7 ms·
Why did they blow up the balloons instead of trying to capture them in one piece and perhaps study them? What if they had something dangerous on board that coul
by emrah 4y ago
Why did they blow up the balloons instead of trying to capture them in one piece and perhaps study them? What if they had something dangerous on board that could spread everywhere in the air upon getting blown to pieces?!
- scyzoryk_xyz 4y agoTheatrics. Pentagon money well spent, bang for the buck, if those factored in.
- kjkjadksj 4y agoAnd now next years budget is justified with more money dedicated to missile manufacturers.
- pas 4y agojust make it a magnitude cheaper, but order 10 times as many, same deal, better PR!
- hypothesis 4y agoThey better be ready, because next guy is definitely going to launch 10x balloons for a grand total of “next to nothing”!
- kilgnad 4y agoExactly but why the theatrics? To cover up the huge event from the week before: https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/world-int/22973-us-and-norway-blew-up-the-nord-stream-pipelines-seymour-hersh.html https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/world-int/22973-us-and-norway-b... The point isn't to trick you into thinking it's real. It doesn't matter if you know it's all a bunch of bullshit. The administration literally conducted an act of war the week before. The theatrics are done to cover everything up. To make this bullshit the forefront of your mind rather then the blowing up of nord streams 1 and 2.
- gsatic 4y agoThey are not that competent. At best you could say they spend most of their time tricking themselves. But that's an American speciality not confined to the military.
- mardifoufs 4y agoI don't think there's a way to capture a balloon at 80 000 ft of elevation. Also, balloons would be just about the worst way to reliably deliver a payload without risk of it coming back to you. And there's also the fact that it's a scenario that has never happened, and there's nothing that would lead us to believe it has any chance of happening.
- Laaas 4y agoSend up a similar balloon but with people.
- kjkjadksj 4y agoYou wouldn’t even need people, a drone would be fine
- kjkjadksj 4y agoEasy, you use another balloon to grapple it, reduce lift, and therefore bring it down in a controlled manner. Of course this takes engineering and thought versus using a missile we can readily reorder.
- dpkirchner 4y agoWonder how much time and money it would take to create a maneuverable balloon that could rise 80k feet and precisely make contact with another balloon (that may also have some maneuvering controls).
- akerl_ 4y agoAh yes, “easy”.
- mardifoufs 4y agoIt's not about thought and engineering. If it was actually useful to do that, the military would've had no problem developing a solution like that. In fact, air to air missiles are infinitely more complex and engineered than any grappling balloon could ever be. It's just that it makes no sense to build something that is completely useless, for a scenario that won't happen.
- hotpotamus 4y agoI'd accept a few million from the DoD to begin a feasibility study of capturing them with a large butterfly net.
- krono 4y agoBlowing stuff up is just another means of communication Looking at that train derailment incident with the chemical spill and fire that recently took place in Ohio, it seems to me that the established order is rather willing to take the exact type of risk you describe
- kilgnad 4y ago[flagged]