Chinese "weather" balloon shoot-down over US

[berkeman]

No, I heard it in an interview. If you need to make a fuss I'll try to find a source. I said I heard it from Leon Panetta. I didn't mean personally.

Sorry to make a fuss, but why in the world would you broadcast secure comms over short distances (low power) even using highly directional dish antennas when you could use secure fiber or coax? It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This looks like a related discussion

https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/scientificamerican0185-32.pdf

 

[boneh3ad]

What I said: We use low-power communications to coordinate our nuclear weapons system. We use low power specifically so satellites can't detect those communications. A balloon is at much lower altitude so it could detect those signals.

Those are likely the most classified communications to be found. And it followed a track that brought it close to several critical nuclear sites, like Malmstrom AFB.

I didn't contradict that. I contradicted an idea earlier in the thread that balloons aren't a concern because China has nukes, which are scarier. The key idea is the threshold for use of a nuke is almost impossibly high. Not so for a balloon.

 

[boneh3ad]

Sorry to make a fuss, but why in the world would you broadcast secure comms over short distances (low power) even using highly directional dish antennas when you could use secure fiber or coax? It just doesn't make sense to me.

The distances between silos are usually quite large. Cables like that would probably be vulnerable to sabotage. There's no perfect solution.

Any over the air comms are likely encrypted but even the pattern of use could be potentially useful. It's so-called pattern-of-life analysis that establishes working habits and protocols for sensitive installations. That's why the military had to ban Fitbits and other trackers on bases in the Middle East because it was posting data about when people go for runs and change shifts inadvertently.

 

[hutchphd]

I didn't contradict that. I contradicted an idea earlier in the thread that balloons aren't a concern because China has nukes, which are scarier. The key idea is the threshold for use of a nuke is almost impossibly high. Not so for a balloon.

I'm lost. Use to do whaT??

 

[boneh3ad]

I'm lost. Use to do whaT??

Just general use. The threshold for actually using a nuclear weapon is that the country basically needs to be facing an existential external threat thanks to mutually assured destruction.

The threshold for using a balloon for collecting intelligence is basically zero. The Chinese government just did it despite pending high level meetings with the US government.

 

[rbelli1]

So we need an anti-balloon system? Can I get a piece of that development money?

Someone has already beat you to it. I found a picture of prototype hardware.

BoB

 

[russ_watters]

I'm lost. Use to do whaT??

I found your comment in post #71 weird/confusing too. You seemed to be asking why we should be concerned about balloons when they have nukes. One thing has basically nothing to do with the other....and could be applied to any aggressive action they take. Why should we worry about fighter intercepts in international airspace when they have nukes? Why should we be worried about harassing Filipino fishing boats when they have nukes? They really are totally unrelated.

 

[Vanadium 50]

But honestly, it would be stupid to use lower power over-the-air comms to communicate short distances

And it would be stupid to try and listen at the receiving end. The transmitting end woule be better, and there are an infinite number of equally good or better positions.

Further, RF propagation (as you know) can be wacky. There are radio amateurs who have established communications with stations in all 50 states on "line of sight" bands. For the same money, you can do a lot better by 'wait and hope'.

 

[Swamp Thing]

Any over the air comms are likely encrypted but even the pattern of use could be potentially useful. It's so-called pattern-of-life analysis that establishes working habits and protocols for sensitive installations. That's why the military had to ban Fitbits and other trackers on bases in the Middle East because it was posting data about when people go for runs and change shifts inadvertently.

If that is one of the balloon's goals, there would probably be people on the ground who would easily hike or drive to places where the transmitter's sidelobes can be picked up. (I don't think that huge strips of land between and around the comms nodes could be made off limits to civilians). The PRC is able to apply quite a bit of coercion and/or other incentives onto former citizens, expats and diaspora in foreign countries.

 

[gmax137]

15 football fields by 15 football fields?
We used to call this "a square mile".

I know it is a tangent to this thread, but... what nitwit decided that "we" wouldn't have a feel for "a mile" and thought "15 football fields" was more meaningful? Right after the "three buses" ? Just stupid.

And then amplifying the mistake by going to area... I'd be happier with 640 acres, if they just couldn't bring themselves to call it a square mile.

 

[256bits]

I know it is a tangent to this thread, but... what nitwit decided that "we" wouldn't have a feel for "a mile" and thought "15 football fields" was more meaningful? Right after the "three buses" ? Just stupid.

And then amplifying the mistake by going to area... I'd be happier with 640 acres, if they just couldn't bring themselves to call it a square mile.

Don't worry to much.
No one has of as yet come up with "It's in X number of Olympic sized swimming pools of water".

 

[phinds]

Any over the air comms are likely encrypted but even the pattern of use could be potentially useful.

