3 ms·
>The balloon had a self-destruct mechanism that could have been activated remotely by China, but the officials said it’s not clear if that didn’t happen becaus
by News-Dog 4y ago
>The balloon had a self-destruct mechanism that could have been activated remotely by China,
but the officials said it’s not clear if that didn’t happen because the mechanism malfunctioned,
or because China decided not to trigger it.
OR if US blocked the C&C downlink to Balloon?
Marine Salvage : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_salvage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_salvage
- schiffern 4y agoNote that aircraft are not considered "maritime property" (the exceptions being seaplanes or aircraft transported by ship as cargo), so they aren't covered under marine salvage laws. https://www.perthilj.com/blog/2019/2/19/aircraft-salvage-in-admiralty-law https://www.perthilj.com/blog/2019/2/19/aircraft-salvage-in-...
- News-Dog 4y agoDoes that cover?; An Airship (aka) Dirigible Balloon : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship
- schiffern 4y agoAn airship is a type of aircraft, so yes. The definition of "maritime property" is inclusive, not exclusive. Balloons or aircraft would have to be specifically included on the list, but they're not.
- dirtyid 4y agoPRC wouldn't trigger a explosion where debris could land over US soil or even 12nm territorial waters where balloon was shot down. Realistically, only PRC on recieving end would know the effectiveness of US EW efforts. If USG is admitting PRC managed to gather some info then it was probably not as comprehensive as most thinks.
- lsllc 4y agoA self destruct doesn't need to blow up the entire ballon and airframe. It could just fry the key electronics in place and turn them into slag. You'd also imagine that there'd be some sort of dead mans switch so if remote access was jammed or if somehow the US was able to capture it intact, that whatever destruct mechanism would trigger.