FACT: The Chinese have overflown the US with balloons before.
FACT: Chinese spy balloons have been publicly documented as far back as 2020 over Japan.
FACT: The United States used the shit out of balloons during the Cold War.
FACT: The Soviets discovered that the best way to do anything about it was build custom planes.
FACT: Weather balloons require reflectors to be visible to radar.
FACT: The Soviets gave up on radar and relied principally on optical detection. (2 links up)
- A special electro-optical sight was made for the M-17, able to detect a balloon with a diameter of around 100 feet from a distance of 19-25 miles and then automatically track it. The laser rangefinder coupled with it had a range of 5 miles.
FACT: The Soviets eventually gave up on projectile weapons and tested lasers.
- The first experimental A-60, known as the Izdeliye 1A, made its first flight on August 19, 1981, with Yevgeniy Lakhmostov at the controls. The aircraft’s laser gun was housed in the cargo hold. On the fuselage spine, there was a large fairing, covering a mirror system, by which the laser ray was directed onto the target. The gun had a range of 25 miles and was able to ‘shoot’ for a total of 50 seconds, at least according to the design specification; reportedly, the actual firing time was only 11 seconds.
FACT: The US also tested aircraft-based laser weapons in the '80s.
FACT: In 2018, the USAF commissioned a development project called "Irascible Pod" for testing on the U-2.
SPECULATION: IRASCIble Pod = Illumination/Refraction for AeroStat CounterIntelligence. C'mon. Y'all know we've done worse.
SPECULATION: We needed an excuse to deploy our 70,000ft ceiling, 400kt, 14-hour-flight-duration, LIDAR-equipped, CO2-laser-bearing balloon hunter-killer and we got it over the weekend.
Sounds like we've moved to a zero-tolerance policy, and we're just gonna shoot down anything foreign we detect in our airspace, now. Fine by me. At least until it's one of my friends' ionospheric probing balloons.
Dude something at commercial altitude that doesn't respond to ground control? That shit would have gotten shot down at any point between 2001 and now. Guaranteed - there was one, and only one, balloon in the sky at that moment. Otherwise we wouldn't have said shit.
Good point. Somehow I glossed over the altitude. Maybe it was malfunctioning? Needed at least another 10k feet of height to have half a chance at making it to Canada. What a fun, sexy time in the stratosphere this week.
Lol I'm in NAS Whidbey's pattern. Shit be poppin'.
i dunno man i just don't trust china watchers, china understanders, and prc-opposers in the west any more than i would trust joe schmoe of the prc to tell me about what congress is thinking - i took a quick peek at nick eftia-what'shisname and he's been saying psycho shit about china, chinese people, and other culture war bugbears while writing for the epoch times and everything like, we see republicans and warhawks for what they are when it comes to what they say about the states: why trust their takes when it's directed outside our borders? it's all the Grey Men looking to justify their own existences or the raving maniacs that are the children and grandchildren of people that got Culturally Revolved the simplest answer is that geopolitical rivals are always doing their bullshit and jousting with each other and this is just the time we decided to kick up a fuss. it's cold war bullshit and it barely matters whether it's a spy balloon, a weather balloon, or some Blame the Maine on Spain stuff
You think China doesn't have US experts? What you're doing here is saying that my opinions and insight are null and void because I'm not Chinese. Did you mean to do that? Fer sure. You cruised around for long enough to find something to snark about. On the other hand, I read that book so long ago that I can say with confidence it's older than you are. Last time I talked to Nick Eftimiades was before The Epoch Times existed so it's not like we're buddies? But it's been 30 years and that book hasn't been discredited, no matter how much snark you mistake for insight. So you can get all the dude abides about this shit but the reality of the situation is this: big chunks of the government spend all their time and money figuring out what other governments are doing based on what can be observed. For better and worse. And a lot - not all, probably not most - of what they're observing, those of us in a free society can observe as well. Vibe out all you want but "it's cold war bullshit and it barely matters" isn't helpful, isn't insightful, gives you no real insight into what happens next and reveals your ignorance about what happened in the past.i dunno man i just don't trust china watchers, china understanders, and prc-opposers in the west any more than i would trust joe schmoe of the prc to tell me about what congress is thinking
i took a quick peek at nick eftia-what'shisname and he's been saying psycho shit about china, chinese people, and other culture war bugbears while writing for the epoch times and everything
yeah i think china has usa experts and i think a lot of them are cranks too - i don't think your opinions are null and void, i think your opinions sometimes incorporate he opinions of people that have no reason to tell the truth and a lot of reason to lie the book's older than i am and you're older than i am. i respect your opinion greatly and your life experience is so vast and so broad, my liege - do you want me to suck you off about it every time we talk? what's the point?
