Zewp.com
Zewp.com
Bbobop.com . Kabij.com . Boss Bot . Antagonist . Theocratica . Pakled . Trump Bot . Christopher Bot . Ava Bot . I Idx . Rnd I

> "The Pentagon said it would not shoot down the balloon because of the danger falling debris could pose to people on the ground."

Previous | First | 1 | Last | Next

........................................................................

anon user #3
#1 2023-02-03 22:24:26

"The Pentagon said it would not shoot down the balloon because of the danger falling debris could pose to people on the ground."

If you don't understand this is bullshyt then you either aren't paying attention or your IQ is below 100.  There are other reasons they are doing what they are doing.  You don't necessarily know them.

........................................................................

#2 2023-02-03 22:29:05

Re: "The Pentagon said it would not shoot down the balloon because of the danger falling debris could pose to people on the ground."

You are half right. They are not shooting it down because they are gutless libfags.

........................................................................

#3 2023-02-03 22:33:08

Re: "The Pentagon said it would not shoot down the balloon because of the danger falling debris could pose to people on the ground."

If anon loser's IQ was 100 or more, wouldn't he be able to grasp the fairly simple concept of supply and demand?

........................................................................

#4 2023-02-03 22:38:23

Re: "The Pentagon said it would not shoot down the balloon because of the danger falling debris could pose to people on the ground."

If it turned out to be an EMP device what would happen?

........................................................................

#5 2023-02-03 22:40:20

Re: "The Pentagon said it would not shoot down the balloon because of the danger falling debris could pose to people on the ground."

A list of things to think about:

1.  The service ceiling on US fighter jets is published as 60K feet, which might almost reach the balloon
2.  The ballon may not present enough of a radar return to get a missile lock, or get a missile to detonate.
3.  The U2 could reach that altitude but isn't armed.
4.  Putting a missile or bullets through the balloon may not be enough to bring it down.  Ballons like that are quite large, and filled with helium so they won't explode like the Hindenburg.
5.  Doing something that isn't consistent with 1-3 may reveal something about US capabilities we would prefer remain secret.
6.  One other possibility is the experimental stuff the US has done with laser weapons.  But see #5.

........................................................................

#6 2023-02-03 22:46:41

Re: "The Pentagon said it would not shoot down the balloon because of the danger falling debris could pose to people on the ground."

wrote:

A list of things to think about:

1.  The service ceiling on US fighter jets is published as 60K feet, which might almost reach the balloon
2.  The ballon may not present enough of a radar return to get a missile lock, or get a missile to detonate.
3.  The U2 could reach that altitude but isn't armed.
4.  Putting a missile or bullets through the balloon may not be enough to bring it down.  Ballons like that are quite large, and filled with helium so they won't explode like the Hindenburg.
5.  Doing something that isn't consistent with 1-3 may reveal something about US capabilities we would prefer remain secret.
6.  One other possibility is the experimental stuff the US has done with laser weapons.  But see #5.

1) Doesn't matter because you can shoot beyond your ceiling

2) doesn't matter because it moves slow as shyt. Shoot it line of site, no guidance required. You just love to complicate things. Put a missile thru it, it doesn't need to explode. Tear entry and exit wounds in it the size of the missile fins and it comes down. Slowly.

3) Covered above

4) Covered above

5) As someone said, any 7 year old with a powerful enough BB gun can get it done

6) Stop making things so fuqing complicated

........................................................................

#7 2023-02-03 22:46:53

Re: "The Pentagon said it would not shoot down the balloon because of the danger falling debris could pose to people on the ground."

When has our military been right in the past 20 years? shrug

Bunch of liberal pussies pushing maternaty uniforms and woke nonsense.

........................................................................

RockHardConservative
#8 2023-02-03 22:50:23

Re: "The Pentagon said it would not shoot down the balloon because of the danger falling debris could pose to people on the ground."

Biden is weak and useless.  lol

........................................................................

#9 2023-02-03 22:56:26

Re: "The Pentagon said it would not shoot down the balloon because of the danger falling debris could pose to people on the ground."

wrote:

1) Doesn't matter because you can shoot beyond your ceiling

2) doesn't matter because it moves slow as shyt. Shoot it line of site, no guidance required. You just love to complicate things. Put a missile thru it, it doesn't need to explode. Tear entry and exit wounds in it the size of the missile fins and it comes down. Slowly.