About 30 years ago I did some consulting with an aerospace sub-contractor that was developing a plane-to-plane and plane-to-ground comm system for the air force. The degree of simultaneous sophisticated encryption techniques (seemingly random frequency-shifting, etc) was amazing. I doubt that even knowing the kind of techniques used would be all that helpful, and this was 30 years ago. Undoubtedly better now.

EDIT: I should add, in case it's not obvious, that although the specific experience I talked about was for the Air Force, the techniques were and are available to all defense organizations.

 

[boneh3ad]

About 30 years ago I did some consulting with an aerospace sub-contractor that was developing a plane-to-plane and plane-to-ground comm system for the air force. The degree of simultaneous sophisticated encryption techniques (seemingly random frequency-shifting, etc) was amazing. I doubt that even knowing the kind of techniques used would be all that helpful, and this was 30 years ago. Undoubtedly better now.

EDIT: I should add, in case it's not obvious, that although the specific experience I talked about was for the Air Force, the techniques were and are available to all defense organizations.

Meanwhile, the Russians continue to talk to each other over commercial, unencrypted radios in Ukraine.

 

[phinds]

Meanwhile, the Russians continue to talk to each other over commercial, unencrypted radios in Ukraine.

The ineptitude of the Russian military has been a source of considerable surprise to me, and likely to others. I never thought they would be able to stand against NATO forces if it ever came to that, but I did not suspect they were so thoroughly incompetent.

 

[boneh3ad]

The ineptitude of the Russian military has been a source of considerable surprise to me, and likely to others. I never thought they would be able to stand against NATO forces if it ever came to that, but I did not suspect they were so thoroughly incompetent.

Years of grift and internal rot due to such pervasive corruption from top to bottom will do that, I guess. But it has clearly surprised the Pentagon, who originally thought this would all be over in a month or two... until the fighting started and Russia exposed itself as a hollowed out shell of what it portrays itself to be.

 

[hutchphd]

I found your comment in post #71 weird/confusing too.

My point was that there is a proportion to things. I do not wake up in the morning and worry "OMG what if the Chinese send a huge balloon over? What if we can't bring it gently to eaeth?"
I do worry every damned day about ICBMs. The balloon is a billboard with some radios The more we worry about it the happier it makes the military establishent in China (and here too ....part of the genius of it!)

 

[Vanadium 50]

what nitwit

You'll never find out. There are simply too many to choose from.

You have to look at it from the media's point of view. Important people don't use acres. Those are for farmers and others in flyover country. Important people live in Washington proper - the Distruct - or Manhattan. Perhaps the trendy parts of Brooklyn. They use subway service to get around - they know what a mile is, but it is hardly a day-to-day quantity. Might as well use hogsheads. But important people have all watched football games.

 

[russ_watters]

Meanwhile, the Russians continue to talk to each other over commercial, unencrypted radios in Ukraine.

My favorite is the undisciplined cell phone usage.

 

[fresh_42]

My favorite is the undisciplined cell phone usage.

It only shows whom they sent to war: unexperienced, naive teenagers.

 

[Office_Shredder]

You'll never find out. There are simply too many to choose from.

You have to look at it from the media's point of view. Important people don't use acres. Those are for farmers and others in flyover country. Important people live in Washington proper - the Distruct - or Manhattan. Perhaps the trendy parts of Brooklyn. They use subway service to get around - they know what a mile is, but it is hardly a day-to-day quantity. Might as well use hogsheads. But important people have all watched football games.

I'm going to call BS on this one. If the media was pandering exclusively to urban elites they would say the size in city blocks or something. Football is at least as popular in rural areas as urban areas.

A city dweller is probably the least likely person to have seen a football field in person?

 

[russ_watters]

My point was that there is a proportion to things. I do not wake up in the morning and worry "OMG what if the Chinese send a huge balloon over? What if we can't bring it gently to eaeth?"
I do worry every damned day about ICBMs. The balloon is a billboard with some radios

I don't worry about either, and I don't think anyone was actually significantly worried/scared of the balloon. I'm not sure where you got the idea that people were. Maybe misinterpreting interest for fear? It was interesting to the public and was a hostile act worthy of government response. It's the same type of incident as the Gary Powers U-2 shoot-down, but with lower stakes due to the posture of the relationship (not as openly hostile) and lack of a pilot.

The more we worry about it the happier it makes the military establishent in China (and here too ....part of the genius of it!)

I don't think you're interpreting it correctly at all. There was no intent to cause worry*/fear, no worry/fear resulted, so nothing for them to be happy about. The Chinese screwed up here and they know it.

*"worry" is such a diluted word with multiple interpretations of varied intensity. Our military/government has a responsibility to be aware of and respond to such things. I wouldn't generally call that "worry". You used the word "terrifying" originally.