that's my serious opinion. it would be no different if it was in MLA, APA, or leetspeak. i'm not your debate opponent. I'm not your enemy. i don't even disagree with you. all i have is a gut check and my gut says that the people in the intelligence community are repulsive monsters and i don't trust what they have to say. it all matters in the sense that the people with power believe it and use it to start wars and shoot people, and none of it matters in the sense that no matter what i do or think i will never have an effect on it. i read every one of your spy / war / foreign policy posts and i knock them around my skull and try to learn something. can you cut me some slack? honest to god, can you assume I'm not trying to piss you off? and if it makes no difference to you whether I'm trying to do it or not, can you get over it?
Your "serious opinion" boils down to nihilism, though - you're arguing that nobody knows anything, errbuddy shaddap. That's fine. That's all well and good. The issue occurs when you advance that viewpoint while others are very much clearly not sharing it. I can and do assume you're not trying to piss me off. But you're succeeding anyway. Me? I do my level best to only piss people off on purpose and presume that most thinking human beings follow suit. Accidentally pissing someone off, after all, fucks your whole day up. So this can go one of two ways: K - "did you mean to piss me off?" Q - "no, sorry" K - "K" - or - K - "did you mean to piss me off?" Q - "no, but I'll respond in a way that clearly means to piss you off" K - "okay great I guess that's the end of meaningful discussion" The intelligence community harbors some of the world's most repulsive monsters and always has. There's no reason to trust what they say. On the other hand, assembling a list of verifiable facts in order to assess any given situation requires zero trust. The only thing you have to worry about is the veracity of your sources and the more data points that agree, the more you can trust your data. Are their lies afoot? Fer sure. You may have missed it but you're currently engaged in a slapfight in a post the content of which is me arguing the US government is using this balloon to escalate their counterintelligence operations. The lie is the story. All models are wrong, but some are useful. And when I'm the guy evaluating the facts and putting them up for discussion? And your discussion is it's all hateful bullshit anyway? Clearly, it does make a difference to me. I recognize that your world feels safer when nobody cares what you think or say, but I do. Believe it or not I make an effort not to antagonize my friends, and hope that my friends feel similarly.and if it makes no difference to you whether I'm trying to do it or not, can you get over it?
when you pull out the "you're a child, bow down" card, you deny me a conversational path other than "i bow, sir" or "don't tell me what to do, dad" - and then we're both pissed off. if you want an apology from me, say "you pissed me off because this is an issue i care about and it feels like you're dismissing it. what's up with that?" and I'll say "I'm sorry for pissing you off. i didn't do it on purpose and I'll try not to do it again. what part of it made you mad?" and you'll say "all models are wrong, but some are useful. we listen to lies so we can figure out the truth. don't dismiss it because you hate it." put up a bridge and I'll cross it. here's my bridge: I'm sorry for making you mad. when i wrote my post, i had no intention of irritating you and i didn't anticipate it to do so. i respond immaturely to things that i don't like, and at this point, i am so tired of fighting and arguing - i just want to be friends. can we be friends?
