>

Too big and heavy to be allowed unless given permission.
In any case, airspace is often a de-facto area of international law. China can say "you're not allowed to do that!" All they want. But the US did it. >

Airspace is not international law. A state has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory. It’s why the balloon was shot down over the coast in American airspace. 
A quick google search can confirm this. >

Yea, isn't your airspace as high as you can enforce? Or something like that >

There's no firm upper boundary so far, except insofar as objects in orbit are not considered to be within any nation's airspace. >

So roughly the Karman line, which is itself not precisely defined. >

I believe the 100km Karman line is what is used for treaties and such. Which ya is kind of nebulous since you can find sources that'll say the Karman line is at 80km. >

The 100mk line of demarcation has been historically used dating back to the space shuttle program and before, but the argument has been put forth for years now that the line should practically be lowered to 80km because the line was always supposed to represent the last point at which there was any significant atmospheric density to support aeronautical flight as opposed to ballistic. 
Not that aeronautical flight is particularly likely at that altitude. But it seems that experts wanted to delineate the point at which satellite orbits decay and meteors begin to burn up due to resistance (which happens at 100km), and the highest extent where winged craft and balloons can possibly reach while still riding on air. 
Another part of the argument seems to be that depending on location on earth, season, and temperature, the line can vary slightly, and by going with a figure of 80mk we set a consistent minimum across the board. 
I suspect that 80km will be the official karman line of the future. >

TIL thank you!
It's funny when the laws of man turn to science and ask for a hard number only for science to go "well ya see it's a spectrum" >

This is why we should distrust so-called scientific evidence that purports to give absolute answers. Very little is truly absolute in this physical universe we find ourselves in. While not particularly satisfying when looking for the cut & dry, scientific answers should tend to take the form: “Under condition A, 99.9% of all observed X will Y, provided that B is C.” >

regardless if it was military, or spy or just a weather balloon. its our airspace. 
if china wants to float their crap over here. then they need to ask for permission. >

A weather balloon is acceptable without permission, under international laws to which the US subscribes. 
The legal question here is whether this dirigible meets the standard of “weather balloon”, which is looking increasingly unlikely… >

That changed recently trump pulled out of that treaty didn’t he ? >

The Open Skies treaty is entirely different, and governed the scheduled over flights of electronic intelligence gathering aircraft from adversary countries. It was primarily between the US and Russia, and Russia was no longer complying with their end. >

How would we know of such a balloon had chemical or bio weapons that would be released upon being shot. And did we know before we shot this one down. >

Most chemical weapons require a certain level of concentration to be effective. Dispersal at 60,000 feet would mean that by the time any agent reached ground level it would almost certainly be below the required concentration.
And would be considered an attack with a WMD. And the US's current policy is to treat any attack with a WMD as a nuclear strike...which would require nuclear retaliation. That's a line no one is going to cross...with a balloon. >

Interesting. Obviously I don’t know about this stuff. Was just wondering, thank you. >

The fact that the Chinese are asking for it back clearly meant it wasn't a civilian weather balloon as they claim >

That's rich given how they basically got a EP3 Aries from us for free about 22 years ago, after one of their fighters collided with it in international waters. >

Have you never had a girlfriend? Sometimes you apologize when you aren't in the wrong so you can keep the peace. >


Have you never had a girlfriend? 

This is Reddit, my dude. >

Not everyone here is allergic to sunlight >

We like to call those people "imposters"
Gatekeeping a lack of functional social skills really helps foster a healthy community >

The moment China complained of shooting down of balloon was indication that the balloon was up to no good flying over US. >

That doesn't really add up in that way. Them being upset that the balloon was destroyed isn't proof that they were doing anything wrong. I think it was in fact a surveillance balloon, but it's not reasonable to attribute malevolent intent because they complained about us destroying their equipment. >

The military so far has said that it was equipped with self destruct charges that didn’t go off.
So definitely a weather balloon. >

I didn't say it was a weather balloon, and most of the reporting I've seen has only referenced the possibility of there being self-destruct charges.
My point was that their reasoning isn't logical. They are attributing guilt due to the Chinese response, but the Chinese would have been up in arms over shooting down a weather balloon too. It'd be like destroying someone's car and then declaring that they must have been doing something criminal because they get upset at you over it. >


It would be like destroying someone’s car 

Sure, I suppose if someone’s car had some sort of self-driving feature, was doing donuts on your property, and you disabled it, then you’d have an analogy that makes sense. And yes, if you destroyed that out-of-control car on your property, and the owner got angry it was destroyed rather than concerned about their rogue car on your property, I’m maybe going to think that they had programmed the car to do donuts on your lawn in the first place. >