 

[fresh_42]

I think this article is worth a thought:
What would China have done?

 

[Vanadium 50]

A city dweller is probably the least likely person to have seen a football field in person

Tell that to a Redskins...er...the Team Formerly Known as Redskins - fan!

 

[Frabjous]

My point was that there is a proportion to things. I do not wake up in the morning and worry "OMG what if the Chinese send a huge balloon over? What if we can't bring it gently to eaeth?"
I do worry every damned day about ICBMs. The balloon is a billboard with some radios The more we worry about it the happier it makes the military establishent in China (and here too ....part of the genius of it!)

I would argue that overconfidence on your part or by your peer competitor is destabilizing.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Here is what I think happened. It fits what we know, but we are unlikely to get facts in public to confirm or refute this.

I believe the Chinese were on a mission to photograph missile silos. Getting closer is better for this. It is probably valuable to know which (if any) silos are active, which are inactive, which are unused and which are merely decoys. I believe the mission plan was to come in high, get down low over Montana and possibly North Dakota, and then go up and north. Transmit when safely away, and ditch the balloon in the Arctic Ocean or maybe Hudson Bay.

I believe - or at least strongly suspect - that the US disabled the balloon over Montana. I can think of several ways to do this, one of which requires no technology beyond what would be commonly found on an Air Force base,

Why do this? Because it's embarrassing to the Chinese government, and when the inevitably overreact, it will be even worse. "When your adversary is making a fool of himself, let him."

I have no proof. But it fits.

 

[hutchphd]

I would argue that overconfidence on your part or by your peer competitor is destabilizing.

Sorry, but you will need to be a little less cryptic....I don't understand. Did they really believe we wouldn't notice?

 

[Frabjous]

Sorry, but you will need to be a little less cryptic....I don't understand. Did they really believe we wouldn't notice?

They were not noticed in the Trump and early Biden administrations.
Overconfidence is one of the ways that deterrence breaks down. I know if I had assets over a silo complex, I would be thinking about my first strike options.

 

[boneh3ad]

Here is what I think happened. It fits what we know, but we are unlikely to get facts in public to confirm or refute this.

I believe the Chinese were on a mission to photograph missile silos. Getting closer is better for this. It is probably valuable to know which (if any) silos are active, which are inactive, which are unused and which are merely decoys. I believe the mission plan was to come in high, get down low over Montana and possibly North Dakota, and then go up and north. Transmit when safely away, and ditch the balloon in the Arctic Ocean or maybe Hudson Bay.

I believe - or at least strongly suspect - that the US disabled the balloon over Montana. I can think of several ways to do this, one of which requires no technology beyond what would be commonly found on an Air Force base,

Why do this? Because it's embarrassing to the Chinese government, and when the inevitably overreact, it will be even worse. "When your adversary is making a fool of himself, let him."

I have no proof. But it fits.

Very little of this makes sense. The balloon had something like a 1 ton payload. It had a lot more than just a camera on it for taking photos. Further, you can get photos of silos from satellites and the silos don't really do anything worth watching anyway. They sit there in the middle of fields, waiting (hopefully for eternity) until called upon. The US is also not known to use decoy silos. The Pentagon considered it in the 70s when it was proposed to play a "nuclear shell game" by moving missiles around to keep the Soviets on their toes, but it was abandoned as impractical and ineffective. So simply taking photos is not likely the mission here, though I am sure it was part of it. It almost certainly involved SIGINT/MASINT of some kind.

As discussed before, Canada is also not some magical safe haven for a Chinese balloon. Canada is one of the US' closest allies (a member of NATO and the Five Eyes) and is half of NORAD, which is charged with the aerospace defense of North America. They jointly tracked this with the US. It's unlikely that, if detected, the balloon would have flown safely out of Canada. The only reason it went through Canada in the first place is because the US and Canada jointly decided to let it after they detected it out by the Aleutians. Further, the balloon seems to have had satellite communications equipment so it was probably phoning home constantly. It didn't need to go hide out in Canada to do so.

At any rate, the maneuverability of such balloons is limited. If it's riding the jet stream down from Canada, it almost certainly doesn't have the power to go back against the prevailing winds. It can probably slow its travel down and redirect, but still generally follows the wind direction.

The better, simpler explanation: The Chinese government has been sending these balloons around the world for years now and they have largely gone undetected. It just so happens that this time it was detected and China was caught off guard by that while also being surprised at how we reacted. What we learned from this incident and the intelligence we captured while letting it overfly us allowed us to identify several previous incidents that went unnoticed or were brushed off, both here in the US and around the world. The timing compared to Blinken's visit to Beijing is likely coincidental since China didn't expect us to notice the balloon since we hadn't in the past.

 

[hutchphd]

How do we know this? I don't mean to be stupid here but if they were nt noticed........?