That's unfair. There are very few things I work as hard at as avoiding "you're a child, bow down." It drove me crazy when I was young and now that I'm not, I can see why people do it? And there are no good reasons to do it. So I don't. And I didn't. I said: Not you, not me, the book. I didn't bring up The Epoch Times. I didn't link to anything from The Epoch Times. I linked to an org chart created by a then-current research analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency. I would have linked to something newer but there hasn't been - ever since "most favored nation" status was given to China, none of our intelligence agencies have leaked any counterintelligence. 1994 is as current as we can get, but even shit written in 1994 has not really been amended. More importantly, whatever crazy opinions Nick Eftimiades has now, they weren't in evidence then. I could have mentioned Bertil Linter's book, too but it's a lot more speculative (and his distaste for the Chinese is a lot more evident. Would I read something else by Nick Eftimiades? Probably not these days because you're right - dude clearly has an agenda. Wildest thing about this book is it paints a picture of Michael F. Flynn as a competent, level-headed military executive. Do any of us have that picture now? Hell to the no. Would I read Mike Flynn on foreign policy now? Equally no. But if I needed some insights about JSOC from 2004-2007? He'd be on my list at a minimum, particularly if he wrote something prior to coming out of the crazy closet. Thank you for the apology, and thank you for acknowledging that you respond immaturely to things that you don't like. Here's my problem: you didn't like me pointing out that you made me mad. When I did my level best to do so as politely as possible, you got madder. So if I'm just sitting over here chortling about sub radio and you decide the whole thing is shit, I don't know that the onus is on me to figure out the kindest possible way to say "hey did you mean to be so antagonistic." We're friends. That was never unclear. So please do me a favor: wrap your head around the idea that your opinion matters by default.But it's been 30 years and that book hasn't been discredited,
this isn't politeness, this is condescension. question: did you intend for it to be condescending as a response to me pissing you off, or was it unintentional? either way, that's how it reads to me - the same way that you read my opinions as snarky or dismissive. at the end of the day it doesn't matter who says what first, you don't go for the jugular on a friend - and if your friend pokes your eye you don't poke them back, you say "hey man WTF". there's no onus on one side or another to be kind: you just put up with each others' shit, and if you can't do it in the moment, then you fight and apologize later. brother, you made me mad and you still kinda are, but I'm trying to bury this hatchet. that's all i gotFer sure. You cruised around for long enough to find something to snark about. On the other hand, I read that book so long ago that I can say with confidence it's older than you are. Last time I talked to Nick Eftimiades was before The Epoch Times existed so it's not like we're buddies? But it's been 30 years and that book hasn't been discredited, no matter how much snark you mistake for insight.
I intended to call out your snark for the snark that it is. You said it yourself - putting somebody down isn't a good argument and "nick eftia-what's'his'name" is mispronouncing-Kamala-grade shit. Again, not a buddy? But someone polite and interested enough to sit down and answer my questions for an hour back when I was just some bullshit wanna-be screenwriter. So counter-question - how could I have responded to that? I get it - you feel the need to emotionally shitpost between customers but if you crapping all over what I wrote didn't move my needle how would you feel? I'm sorry you took that as condescension? but c'mon: I want you to not be startled when I'm offended at your offensiveness? I'd give you a hug if I could. i respect your opinion greatly and your life experience is so vast and so broad, my liege - do you want me to suck you off about it every time we talk? what's the point?
brother, you made me mad and you still kinda are, but I'm trying to bury this hatchet. that's all i got
how many times and different ways do i have to say that I'm fucking retarded before you leave me alone? don't give me a bullshit non-apology. i have never seen you apologize for being a dickhead for as long as i've been in hubski. you are like a terrier with a rat when somebody gives you disrespect. i didn't fucking give you disrespect. i said something YOU FOUND OFFENSIVE AND WENT NUCLEAR OVER, AS YOU REPEATEDLY DO TO THE POINT WHERE IT IS A HUBSKI MEME THAT YOU MAKE PEOPLE LEAVE THE SITE RATHER THAN DEAL WITH YOU. i apologized for my part in this. i built my bridge. either stop strutting around trying to win the argument or stop pretending you're building your side of the relationship. please just stop. i don't want a hug, man, i want an apology.