None of those conditions would change the outcome of the example. It's still gonna piss off the person who owns the car, mistake or not. Their guilt is not predicated on their reaction to your response. It's predicated on the original action that led to your response. >

Uh, sorry, but someone getting angry about their vehicle being disabled when it’s out of control on someone else’s property would certainly be an unusual response given the circumstances. >

Not necessarily. You're viewing it from the position of the person who owns the property. If you step back and view it from an objective point of view, then it would make sense for the other person to be upset over their car getting destroyed too. It just won't be reasonable from the land owner's viewpoint. 
Effectively, their guilt and their reaction to the destruction of their property aren't exclusively tied. Getting upset over the destruction of property isn't inherently a sign of guilt.
(To reiterate my complaint, I am not saying that they are innocent. I'm saying that the logic doesn't make sense.) >

If it was a civilian weather balloon, they could have just said so before it entered our airspace.
The fact that they didn't tells me all I need to know. It was a spy balloon. >

You don’t actually know if they did or didn’t. The US was aware of the balloon when it entered over Alaska. It wasn’t until it reached Montana that it was actually made public knowledge. We have no idea what was communicated between the two countries during those two days it traveled between Alaska and Montana. >

WE have no idea...I am pretty sure the US Military knows. >

Yeah and the US Military totally has a record of telling the public the complete truth about everything. I have no idea if China is telling the truth or not, but I do know that trusting the US Military in situations like this is like trusting the cops after they've been caught murdering someone. >

Agreed. The military doesn't exactly have a great recent track record when it comes to deciding if it's a good idea to go to war.
See Vietnam and Iraq. 
I don't like the idea of Chinese spy balloons. But honestly there are 100s of satellites doing exactly what this balloon "did". Just this balloon wasn't very discreet about it. 
This is a lot of fluff that won't amount to anything. Unless of course the military is so pent up and has itchy trigger fingers that they want to start conflict because a balloon flew over us. >

Can’t wait to take my daughter to the Chinese Spy Balloon exhibit at the Smithsonian in a decade. >

I went a couple of weeks ago, new exhibits feel like walking into the television section of Best Buy with deafening sounds of muscle cars blaring. Should be renamed "Air & Space & Whatever noisy shite to attempt to please the NASCAR crowd Museum" >

Its hilarious that every single response from China over this has been "Noooo come on mann! It was just a balloon bro I swear! No dont look at it closer bro just give it back! Come on duuuuuude you're over reacting! NO NO! STOP LOOKING AT IT! ITS JUST A BALLOON BRO PLEEEASE"  
Like my man, you're making it even more obvious this isn't just a weather balloon. >

That's China's reaction to everything.  It's actually kinda funny. >

I’m seeing a lot of rumors and unconfirmed reports that they found explosives meant for self destruction on board. 
It’s also interesting cause when the pentagon was doing live briefings they made it a point to say the F-22s were continuously jamming signals to the balloon. Definitely blocking data from being sent back to China and potentially signals coming in for self destruction. 
If the rumors are ever confirmed, then it would bring up more questions. Would China have ever destroyed it over the U.S. and if they did what would happen if it caused damage or injuries? >

I find that cool. I didn't know f-22 can jam signals from onboard. Wondering if that is why they used an f-22. More to show china some things. >

Yep it can jam signals and has the highest service of all the US jets! >

And Putin bots absolutely seethe over how the twenty year old mass produced design can slaughter their current gen fighters they can't actually make a squadron of. >

Putin bots always coping and seething. I bet they loved burning man and creek boy the other day. >

China: it is a civilian aircraft
Everyone: which civilian is it then?
China: … >

"Civilian" doesn't necessarily mean it is operated by some random guy in China. It just means not military. Can still be operated by Chinese governmental agency. >

You make it sound like you actually believe them. >

Come on guys, the Chinese government would never lie. >

I don’t know why more people aren’t stating that there isn’t much distinction in China between military civilian scientific whatever - they all serve the Chinese state. >

The same is true of Chinese companies, as well. 
There is a reason that Amazon and Google do almost no business in China. >

Seems the espionage experts logged into Reddit early this morning >

Counter too. >

I am a bit confused (although, should I be) about PRC's official response to this.
At first I thought they were like "oh sorry that this balloon flew over, it was a mistake" but then the ygot back to their default tiger diplomacy stuff and complaining about US's transgressions? 
Did they think that if they apologize then it would just be allowed to fly by? >

Why would it be otherwise? Interested in US topography/weather? Wake up. >

Exactly. It didn't belong in US airspace, regardless. >

Weather balloons are allowed by international treaty. If it was in fact a weather balloon(unlikely) then it did belong there.