4 ms·
My “wild conspiracy theory” continues to be that this was a well-known part of mutual spying and was tolerated up until the Chinese screwed up and one was seen
by Waterluvian 4y ago
My “wild conspiracy theory” continues to be that this was a well-known part of mutual spying and was tolerated up until the Chinese screwed up and one was seen by civilians. Now the US has to act surprised, outraged, and responsive, and the whole thing that was being tolerated is being unwound.
The follow-up to my wild conspiracy is wondering what American spy program will be unwound in response.
I have no evidence for this. It’s a long-shot silly theory that I think is at least plausible.
- pkaye 4y agoIf the US wanted mutual spying, it could have allowed Huawei to continue operating in the US.
- pyuser583 4y agoThis isn’t a conspiracy theory - it’s Occam’s Razor.
- superfrank 4y agoNo it isn't. Occam's Razor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) > when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction, one should prefer the one that requires fewest assumptions Occam's razor would say that this is the first time we've noticed a balloon over the US, so we shot it down. Believing that there is an unspoken agreement between the US and China to allow a certain amount of spying and we're only taking a hard stance because the Chinese fucked up and got their balloon noticed by civilians has far more assumptions baked into it. ---- To be clear, I'm not saying the theory presented by OP is wrong, I'm just saying that it's not backed by Occam's Razor.
- pyuser583 4y agoOccams Razor is “pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate” - “Pieces ought not to be positioned without necessity.” You must you believe spy balloons are [always, sometimes, never] reported to the press, and the press [always, sometimes, never] reports them to the public, and the public [always, sometimes, never] reads the reports. These pieces are already in position. Do you really think “you ought not to position pieces without necessity” really favors “always” over sometimes? Likewise, there is evidence the air balloons fly over America more than the authorities recognize. What explanation has the fewest unnecessary parts: we have perfect tranferreance of knowledge from Air Force Intelligence to consumers of the press, or the phenomena are witnessing are normal and expected? Edit: I removed some parts I placed without necessity.
- superfrank 4y agoI think the explanation that assumes there is an unspoken secret spying agreement between the two most powerful nations in the world without any evidence has the most unnecessary parts.
- mc32 4y agoHeh. Aren’t the Chinese saying _they’ve_ detected a UFO flying in their airspace as well now?
- echelon 4y agoA theory I heard (on HN) that resonated with me is that the Chinese did this to provoke a response. Now they can take out US spy satellites in orbit over China in retaliation without it looking unprovoked. The degree of escalation is less than if they'd started with that salvo themselves. Another theory I heard is that they're poking the US to see what responses would be employed, how quickly detection happens, the radio signal / signals intelligence environment, etc.
- georgeg23 4y agoYes specifically these satellites, https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Starshield_(satellite_constellation) https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Starshield_(satellite_constellati... (and related ones being launched as part of SDA)
- ianburrell 4y agoShooting down a spy satellite would be a huge escalation, an act of war. The balloon/objects were shot down in US/Canada airspace. Shooting down unauthorized aircraft is allowed by international law. China also hasn't claimed the later two objects. Space is regarded similarly to international waters. Spy satellites are free to overfly countries.
- dirtyid 4y agoCounter space unlikely, but there's no international treaty stipulating where air space ends except fl600, US shooting down PRC assets at fl600+1ft gives PRC openning to mess with US intel gathering in PRC EEZ where at least international law has interpretations for such activities being non innocent passage. I'm not sure if it will get that far since those activities are done by mostly manned platforms, but wouldn't rule out another EP3 tier event or PRC taking more US subsurface monitoring infra in SCS.
- georgeg23 4y agoIt would be quite a screw up as the balloon over the US was white (not transparent) and massively visible. It was meant to be seen. The American spy/military program involving Low Earth Orbit satellites is a potential target. SpaceX is launching tons of these satellites over China as part of the Space Development Agency: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Development_Agency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Development_Agency China has been complaining to the United Nations about it. https://press.un.org/en/2022/gadis3698.doc.htm https://press.un.org/en/2022/gadis3698.doc.htm
- mym1990 4y agoHow high does one have to go in airspace to no longer be considered as part of a specific country's airspace?