It definitely looks like something ballistic tears through the balloon: I think they modified a missile to house a dummy payload instead of an explosive. I wonder how many tests of air-to-air missile launches from F22's at 50,000+ feet there've been. Air's so much less dense up there. To maintain lift, you've really gotta go screaming through it at quite the pace. How much that might affect missile launch? Dunno. And the three balloons during the Trump era? Sounds like they went undetected by the Pentagon, but that the intel agencies either knew about them in real time or after the fact, and then proceeded to keep Trump's appointees completely un-briefed on them. I'd imagine the previous balloons/payloads were smaller, since all three avoided detection by civilians. The latest yuge balloon seems like quite the stupid play by China. Certainly, the Chinese reaction to the U.S. reaction has been laughably stupid, at least. This is already such a better discussion than anything involving all of the people too stupid to google "How high can you shoot a gun?" (it's not even 1/4 of the way up to the balloon's altitude).
Link 4 The story on the previous balloons, the way they're telling it now, is "we were aware of them but unaware of what they were." Mattis was briefed and made the call not to discuss UFOs with Trump. I'd make that call, too. There's a great Nova called "Astrospies" that's technically about the Manned Orbiting Laboratory, a spying complex that was basically killed by the KH-9 before it ever flew. In it, they make the point that the entire impetus for spy satellites was (1) Sputnik (2) Frank Powers because the USSR was very, very proud of satellite overflight of the whole goddamn world and very, very salty about aircraft overflight of portions of the USSR. As a consequence, Eisenhower asked Edwin Land if he'd be cool fading into obscurity having never worked on anything public ever again while also underpinning the whole of the United States' electrooptical intelligence satellite program. Ed Land, being Ed Land, said 'fuck yeah, fam' and then basically got released from purgatory upon the advent of the CCD. There's also a great book called Deep Black that speculates about the then not-publicly-disclosed NRO and their missions. It's fuckin' great. The author interviews Hans Mark extensively about the NRO and Hans Mark is all "well if the NRO existed they'd probably work something like this" while Hans Mark was busily running the NRO. Anyway. William Burrows (no not that one) makes the point that the more spy satellites the better because it gives you disclosure in a "cold" war. You're much less likely to freak out about stuff you know about than stuff you don't. once more I am imploring everyone to read this article dammit Annnnyway. The US and USSR had this shit figured out - spy planes bad, satellites annoying but, you know, precedent. China? China signed zero of those treaties and were invited to none of those parties because they were busy genociding intellectuals so... ...I'm sure the argument was made that balloon overflight is an "easier to ask forgiveness than permission" situation followed by "fuck forgiveness and we need no one's permission." What blows my mind is, as of this morning anyway, most of the speculation is that the payloads are mostly electro-optical. The point being that yeah, your resolution is no better than what you'd get from a semi-decent spy satellite but which is more expensive, satellites or balloons? I'm not entirely on board with this because (A) if all you care about is cameras why do you have a 40ft long array for "solar panels" (B) why the fuck are you bothering with 500lbs of solar panels when a fuckin' 8lb lithium battery will power all your electrooptical bullshit for weeks and weeks and weeks. So I think they aren't really saying what the things really are, which is 4g sniffers. You tell me - what orbit would you park a spy satellite in? Google tells me about 200 miles up and I'm too lazy to fact check. Black body decay from a 4G cellular antenna at 200 miles? nuthin'. Black body decay from a 4G cellular antenna at 13 miles? NOW we're cookin'. So look. We've been sniffing all foreign communications into and out of the United States since 2003. We've been sniffing anything over-the-air for a fuckton longer. So the Chinese can righteously say "but but but you're listening to everything we do and you keep banning Huawei and it's just not fair HRRRRNNNGGGGHHH!" and be absolutely right? And be Chinese and feel entitled to level the playing field? And quickly discover that Americans are disinterested in level playing fields. "grab every 4g communication" is a keenly Chinese approach to surveillance. "What are they gonna do, shoot it down" is a keenly Chinese attitude to discovery. And it is quintessentially Chinese policy to overreach and then double down. I doubt we're going to learn about what sort of shenanigans the US intelligence community now feels justified to pull. I'll bet it's a lot. And we're already asymmetrical AF against the Chinese.It definitely looks like something ballistic tears through the balloon:
In two other cases, the equipment carried in the balloons was determined to be destroyed. The one other balloon was undamaged. The average munitions expenditure was high: 1.4 air-to-air missiles (AAMs), 26 unguided rockets, and 112 cannon rounds per balloon. This kind of weapon use is not necessarily a problem if a large balloon is involved, but it becomes very expensive if there are several hundred of these balloons and it’s not known what kinds of payloads they carry.
