the U.S. is trying to rile up / ready / etc. the population to view China as a threat. If so, the previous balloon was a pretty fuckin' stupid way to do that, since letting it wander all over the US was obviously going to be used by political adversaries to attack the administration (justly or unjustly, doesn't matter).
- krapp 4y ago
  Political adversaries will always attack the administration, that's par for the course. But regardless of what the actual facts on the ground (er, in the sky) might be, or what party A says about party B, the media and online commentariat are framing them within a narrative of aggressive threats from China, and of war being imminent, possibly even necessary. Our consent is clearly being manufactured for something.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

justinclift 4y ago

> If the above hypothesis is true, it means ... In your comment, you say "it means the US is trying to rile up / ready /etc" the population. That's not the only plausible (or even most likely) scenario though. The publishing of this info could indeed be for that purpose. Or it could be for something else, such as to influence the currently-ongoing negotiations with other players (eg European) at a critical time. Or it could be for some other purpose again, that's neither of those. :)

mancerayder 4y ago
You mean influence the population of European allies or their leaders? The hypothesis above is roughly connected to this wider idea about international relations that the 'big ideas' happen behind closed doors, and there is a second 'public' face. Here the balloon type incidents leak to the public strategically while other incidents go unmentioned except in private or in some esoteric place. If true, why would the US press and mainstream media be headlining it when of course it'll enrage the population. It was a choice to publicize it and a choice for our political parties to point fingers at each other over it, as part of the typical spin cycle.
- justinclift 4y ago
  > You mean influence the population of European allies or their leaders? Their leaders, and the people representing them during negotiations. > If true, why would the US press and mainstream media be headlining it when of course it'll enrage the population. No idea. Possibly a side effect, maybe wanted, maybe not. Potentially so "the population" gets onboard with whatever the outcome of the EU negotiations are.

bspammer 4y ago

The thing was visible to the naked eye, and so was its demise. I don’t see any reason to believe there was some agenda at play on the US side. They couldn’t have covered it up if they wanted to.

Rebelgecko 4y ago
I dunno, AFAICT the previous 3 or 4 balloons over the US weren't noticed by the general public
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  According to CNN that’s because they weren’t noticed by anyone at the time. The US discovered them by examining retrospective satellite data for signals we found emanating from a recent (2021) balloon. Presumably that one didn’t travel over populated areas or it would have been noticed by the public as well. https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/10/politics/us-balloon-tracking-method/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/10/politics/us-balloon-tracking-...
mancerayder 4y ago
Really? It's all over the press. I didn't happen to notice the balloon floating in the sky. We don't all have one collective eye. The press and politicians platformed the story.
- tempestn 4y ago
  In the US the government doesn't control what the press reports.
  - mancerayder 4y ago
    The government makes statements to the press, leaks to the press and when politicians throw barbs at each other over an issue, the press reports their statements about the issue and the issue. No one said the press was being controlled.

death_to_satan 4y ago

[dead]

yamtaddle 4y ago

> If the above hypothesis is true, it means the U.S. is trying to rile up / ready / etc. the population to view China as a threat. If so, the previous balloon was a pretty fuckin' stupid way to do that, since letting it wander all over the US was obviously going to be used by political adversaries to attack the administration (justly or unjustly, doesn't matter).

krapp 4y ago
Political adversaries will always attack the administration, that's par for the course. But regardless of what the actual facts on the ground (er, in the sky) might be, or what party A says about party B, the media and online commentariat are framing them within a narrative of aggressive threats from China, and of war being imminent, possibly even necessary. Our consent is clearly being manufactured for something.