The editors of the Washington Post struggle to offer President Biden meaningful advice on the unknown object that all seem to be balloons:
Some are demanding a nationally televised presidential address. That seems unnecessary at this juncture, unless it’s to reveal new facts.
But it also makes sense to develop a framework for how to approach future such incidents. On Monday, Mr. Biden directed an interagency team, under the direction of the national security adviser, to study the broader policy implications for detection, analysis and disposition of unidentified aerial objects that pose either safety or security risks. This effort could provide important perspective. Not every balloon that appears in the sky over North America needs to be fired upon by a costly missile. It’s harder still to see the need for an even costlier balloon defense program, although military contractors will certainly try to pitch them to lawmakers. To best protect the American people, it’s important to approach these incursions clear-eyed, calmly and without partisan gamesmanship.
IMO the source of the conflict is that you can’t have it both ways. Either the “objects” are completely non-threatening or they aren’t. If they’re non-threatening, why shoot them down?
I don’t think a “balloon defense program” is such a bad idea if by it is meant a face-saving and cost-effective way of dispatching these “objects”. Some military drones would appear to be capable of reaching the altitude at which these objects float. Now we need an alternative method for downing them, able to be carried by a military drone, that’s less pricey than $400,000 missiles.
Alternatively, we could have a military and political leadership with the guts to stand up to the criticism if the “objects” actually do turn out to be threatening in some way.
Shooting them down is not so easy. The Russians have spent a lot fo time and effort and it doesnt sound like they have much of a (cost effective) solution. Anyway, I think our efforts are best placed at trying to identify which, if any, bear real risk for us. Seems pretty clear now that this has been going on for a long time and across the whole world. Dont see a need to panic now.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/the-soviets-built-bespoke-balloon-killer-planes-during-the-cold-war
Steve
“Either the “objects†are completely non-threatening or they aren’t. If they’re non-threatening, why shoot them down?”
The presumption until this point has been that balloons are non-threatening, or at least not threatening enough to significantly worry about.
The relevant question is whether that presumption is currently valid and, if not, how exactly to address it.
And as previously noted, we can systematically track balloons the way we do with aircraft. It’s not rocket science, but it’s something that is going to take time, non-trivial regulatory changes, and non-trivial changes to our current airpace surveillance system. All of which, of course, will require funding on a short-term and ongoing basis.
What we really need is a new branch of the military, maybe a subdivision of the Space Force. Their symbol will be a giant needle. Their motto “Pop ‘Em”.
Steve
👍
Don’t laugh. I’m sure this is going to cause a big turf battle between the air force and the space force.
Another nugget; I read there’s nothing in international law (or domestic law) as to where sovereign airspace ends and space (which does not belong to anyone) begins.
That’s where the common law comes in. Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos (“whoever owns the soil, holds title all the way up to the heavens and down to the depths of hell”). In the United States, that’s the starting point and would prevail in the absence of contradicting law.