The latest yuge balloon seems like quite the stupid play by China. Certainly, the Chinese reaction to the U.S. reaction has been laughably stupid, at least.
I expect they can glean some useful and important traffic/data, but it seems very opportunistic, temporary and infrequent. You think their long term strategy may be to make these things ever smaller and stealthier and much more frequent in the future? grab every 4g communication
It sounds like the balloons used to be smaller, stealthier, and more frequent in the past. Three (known) little guys during the Trump admin. I'm increasingly convinced that the primary purpose of this was to just flex and start shit. If it was a trial balloon (hurrhrurhurhurhrrrr) to see how much political infighting it would cause here in the U.S., well, major success. Because yeah, if you wanna sniff 4G, you can just develop some hackware and deploy it on a bunch of phones, right? Wanna cover a wide swath of area? Rent some cars. Drive across the country. Having bigger antennae like what the balloon might've been equipped with only makes sense for longer wavelength (than 4G) comms gathering. But yes, what a major newspiece!
I don't know if we know that. If we had multiple images from multiple geo-located times we could triangulate the size and altitude. If that were the case they would have launched from international waters off the coast of California. you cannot be serious. Right. They did that. ZTE was banned in 2018, Huawei banned in 2019, first balloon we know of flew in 2020. An observation? I was expecting a heapin' helpin' o'bullshit when Russia invaded Ukraine. I'd been dealing with Russian cyberattacks for years but nothing like what Ukraine has been dealing with. And yet - as soon as the VDV got in planes, Russian cyberattacks dropped to zero. It's almost as if the US was letting the Russians fuck around just to see what they had and then as soon as the rubber met the road, the Russians were kicked out of the pool. It's abundantly clear that the Chinese want to spy on everyone through their technology. What the timeline suggests is that the US shitfit over Huawei has been effective. Probably not 100%? But quite possibly effective enough to encourage the Chinese to try alternative methods of signals intelligence. Where "some" and "area" are proportional, and where the odds of discovery multiply with every agent in the field. You wanna talk shitfit, imagine the jingoistic dumpster fire if some Montana state trooper pulled over a Hertz full of Chinese nationals and surveillance gear. Now imagine if, say, multiple states were involved. Fucker Carlson would be screaming for internment camps within minutes. Indeed. Let's be clear: if I'm violating airspace for intelligence gathering, I'm gathering all the intelligence, from DC to light, in every direction. If I'm gonna risk it, I'm gonna amortize that risk. Chicken/egg: (the balloon has a 30m pylon for solar panels)/(the 30m VLF array is perfect for solar panels).It sounds like the balloons used to be smaller, stealthier, and more frequent in the past. Three (known) little guys during the Trump admin.
I'm increasingly convinced that the primary purpose of this was to just flex and start shit.
