XPost: talk.politics.guns, alt.security.espionage
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 02:58:59 -0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns george
lewis <
george78@gmail.com> wrote:
On 05 Feb 2023, !Jones <x@y.com> posted some >news:7rp0uhtnpuiuk4qa5f80v6rj8k8qepe6hl@4ax.com:
First of all, unpropelled objects that are lighter than air don't
"fly" any more than a brick "dives" when tossed into a lake. Both are
simply obeying that physical property known as the "Archimedes
principle".
It's just a gas filled envelope until proven otherwise. It only
becomes a "spy balloon" when there is solid evidence to support such a
claim; besides, a satellite makes a far better intelligence gathering
platform.
It was over US airspace. It doesn't matter if it's a Chinese democratic >party balloon or a flying donut dick balloon, we can shoot it down
whenever using whatever we want to.
I believe I said: "Once your balloon crosses an international border,
it stops being yours." By that, I meant I'd agree with what you said.
My main point, though, was that a gas bag isn't much of a threat. If
by "*we* can shoot it down", you mean *me*, I'd have punched a few
holes in it with a rifle when it was at low altitude. It would have
been on the ground within 24 hours. The positive side of that
approach is we'd have had the payload intact. (It's not clear that
we'll ever retrieve it from the bottom of the Atlantic.)
Of course, to a gun loon, blowing the shit out of it with a missile
that costs well over a million bucks is much more satisfying. At
least we managed to pop the balloon with a "single missile"... that'll
teach those slopes to mess with us!
I'm 'minded of the time I went to a church Christmas party. As the
opening prayer concluded, a balloon tree decoration popped. The
leader of the prayer threw up her hands and cried: "Hallelujah! What a
glorious manifestation of God's power!"
I see similarities.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)