Jump to content

Is it a Chinese weather balloon or spy balloon?


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Why would the CBC say that? They like their China boys. They love em' long time.

Good question.  I don't have the answer to be honest.

"Some CBC News stories are combined from a variety of sources, including one or more news agencies and CBC News staff. They are written and edited by CBC News but carry a generic CBC News byline. CBC News also publishes stories from different news agencies, including The Canadian Press, The Associated Press and Reuters."

-CBC.ca

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

"Citizens would not have appreciated having a missile blowing over their heads,″ said Maj. Roland Lavoie.
"Also, it might be overkill, spending a couple of hundred thousand dollars on a missile to shoot down a balloon that's drifting away.″

But ya gotta blow things up, blow 'em up real good ! Million dollar cruise missile to blow up a Toyota pickup good, it's the MAGA way!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, blackbird said:

but that Canadian weather balloon had all the characteristics of a weather balloon

whereas these Chinese balloons have equipment which has nothing to do with weather research

you don't need solar panels to power a weather balloon

the presence of solar panels indicates a constant power source for persistent operations

the Chinese have no reason to be analyzing the weather far from their shores

Balloons with this sort of endurance indicate dual use military capability at minimum

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Balloons with this sort of endurance indicate dual use military capability at minimum

Nonsense.  You haven't seen what sort of equipment was on the balloon and are just making up assumptions.

China claims it was some sort of weather research civilian balloon.  So perhaps it did have some sort of propulsion and solar system on it for that purpose.   Lets wait until we see the facts, if they are even made public before jumping to conclusions. 

It is exactly your kind of false accusations that politicians and media in the west are making which make international relations more strained at a time when we should be reducing conflict.  Let's wait until there are some facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

It is exactly your kind of false accusations that politicians and media in the west are making which make international relations more strained at a time when we should be reducing conflict.  Let's wait until there are some facts.

 Chinese Communist Party delenda est

whether they send balloons or not, I view them as the enemy

I have no desire for peaceful coexistence with the Chinese Communists

I am prepared to go to war against them

up to and including use of thermonuclear weapons as necessary

better dead than Red

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

 Chinese Communist Party delenda est

whether they send balloons or not, I view them as the enemy

I have no desire for peaceful coexistence with the Chinese Communists

I am prepared to go to war against them

up to and including use of thermonuclear weapons as necessary

better dead than Red

"Matthew 5:9 - Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Romans 12:18 - If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

Mutually assured destruction is nonsensical.   Practically nobody thinks that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, blackbird said:


Romans 12:18 - If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

Mutually assured destruction is nonsensical.   Practically nobody thinks that way.

"Mutually Assured Destruction"

is simply a theory propagated by Democrat Secretary of Defense Robert Strange McNamara

it doesn't actually reflect the nature of the real world operational environment

Mutual Vulnerability was a policy objective of the Democrat Party

which, like all Democrat policies,  was inherently utopian and misguided

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

"Mutually Assured Destruction"

is simply a theory propagated by Democrat Secretary of Defense Robert Strange McNamara

it doesn't actually reflect the nature of the real world operational environment

Mutual Vulnerability was a policy objective of the Democrat Party

which, like all Democrat policies,  was inherently utopian and misguided

 

 

You are ignoring the reality that the superpowers each have thousands of nuclear missiles read to go.  Any nuclear war would wipe out much of the world's population and destroy all major cities and leave the rest of the world in rubble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, blackbird said:

"Matthew 5:9 - Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God

I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
"As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal";
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel,
Since God is marching on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You are ignoring the reality that the superpowers each have thousands of nuclear missiles read to go.  Any nuclear war would wipe out much of the world's population and destroy all major cities and leave the rest of the world in rubble.

it wont be an extinction event

the human race will survive

a new civilization will be born from the rubble of the old

 "And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth." ~ Genesis 6:13

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

"Mutually Assured Destruction"

is simply a theory propagated by Democrat Secretary of Defense Robert Strange McNamara

it doesn't actually reflect the nature of the real world operational environment

Mutual Vulnerability was a policy objective of the Democrat Party

which, like all Democrat policies,  was inherently utopian and misguided

 

 

Yet is effective and relied upon all these years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Yet is effective and relied upon all these years.

causation correlation fallacy

for most of the Cold War, America was totally dominant, there was no MAD, the Soviets couldn't strike back

the Soviets were only able to destroy the CONUS starting in the late 1970's

within five years the Soviets were suing for peace because their economy was collapsing with the oil price

in addition, for MAD to actually be in effect, all tactical nuclear weapons have to be eliminated

yet both sides maintain thousands of tactical warheads beyond their strategic inventory

furthermore,  SSBN-734 USS Tennessee has just been loaded with tactical warheads, the W76-2

