Now we are aware that foreign powers are not only capable of, but quite
happy to float things over over foreign powers (something that has
probably been going on for years) then what will happen when one comes
crashing down over a foreign country causing at worst many deaths, and at
least a broken window ?

Since the recent events in the US (well done for shooting it down, btw)
have alerted us to such a possibility, how would their legal system
address the situation ?

Is this event in any way comparable to the U2 incident in the 60s (or was
it 50s ?).

And most importantly, who will star in the film adaptation ? I guess Tom
Hanks is a shoe-in for Biden.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/5/2023 8:13 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:

Now we are aware that foreign powers are not only capable of, but quite
happy to float things over over foreign powers (something that has
probably been going on for years) then what will happen when one comes crashing down over a foreign country causing at worst many deaths, and at least a broken window ?

Since the recent events in the US (well done for shooting it down, btw)
have alerted us to such a possibility, how would their legal system
address the situation ?

Is this event in any way comparable to the U2 incident in the 60s (or was
it 50s ?).

And most importantly, who will star in the film adaptation ? I guess Tom Hanks is a shoe-in for Biden.

People forget the U-2 incident. At the time, the US was flying U-2 spy
planes across any county it wanted to. The theory was that if you
couldn't defend it, you didn't own it. The prevailing US theory was
that the Russians couldn't detect the planes. The truth was the Russian
radars were detecting the plans for several years. On may 1st 1960, a
U-2 was shot down by an SA-2 missile.

U-2 still fly but the successor plane the SR-71 was retired by 1999.

The question of where does air space end and outer space begin is still unanswered. Could a country shoot down satellites that are over it?
The technology exists.

The other legal question is about Equatorial Orbits. These allow a
satellite to appear stationary. You satellite TV uses these for
example. You point your antenna at the right spot and never have to
move it. These positions are all on the equator. This question was
brought to the fore by the Bogota Declaration of 1976 in which eight
equatorial countries claimed segments of the orbit directly above them
as integral parts of their national territories over which they
exercised complete and exclusive sovereignty.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 05/02/2023 16:13, Jethro_uk wrote:

Now we are aware that foreign powers are not only capable of, but quite
happy to float things over over foreign powers (something that has
probably been going on for years) then what will happen when one comes crashing down over a foreign country causing at worst many deaths, and at least a broken window ?

Since the recent events in the US (well done for shooting it down, btw)

I wonder why they used a Sidewinder missile, which would have targetted
the electronics and destroyed them rather than the balloon. According to reports, the balloon was flying at 65000ft, which is the service ceiling
of an F-22 (Wikipedia). The F-22 also has a rotary cannon with a range
of about 2000ft (Wikipedia). So why not puncture the balloon and allow
it to descend at a slower rate, which would hopefully have preserved
much of the electronics for examination? Perhaps it would have to fly
over Mach 1 to keep airborne at its service ceiling, and at that speed
would have only 2 seconds to avoid the balloon after firing the cannon.

have alerted us to such a possibility, how would their legal system
address the situation ?

Aren't there many "accidental" incursions into one country's airspace by another country? If it's a military incursion, I doubt there's anything
other than a lot of diplomatic hand waving which would be the result. Of course, if it's a civilian plane, well, all bets are off (Korean Air
Lines Flight 007).

--

Jeff

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/5/2023 10:22 PM, Roy wrote:

The other legal question is about Equatorial Orbits.  These allow a satellite to appear stationary.  You satellite TV uses these for
example.  You point your antenna at the right spot and never have to
move it.  These positions are all on the equator.  This question was brought to the fore by the Bogota Declaration of 1976 in which eight equatorial countries claimed segments of the orbit directly above them
as integral parts of their national territories over which they
exercised complete and exclusive sovereignty.

According to Wikipedia, the Bogota Declaration didn't get much support
and seems to have been abandoned.

As I've said before, International Law doesn't have a built-in
enforcement mechanism, unlike both Civil and Common Law (which have a
police and court system). The countries could try the World Court, but
there are two problems:
1. The US is not subject to the World Court, and we are one of the
biggest users of the geostationary orbits, especially over South America including Bogota.

2. The countries that signed the Bogota Declaration don't have much
military power and no space capability. A claim not backed by power to
enforce it is pretty much useless in International Law.

