3 ms·

The sane thing to do here is assume this is an attack, or precursor to an attack. Don’t follow up with force, yet. However there’s no reason the balloons should

The sane thing to do here is assume this is an attack, or precursor to an attack. Don’t follow up with force, yet. However there’s no reason the balloons should’ve been here in the first place. Telling people not to be concerned of Chinese balloons entering another countries airspace, especially the US, makes you look odd to say the least. Are you Chinese?

wolverine876 4y ago
> The sane thing to do here is assume this is an attack, or precursor to an attack. What makes that sane, if it's absolutely false, a waste of resources, creates panic in the public, and increases the risk of escalation? It's far, far out of the realm of possibility. China doesn't have nearly the resources to attack the continental US. They generally aren't believed to have the resources yet to attack Taiwan, 100 miles away. If they had the resources, an attack would require a massive buildup and positioning of those resources; it could not be missed. Major wars don't start by surprise. Look at the buildup required by Russia to attack Ukraine, a much smaller country right on its border. China has shown zero interest in attacking the US. Anyone who is saying otherwise, you've learned something about: They are full of crap. > Telling people not to be concerned of Chinese balloons entering another countries airspace, especially the US, makes you look odd to say the least. Maybe odd to you, but not to most people, nor to anyone who knows what they are talking about. But if you say I'm odd, you're the expert! > Are you Chinese? This violates HN's guidelines. Calling people names demonstrates that you have nothing better to say.
- tekknik 4y ago
  > What makes that sane, if it's absolutely false, a waste of resources, creates panic in the public, and increases the risk of escalation? Because it will not lead to an escalation, retaliation or public panic in this case. Do you realize how many times per day the DEFCON level is raised on various bases within US soil? The public does not know, therefore will not panic. Do you also believe there is not an aircraft carrier within close proximity of China currently? Would this not lead to an escalation? That's SOP, put a ship off the coast of any country doing questionable things to the mainland. Would that not lead to an escalation? > China doesn't have nearly the resources to attack the continental US. You say this but then you contradict yourself. If they don't have the resources to attack, then right now is the perfect time to show we mean business. > If they had the resources, an attack would require a massive buildup and positioning of those resources; it could not be missed. This is ignorant. North Korea hides an entire nuclear testing facility inside a mountain and you don't believe China has the resources to hide their national security interests? > Major wars don't start by surprise. Look at the buildup required by Russia to attack Ukraine, a much smaller country right on its border. Nobody has said such a thing. A precursor to an attack does not mean an attack is imminent. It means instead they are checking current defenses to keep up to date for a future attack. > China has shown zero interest in attacking the US. They've only threatened to march on the US with the largest standing army the world has ever seen. Additionally why check US defenses? What's the point of a country checking the defenses of another if they have no intent on attacking ever? You don't probe an attacking countries mainland defenses when planning to defend. > Maybe odd to you, but not to most people, nor to anyone who knows what they are talking about. But if you say I'm odd, you're the expert! You claim I'm not the expert, does this mean you believe you are? We both know that anybody actually involved in the planning and discussion of these events that will have any effect on its outcome would not be on HN discussing it. So you're not an expert either. What I am, however, is ex-military. They certainly do train military on such things. What are your credentials? Have you polled people to determine their position on these events? How did you come up with the non-number "most people"? > This violates HN's guidelines. Calling people names demonstrates that you have nothing better to say. Hardly, point to the rule where asking someone's ethnicity is against the rules. The fact is there are Chinese operatives all over American social media and forums attempting to sway public interest, and you sound exactly like one. So again, are you Chinese?

wolverine876 4y ago

> The sane thing to do here is assume this is an attack, or precursor to an attack. What makes that sane, if it's absolutely false, a waste of resources, creates panic in the public, and increases the risk of escalation? It's far, far out of the realm of possibility. China doesn't have nearly the resources to attack the continental US. They generally aren't believed to have the resources yet to attack Taiwan, 100 miles away. If they had the resources, an attack would require a massive buildup and positioning of those resources; it could not be missed. Major wars don't start by surprise. Look at the buildup required by Russia to attack Ukraine, a much smaller country right on its border. China has shown zero interest in attacking the US. Anyone who is saying otherwise, you've learned something about: They are full of crap. > Telling people not to be concerned of Chinese balloons entering another countries airspace, especially the US, makes you look odd to say the least. Maybe odd to you, but not to most people, nor to anyone who knows what they are talking about. But if you say I'm odd, you're the expert! > Are you Chinese? This violates HN's guidelines. Calling people names demonstrates that you have nothing better to say.

tekknik 4y ago
> What makes that sane, if it's absolutely false, a waste of resources, creates panic in the public, and increases the risk of escalation? Because it will not lead to an escalation, retaliation or public panic in this case. Do you realize how many times per day the DEFCON level is raised on various bases within US soil? The public does not know, therefore will not panic. Do you also believe there is not an aircraft carrier within close proximity of China currently? Would this not lead to an escalation? That's SOP, put a ship off the coast of any country doing questionable things to the mainland. Would that not lead to an escalation? > China doesn't have nearly the resources to attack the continental US. You say this but then you contradict yourself. If they don't have the resources to attack, then right now is the perfect time to show we mean business. > If they had the resources, an attack would require a massive buildup and positioning of those resources; it could not be missed. This is ignorant. North Korea hides an entire nuclear testing facility inside a mountain and you don't believe China has the resources to hide their national security interests? > Major wars don't start by surprise. Look at the buildup required by Russia to attack Ukraine, a much smaller country right on its border. Nobody has said such a thing. A precursor to an attack does not mean an attack is imminent. It means instead they are checking current defenses to keep up to date for a future attack. > China has shown zero interest in attacking the US. They've only threatened to march on the US with the largest standing army the world has ever seen. Additionally why check US defenses? What's the point of a country checking the defenses of another if they have no intent on attacking ever? You don't probe an attacking countries mainland defenses when planning to defend. > Maybe odd to you, but not to most people, nor to anyone who knows what they are talking about. But if you say I'm odd, you're the expert! You claim I'm not the expert, does this mean you believe you are? We both know that anybody actually involved in the planning and discussion of these events that will have any effect on its outcome would not be on HN discussing it. So you're not an expert either. What I am, however, is ex-military. They certainly do train military on such things. What are your credentials? Have you polled people to determine their position on these events? How did you come up with the non-number "most people"? > This violates HN's guidelines. Calling people names demonstrates that you have nothing better to say. Hardly, point to the rule where asking someone's ethnicity is against the rules. The fact is there are Chinese operatives all over American social media and forums attempting to sway public interest, and you sound exactly like one. So again, are you Chinese?