2400 x 10 Kt warheads, which is not for MAD, those are tactical warheads loaded on UGM-133 Trident SLBM's

the Trident SLBM can be launched on a depressed trajectory for theatre thermonuclear war

so not only has MAD not been proven as a long term stable paradigm

but neither side believes in it, since both sides maintain theatre counterforce options for preemptive first strikes

the whole Hypersonic arms race in play right now, is a counterforce arms race

counterforce is not for MAD deterrence, counterforce weapons are meant to be used

to include the USAF B-21 Raider being built now, stealth bombers are inherent first strike counterforce weapons

never mind that in a multipolar nuclear world, with 9 nuclear powers, including North Korea

the stable binary US vs Soviet MAD is no longer in control

America in particular has never accepted Mutual Vulnerability

the Reagan Administration stated as much way back in 1983, with the SDI "Star Wars" program

it's against the American ethos to be at the mercy of an adversary

so America is in fact building a massive first strike capability

theatre tactical ballistic & cruise missiles, stealth fighters & bombers, with Ballistic Missile Defense

all in direct contravention of the MAD theory and in fact undermining it in real time

it's more accurate to say that there is a stalemate in terms of an interpolar exchange of ICBMs

but that does not preclude the major powers fighting nuclear proxy wars at theatre level

the 1972 ABM and 1987 INF treaties were meant to prevent this

and you will note that both those treaties have now collapsed, as both sides prepare for nuclear war

when the Bush Administration formally withdrew from the ABM treaty in 2002

and the Obama Administration deployed Ballistic Missile Defense to Romania in 2014

that signalled to the Russians that America was no longer relying upon MAD

and that is why there is a war in Ukraine right now, the collapse of MAD is why we are in Cold War II

because the Russian response was to invade and annex Crimea

then deploy tactical nuclear weapons there to defend the Black Sea Fleet

the Russians continue to proliferate Intermediate Nuclear Forces at a pace

and those are not for MAD, those are not for deterrence, since INF's can only strike in Europe

the only countries the Russians can't nuke is America, Britain & France

but they can nuke Poland and get away with it, and they know it

because they know America, Britain & France are not going to blow themselves up for Warsaw

and with tactical nuclear weapons, fallout is not such an issue

America used to detonate these types of warheads right outside of Las Vegas

so tactical nuclear weapons are very usable, MAD does not apply to them

the ICBM stalemate over the pole actually allows you to fight a tactical nuclear war in theatre

because you can drop tac nukes on proxies in theatre, without direct retaliation against you

the whole MAD theory was based on the idea that America would blow itself up for Europe

when in fact there is almost zero chance Washington would do that

the Soviets didn't believe it, and neither do the Russians, because its obvious America wouldn't do it

Obama went so far as to admit it, by enacting the Obama Doctrine

which states that even if the Russians nuke Europe, America is not bound to massively retaliate

MAD is all based on Eisenhower's Massive Retaliation doctrine from the 1950's

it was never realistic, it's just not credible, it's more political than it is strategic

in reality, MAD is just a myth that the government propagates to keep the public from panicking

meanwhile the Pentagon is actually preparing to fight World War Three in real time

hence why both sides are deploying more tactical nuclear weapons than ever

"tactical" means "to fight", anything tactical is not for deterrence, tactical is made to be used

and I would predict therein,  that the first use of nuclear weapons since 1945 ;  will be at sea

you can certainly nuke the other sides naval fleet after all, without inciting MAD

as nobody is committing national mass suicide just because you sunk their aircraft carrier

mind you, as I said, this is a multipolar nuclear world now

so I don't expect the first use to be in Europe

more likely scenario is that in a war over Kashmir,  the Indian Navy blockades Pakistan

then Pakistan tac nukes the Indian Navy to stave off total economic collapse

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Geez, I am exhausted reading that junk.

"Yet is still effective and relied upon all these years. "

again, causation correlation fallacy

the Pax Americana has kept the global peace for 70 years

but not with nuclear weapons

American prosperity has kept the peace

King Dollar rules the waves

but moreover,  the actual MAD doctrine supposes that there are only two sides

and both sides would have to rid themselves of all tactical nuclear weapons for MAD to be in effect

because tactical nuclear weapons are so usable that they could start the nuclear war in theatre

for MAD to be in effect, there can only be countervalue weapons

those are high yield warheads known as "City Killers", only holding each others population centres hostage

but all those warheads have been retired now

the warheads which are deployed now, are vastly lower yield counterforce warheads

those are warheads which only target the opposing military forces,while avoiding strikes against population centres

logical extrapolation alone, wherein one can see that MAD weapons have been retired

in favour of deploying tactical nuclear weapons instead

clearly indicates that the military forces of both sides are not actually built for MAD anymore

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

another serious problem for both sides now, in terms of carrying out their supposed MAD threats

is simply a lack of warheads

not only have both sides retired all of their multimegaton yield City Killer warheads for MAD

they don't even have enough counterforce warheads to supposedly as they claim fill that role instead

take for example the Royal Navy's Vanguard SSBN's, the British MAD deterrent

the Vanguard class can load 16 UGM-133A Trident II SLBM's for MAD

with 12 warheads per missile, 192 warheads total

but how many warheads do the British SSBN's actually carry ?