From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogota_Declaration

This would have led to a space ownership issue of practical importance,
seen the satellites present in this geostationary orbit, whose slot
allocations were managed by the International Telecommunication Union
(ITU). These claims were seen as violating the 1967 Outer Space Treaty
and did not receive wider international support or recognition.
Subsequently, they were largely abandoned.[2]

I also note that Columbia (and I think the other nations in the Bogota Declaration) is a member of the ITU and hence subject to its rulings.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

It appears that Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> said:

People forget the U-2 incident. At the time, the US was flying U-2 spy >planes across any county it wanted to. The theory was that if you
couldn't defend it, you didn't own it. The prevailing US theory was
that the Russians couldn't detect the planes. The truth was the Russian >radars were detecting the plans for several years. On may 1st 1960, a
U-2 was shot down by an SA-2 missile.

The US apparently believed that if a U-2 were shot down, there'd be
nothing but tiny pieces when it hit the ground. So it was quite a
surprise wheh the USSR not only shot down a U-2, but the pilot
survived and the USSR captured him shortly before a 1960 summit
meeting between Eisenhower and Krushchev.

The US had been denying that the U-2 even existed, so Eisenhowwer
looked like a fool at the meeting. People have suggested that the
Chinese government is in a similar situation, having wrongly assumed
that we didn't know all about their balloons.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 09:20:52 -0800, Jeff Layman wrote:

On 05/02/2023 16:13, Jethro_uk wrote:

[quoted text muted]

I wonder why they used a Sidewinder missile, which would have targetted
the electronics and destroyed them rather than the balloon.

Because they already knew full well what was up there ? And even if they didn't, giving the world the impression they did suggests very strongly
that they did. Which would lead to some very awkward questions for the
Chinese intelligence services - possibly resulting in a bill for a bullet
to someones family.

It's what I would do :)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 07/02/2023 16:17, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 09:20:52 -0800, Jeff Layman wrote:

On 05/02/2023 16:13, Jethro_uk wrote:

[quoted text muted]

I wonder why they used a Sidewinder missile, which would have targetted
the electronics and destroyed them rather than the balloon.

Because they already knew full well what was up there ? And even if they didn't, giving the world the impression they did suggests very strongly
that they did.

I don't understand your argument here. The US Navy is spending a *lot*
of time and effort on recovering what they can: <https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/07/politics/spy-balloon-navy-photos/index.html>

And that's despite the statement in that article:
" US officials also determined that the balloon did not pose a
significant risk in its ability to gather intelligence.

A senior defense official said last week that the balloon had “limited additive value” from an intelligence collection perspective."

"Limited additive value"? Hmm...

--

Jeff

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On February 5, Roy wrote:

Now we are aware that foreign powers are not only capable of, but quite
happy to float things over over foreign powers (something that has
probably been going on for years) then what will happen when one comes
crashing down over a foreign country causing at worst many deaths, and at
least a broken window ?
Since the recent events in the US (well done for shooting it down, btw)
have alerted us to such a possibility, how would their legal system
address the situation ?

On a related note: does the supply and use of U.S. Abrams tanks in
Ukraine, shooting at russian soldiers, constitute an act of war?

--
Rich

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/22/2023 5:19 PM, RichD wrote:

On February 5, Roy wrote:

I actually included that from someone else. Please make sure you quote
the right person. The actual quote was from

On 2/5/2023 8:13 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:

Now we are aware that foreign powers are not only capable of, but quite
happy to float things over over foreign powers (something that has
probably been going on for years) then what will happen when one comes
crashing down over a foreign country causing at worst many deaths, and at >>> least a broken window ?
Since the recent events in the US (well done for shooting it down, btw)
have alerted us to such a possibility, how would their legal system
address the situation ?

On 3/22/2023 5:19 PM, RichD wrote:

On a related note: does the supply and use of U.S. Abrams tanks in
Ukraine, shooting at russian soldiers, constitute an act of war?

--
Rich

If that was true then it started with the Greek civil war in the late
1940s. The Russians supplied the communist rebels and the US was
supplying the Greek government. The Korean police action of 1950 had
both sides receiving supplies and both American and Soviet military in
direct combat.

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/196389/soviet-pilots-over-mig-alley/#:~:text=In%20August%201950%2C%20the%20USSR,had%20pilots%20in%20direct%20combat.

As a side note the M1 tank has two basic versions: US only and export

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/m1-abrams-tanks-in-u-s-inventory-have-armor-too-secret-to-send-to-ukraine

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)