[MrLonzo]

Originally Posted by hypart

We might as well use the missiles for something. Every year the military creates weapons. And their budget only increases. So the military makes more weapons the following year whether a weapon was used or not.

So let's use as many weapons as we can. Maybe that'll help with storage fees.

Another question I haven't seen discussed: why be so worried about the payload of a balloon as a potential safety hazard to someone on the ground but not worry about a potential safety hazard of a missile when it comes down? Presumably, guided missiles are not being used, so there's little control as to where it lands. Just asking -- I don't know about these things and haven't heard anyone discussing them.

[MrLonzo]

And one other question that comes to mind -- with the military completely inept at taking down these high altitude 'objects' in a salvgeable way, shouldn't this be a job for the Space Force?

[Rodneysblue]

Originally Posted by MrLonzo

I've been wondering, and I've never heard this asked in the media -- why is it necessary to use a $400,000 missile to take down a high altitude balloon? Couldn't a small puncture using a low caliber bullet be more effective to provide a slow descent with a soft landing thereby providing easy recovery of relatively intact evidence?

That’s exactly what I said!

[tvbound]

Originally Posted by MrLonzo

I've been wondering, and I've never heard this asked in the media -- why is it necessary to use a $400,000 missile to take down a high altitude balloon? Couldn't a small puncture using a low caliber bullet be more effective to provide a slow descent with a soft landing thereby providing easy recovery of relatively intact evidence?

Originally Posted by Rodneysblue

That’s exactly what I said!

Take the time to click on the links (underlined words) provided in Post #21 - and you will have your answer.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Pres1939

Short answer: Absolutely, we had cheaper alternatives!!

I have no idea why we did bot use them. This action was like using a shotgun to swat a fly!!!

Shotgun to kill a fly? Cool! Indoor skeet shooting.

[Accidental1]

Originally Posted by Pres1939

Short answer: Absolutely, we had cheaper alternatives!!

I have no idea why we did bot use them. This action was like using a shotgun to swat a fly!!!

OK, I’ll bite…what are the cheaper options?

[cjrjck]

I believe the first balloon, the giant spy balloon, was at an altitude of 65,000 ft. The F-22 Raptor was able to achieve an altitude of about 58,000 ft at which point it fired the Aim-9x missile. The 20mm cannon carried by the Raptor would not have had the range to hit the balloon. The smaller balloons shot down later seem to have been an overreaction by the defense department. I doubt they will do that again anytime soon. As a side note, no matter what the altitude, the balloons are a very difficult target to hit in the air. They are moving at a very slow speed relatively speaking. The fighters, even when flying slow, are closing in on the nearly stationary target at 150 to 200 miles an hour. To get close enough to use their cannon, they risk hitting the balloon. Shooting at an opposing fighter usually from behind is easier in some ways because the opposing fighter is moving at a speed somewhat close to that of the attacking fighter. A head on snap shot where both fighters are approaching each other at a high rate of speed is extremely difficult.

[Accidental1]

Originally Posted by HJBeck

Hey it’s the military, cost isn’t an issue and it’s good target practice. 😆 Agree with you. 100 rounds of 50 caliber will bring it down fast enough to control where it comes down, plus help preserve the package they want to evaluate.

100 rounds of 50 cal at a distance of more than 9 miles????

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Accidental1

100 rounds of 50 cal at a distance of more than 9 miles????

Well, the air -IS- thinner up there...

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by MrLonzo

And one other question that comes to mind -- with the military completely inept at taking down these high altitude 'objects' in a salvgeable way, shouldn't this be a job for the Space Force?

Still in the atmosphere. No Space Farce. And if you really consider the military inept why not let them get some practice? Better yet, sign up an show 'em how it's done, TopGun.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Well, the air -IS- thinner up there...

Same with the hair on my head.

[Bay Kid]

That should get rid of any evidence.

[MrLonzo]

My questions come from the limited knowledge yet wondering child inside me, so as a way of closing out this thread which I started, I’d like to thank those who contributed to the edification process, including the links to similar discussions which I missed before posting – and sorry for the redundancy. My take away is that the military might of the U.S., despite its $900B/year budget, has failed to find an adequate defense of high altitude objects. Even with the ability to “read a license plate from a satellite”, it’s unable to determine the identity, origin, or purpose of such an object, and incapable of bringing it down safely in a salvageable way. Perhaps America’s ‘Achilles heel’ has been exposed! A fleet of high altitude balloons released across the country with payloads destined for no good (germ/nuclear/dirty bombs, etc) would appear to be a way for our enemies to attack, should they be so inclined. I’d like to believe that this problem does have a solution, and it’s just a matter of focusing attention back to such problems instead of spending that time teaching wokeness in the military. I’m not encouraged by the responses I’ve seen in these recent balloon cases.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by MrLonzo

My questions come from the limited knowledge yet wondering child inside me, so as a way of closing out this thread which I started, I’d like to thank those who contributed to the edification process, including the links to similar discussions which I missed before posting – and sorry for the redundancy. My take away is that the military might of the U.S., despite its $900B/year budget, has failed to find an adequate defense of high altitude objects. Even with the ability to “read a license plate from a satellite”, it’s unable to determine the identity, origin, or purpose of such an object,

Perhaps the "Made in China" label was on the bottom next to the "Chinese weather service" tag?

and incapable of bringing it down safely in a salvageable way. ...

And we still haven't figure out how to drop something from 8 - 12 MILES up without it breaking when it lands. Did we not learn anything from those high school egg-dropping chalanges?

[Caymus]

It appears that the balloon was NOT blocked from gathering intelligence from sensitive military sites.

Chinese spy balloon gathered intelligence from sensitive U.S. military sites, despite U.S. efforts to block it