the RN  actually acknowledges that they only have 40 warheads deployed on patrol

those are W-76 warheads, so only 100 kilotons yield

that's only four megatons of firepower for the British strategic deterrent

that's not that much actually, in the context of MAD at least

MAD had the Americans deploying 9 megaton Titan II ICBM's vs Soviet SS-18 20 megaton ICBM's

MAD had 25,000 warheads on alert on both sides

yet the British now,  can only throw 4 megatons total

that's only enough to destroy one city

the entire British nuclear deterrent would certainly not inflict Assured Destruction on Russia nor China

China could lose a city of 20 million people and not even notice

the Chinese killed 38 million of their own people in four years during Mao's Great Leap Forward

they ain't scared of 4 megatons, that is nothing close to Assured Destruction

so if the British deterrent could not fulfill the MAD requirement of inflicting "unacceptable losses"

what are those 40 tactical yield counterforce warheads actually for ?

bearing in mind the US Navy has begun to convert our Trident II's into tactical nuclear weapons

a 100 kiloton warhead would certainly do damage, but not total annihilation

100 kiloton bombs dropped on cities is not MAD, it's not even WWII conventional level of destruction

a 100 kiloton bomb dropped on Toronto for example, would only blow the downtown core up

if you were north of Bloor Street, you would survive a 100 kiloton nuke dropped on Toronto

so 100 kilotons is not a MAD weapon at all, 100 kilotons is a weapon for striking military targets

if you have no MAD warheads, instead you only have warheads to strike military targets

then you are preparing to fight & win a nuclear war

and if so, then MAD is not in effect by logical extrapolation

they simply haven't fought a hegemonic war in 70 years, so the MAD theory has never been tested

it is certainly extremely unlikely that Russia & America would trade ICBMs over the pole

that would only happen by accident, launch on false warning

but Russia & America could fight a nuclear proxy war in Central Europe without launching ICBMs

and you could fight a nuclear war on the China Seas without blowing each others cities up as well

and that is in fact the war both sides are preparing for, in a new arms race in progress

again, if you say that we would never blow each others cities up under any circumstances ?

then you are in fact saying we could fight a theatre thermonuclear war without doing so

before he presented "MAD" to the media, Robert Strange McNamara had another theory

it was called Flexible Response

that is where you are limited to fighting a tactical nuclear war against proxies

you don't target each other directly, you fight a limited nuclear war contained in theatre

and that is the actual doctrine that the forces on both sides are following

you don't really believe, that if Putin nuked Romania : America is going to nuke Moscow

obviously that would be insane, and everybody in power in America would die with their families

so we know that they wouldn't really do that

which means Putin can nuke Romania, and there's not much NATO could really do about it

NATO claims that if Putin did that

they would launch an all out conventional attack against the Black Sea Feet

thus NATO has now openly stated that they would not massively retaliate in the event of

so even NATO is claiming that MAD is not preventing a nuclear war

because deterrence is all about credibility, and MAD is just not credible

you claim you are going to commit national suicide the moment the other side drops a tac nuke ?

don't be silly, nobody who would actually fight the war believes that obviously absurd bluff

sure, you might launch some conventional air strikes in the Black Sea

but nobody is launching Minuteman III's for Romania, I mean, get real

the weakness of the MAD theory is that it only addresses one very unlikely extreme scenario

an all out nuclear attack against your homeland with you knowing where the attack came from

there are so many nuclear war scenarios short of that

from state sponsored proxy nuclear terrorist attack

to limited theatre thermonuclear war between third parties

that MAD is rendered irrelevant for all intents & purposes in the vast majority of nuclear war scenarios

thus if the Pentagon really followed the nonsensical MAD theory that the media & public does

they would be negligent

which is why the Pentagon is acquiring tactical thermonuclear counterforce weapons at a pace

100 x B-21 Raider stealth bombers

2400 x F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter bombers

Tactical Trident SLBM for the SSBN's

Prompt Conventional Strike Hypersonic "Rapid Reaction" missiles

Prompt Global Strike Hypersonic Glide Vehicles

 modernizing the inventory of B61 tactical nuclear bombs

 the W80-4 next generation nuclear warhead for cruise missiles; Tomahawk/ALCM/LRSO

strategic Ballistic Missile Defense ; GMD, Aegis BMD, THAAD

the one nuke they want to get rid of is the B83

why ?

because it's too powerful, the B83 is a 1.2 megaton "MAD" weapon

Congress says it's "not usable" as a result

congress openly stated in a report that the B83 is to be replaced by the B61-12

because B83 would cause too much fallout if they used it in Ukraine

whereas B61-12 is the weapon which could be used in Ukraine

congress is telling you that they don't even want MAD weapons, they want weapons they could use

in this report, the Union of Concerned Scientists is saying that "big bombs are bad"

https://ucs-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/nuclear-weapons/b83-fact-sheet.pdf

but they've got it backwards, big bombs are for MAD, big bombs are only for deterrence

small bombs are the most dangerous bombs, because those are the ones which could be used

America is no longer in a MAD posture with unusable big bombs only for deterrence

America has shifted from Countervalue to Counterforce

small precise low yield nuclear bombs for fighting a tactical nuclear war in theatre

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...