- georgeg23 4y agoSpace is different than borders because there is no horizon.
- mym1990 4y agoAh seems like there is some distinction between space and airspace whether an object is in orbit or not.
- nradov 4y agoThe US has not defined any specific altitude limit for our airspace. https://youtu.be/P43wVDiZs8k https://youtu.be/P43wVDiZs8k
- mym1990 4y agoHilariously informative, thank you!
- Plasmoid 4y agoGenerally it's the Karman line but there aren't any treaties that specify where flight ends and orbit starts.
- fluidcruft 4y agoA good wild conspiracy theory would be that Raytheon or whoever sells the missiles we're using to shoot them is sending them. Can't balloons be punctured by something less expensive than a stinger? Maybe a drone with a machine gun? And that leads to the conspiracy that there's someone already has a balloon defense system ready for the inevitable bid.
- klyrs 4y agoI was hoping for a balloon-mounted flamethrower, myself
- nradov 4y agoThe US has no armed drones that can operate at such high altitudes, and the UCAVs that do exist don't carry machine guns that could be employed against airborne targets. In theory it would be possible to design or modify such a drone but that would take a while. Using guns against high-altitude balloons is also challenging just from an aerodynamics standpoint. Stall speeds get pretty high up around FL600 even with large wings, so the airplane would have to fly straight at the target with a high closure rate in order to get within effective gun range. This creates some risk of a mid-air collision. Using a guided missile is much safer.
- Scoundreller 4y agoProblem with shooting them down is that you need a lot of bullets to get the thing to plummet. Helium is always leaking a bit anyway across the entire surface, so adding a few hundred small holes doesn't accomplish as much as one would hope. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/weather-balloon-canada-china-1.6737831 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/weather-balloon-canada-chin... Who knows how many of the thousand rounds actually hit the thing. I wonder if someone might start filling them with much cheaper hydrogen... what's the cost of all that helium anyway? Goodyear blimp costs about $100k in helium.
- mahathu 4y agoAt their size, the balloon would slowly descend (into public airspace) when shot at with even high calibre jet mounted guns, if i understood correctly.
- aaomidi 4y agoMine is that this is coverup for what’s happened in Ohio.
- eightysixfour 4y agoAn additional, 4d chess theory, is that the US now has something they wish to hide (for the time being) and intentionally leaked the first balloon to the media to cause uproar and “have to shoot them down,” establishing a new boundary with other nations over the use of high-altitude balloons. The counter position is the idea that these have negligible benefit over satellites, so it is irrelevant. However, why send them if they don’t add new capabilities beyond satellites?
- brookst 4y agoThey’re much lower cost than satellites, and if you think you kind find yourself in a war where access to space and/or durable space assets might be denied, good to have an agile backup capability. Might as well just run it to gain expertise and tech.
- narrator 4y agoThey could be cheaper than missiles to shoot them down and it might be easy to send thousands.
- sebzim4500 4y agoIt might be true that a mass produced balloon would be cheaper than the Sidewinder missiles being used to shoot them down currently, but that is because the missiles are way overkill for taking out a large, slow moving, easy to detect target. A dedicated missile could be way cheaper, whereas large balloons will always be quite expensive since you have to buy the helium.
- eightysixfour 4y agoYou don’t have to run the tests over “enemy” airspace.
- brookst 4y agoSure, but you get more data and expertise if you do.
- narrator 4y agoHow about the military sees UFOs on a regular basis but only started telling the public after this balloon thing? After all, we still don't have any information on the 3 things they've shot down since the original balloon.
- fullstackchris 4y agoIf this is true, and we are incapable of identifying a simple balloon, god help us all. Imagine an unfriendly third party did something like hang a nuke off of such a balloon????
- yucky 4y agoThat isn't plausible at all considering how easily visible it was to civilians.