• FlowVoid
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Sure, it’s possible that China deployed a completely novel type of weather balloon. But if so, it should not be surprised by the interception of its unusual balloon when it entered US airspace.

    For that matter, if you designed a brand new weather instrument that was carried in the back of a Cessna, and then you flew that Cessna into Chinese airspace to carry out your measurements, then you should expect to be intercepted and probably arrested. After all, Mathias Rust was sentenced to four years for violating Soviet airspace.

      • FlowVoid
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You should read the articles before you link to them. This one describes normal weather balloons, which are far smaller than the Chinese balloons and can only travel about 100 miles.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          I have, the article pretty clearly explains how weather balloons can get caught in air currents. 🤡

          • FlowVoid
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            And does it explain how air currents can add two thousand pounds of equipment to a balloon?

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              What does that have to do with anything. Just to repeat this, the context of the whole discussion is that US *admitted that there is no spy equipment on the balloon. The fact that you keep keep digging here is absolutely hilarious. You made an absurd statement that is disproved by 2 seconds of googling. Then you got called out on it, and instead of admitting that you stated nonsense you just keep doubling down. It’s absolutely incredible to watch.

              • FlowVoid
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                US *admitted that there is no spy equipment on the balloon.

                Once again, you are making things up.

                The US said the spy balloon was certainly capable of spying, but it did not collect information over the US, in part because of the American response.

                “We’re aware that it had intelligence collection capabilities, but it was our – and it has been our – assessment now that it did not collect while it was transiting the United States,” Ryder said during a briefing, adding, “As we said at the time, we also took steps to mitigate the potential collection efforts.”

                  • FlowVoid
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    No digging required, it’s all on the surface.

                    Even the headline to the original article said the balloon did not collect information. It never said the balloon did not carry surveillance equipment, you incorrectly assumed that.