If it was a trial balloon (hurrhrurhurhurhrrrr) to see how much political infighting it would cause here in the U.S., well, major success.
Because yeah, if you wanna sniff 4G, you can just develop some hackware and deploy it on a bunch of phones, right?
Wanna cover a wide swath of area? Rent some cars.
Having bigger antennae like what the balloon might've been equipped with only makes sense for longer wavelength (than 4G) comms gathering.
I agree about the tactic but the timing is way-off for that in my opinion. I think Xi is trying to lessen tension - stalling for time to try and figure out how to counter the tech freeze. Hence the plan to meet Blinken personally. Stirring up shit like this might be effective after the diplomatic visit but not before. I've read theories about CCP in-fighting and (anti-Xi faction) sabotage but here's an interesting and plausible alternative explanation - at least for me timestamp is 11:50 if it doesn't start in the right place. I'm increasingly convinced that the primary purpose of this was to just flex and start shit.
That's archetypal Chinese misdirection. If it's a success, Xi did it. If it's a failure, it's because a "regional governor" fucked up. COVID, bird flu, crypto bans, poison dog food, that shit goes back to Mao who copied it from Stalin, who learned it from Lenin, who learned it from Machiavelli. The balloon program is run off Hainan Island, which boasts a sub base that doesn't exist among other treasures.
"very opportunistic, temporary and infrequent" are the fundamentals of Chinese espionage. Here's a xerox out of Nick Eftimiades "Chinese Intelligence Operations." It's an org chart for one part of the MSS. Eftimiades has about seven of these in that book. Compare and contrast with SOCOM: Compare and contrast with the CIA: There are two approaches towards intelligence gathering by the Chinese, one with regards to Chinese nationals, and one with regards to foreigners. With Chinese nationals, the basic approach is "you'll do what we tell you or your family will suffer." This goes all the way down to "you have booked a vacation abroad to Milwaukee, take lots of pictures at this brewery and give them to us or your family will suffer." It goes all the way down to "since you're a traitor to your family by taking a semester abroad, you will attend every meeting you can to opportunistically talk about how great China is." It doesn't go much higher, though, because the Chinese do not consider other cultures to be cultures. Thus, they don't embed in other cultures, they don't work their way into other cultures. Their methods are entirely opportunistic. On the other hand, foreigners are plied with largesse in exchange for information, which often includes booking people into luxury hotels where they are under constant audiovisual surveillance. Rarely, if ever, blackmail. Fundamentally, "ask a lot of questions and break promises" is the methodology. I have a buddy who was wined and dined for six weeks about cinematography because a Chinese company wanted to come out with rip-offs of American equipment but needed an insider's view to make sure they understood what they were even looking at. I myself was flattered relentlessly as soon as I displayed any acumen for casting and metal printing... and dropped like a hot rock as soon as I revealed any skepticism of the Chinese ability to deliver. I honestly think that Anycubic canceled a product based on my reaction to it. Tik Tok is a quintessential Chinese intelligence program. They took an American app that couldn't profit, subsidized it, and use it to get into everyone's phone. Do they need everyone's phone? No. Do they know whose phone they need? No. But if it comes in handy they can flip a switch. Compare and contrast to how the (US-trained) Saudi Intelligence agency got to Khashoggi: they hit at least one of his casual friends and at least one of his fiancee's casual friends with Pegasus because they knew he was too cagey to get hit with Pegasus. The US and Israel will target two or three key guys and be surgical about it. The Chinese and Iranians will shotgun (China: TikTok on every phone; Iran, handfuls of jump drives with malware scattered about the Pentagon parking lot). Long-term? I think their long-term plan was to not get caught. Our long-term plan with the U2 was to not get shot down. Even after that our long-term plan was faster-higher-sneakier (A-12/SR-71) even in teeth of the USSR's faster-higher-sneakier response. Which do you think is easier, a plane that will go Mach 3 or a missile that will go Mach 4? We built 'em anyway.