When a weather balloon went rogue almost 25 years ago, fighter jets fired 1,000 rounds at it and couldn't bring it down

Almost 25 years ago, a large runaway weather balloon proved to be quite challenge a for a pair of fighter jets trying to shoot it down, staying in the air even after more than 1,000 rounds were fired at it.

The research balloon was measuring ozone levels above Canada, the Associated Press reported at the time. It went rogue in August 1998, passing across Canada, over the Atlantic Ocean, and through British airspace before entering Iceland's airspace and then drifting northward.

Two Royal Canadian Air Force CF-18 fighter aircraft spotted the balloon over Newfoundland and fired more than 1,000 rounds at it. The AP reported that the jets, Canadian variants of the American F/A-18 Hornet, hit the balloon, but rather than popping or exploding and crashing to the earth, it slowly began leaking helium. The big balloon was still in the air.

https://www.businessinsider.com/runaway … ory-2023-2

But thanks for playing, Tom Clancy.

........................................................................

#10 2023-02-03 22:59:17

Re: "The Pentagon said it would not shoot down the balloon because of the danger falling debris could pose to people on the ground."

wrote:

When a weather balloon went rogue almost 25 years ago, fighter jets fired 1,000 rounds at it and couldn't bring it down

Almost 25 years ago, a large runaway weather balloon proved to be quite challenge a for a pair of fighter jets trying to shoot it down, staying in the air even after more than 1,000 rounds were fired at it.

The research balloon was measuring ozone levels above Canada, the Associated Press reported at the time. It went rogue in August 1998, passing across Canada, over the Atlantic Ocean, and through British airspace before entering Iceland's airspace and then drifting northward.

Two Royal Canadian Air Force CF-18 fighter aircraft spotted the balloon over Newfoundland and fired more than 1,000 rounds at it. The AP reported that the jets, Canadian variants of the American F/A-18 Hornet, hit the balloon, but rather than popping or exploding and crashing to the earth, it slowly began leaking helium. The big balloon was still in the air.

https://www.businessinsider.com/runaway … ory-2023-2

But thanks for playing, Tom Clancy.

Royal Canadian Air Force   lol

........................................................................

#11 2023-02-03 22:59:54

Re: "The Pentagon said it would not shoot down the balloon because of the danger falling debris could pose to people on the ground."

wrote:

Royal Canadian Air Force   lol

25 years ago lol

........................................................................

#12 2023-02-03 23:01:54

Re: "The Pentagon said it would not shoot down the balloon because of the danger falling debris could pose to people on the ground."

wrote:

When a weather balloon went rogue almost 25 years ago, fighter jets fired 1,000 rounds at it and couldn't bring it down

Almost 25 years ago, a large runaway weather balloon proved to be quite challenge a for a pair of fighter jets trying to shoot it down, staying in the air even after more than 1,000 rounds were fired at it.

The research balloon was measuring ozone levels above Canada, the Associated Press reported at the time. It went rogue in August 1998, passing across Canada, over the Atlantic Ocean, and through British airspace before entering Iceland's airspace and then drifting northward.

Two Royal Canadian Air Force CF-18 fighter aircraft spotted the balloon over Newfoundland and fired more than 1,000 rounds at it. The AP reported that the jets, Canadian variants of the American F/A-18 Hornet, hit the balloon, but rather than popping or exploding and crashing to the earth, it slowly began leaking helium. The big balloon was still in the air.

https://www.businessinsider.com/runaway … ory-2023-2

But thanks for playing, Tom Clancy.

We should immediately shutter the Pentagon if we cant take a balloon out of the sky.  What a fool you are.

........................................................................

anon user #3
#13 2023-02-03 23:40:25

Re: "The Pentagon said it would not shoot down the balloon because of the danger falling debris could pose to people on the ground."

wrote:

A list of things to think about:

1.  The service ceiling on US fighter jets is published as 60K feet, which might almost reach the balloon
2.  The ballon may not present enough of a radar return to get a missile lock, or get a missile to detonate.
3.  The U2 could reach that altitude but isn't armed.
4.  Putting a missile or bullets through the balloon may not be enough to bring it down.  Ballons like that are quite large, and filled with helium so they won't explode like the Hindenburg.
5.  Doing something that isn't consistent with 1-3 may reveal something about US capabilities we would prefer remain secret.
6.  One other possibility is the experimental stuff the US has done with laser weapons.  But see #5.

They might also be interested in intercepting communications to and from the balloon.

........................................................................

Tom Leykis
#14 2023-02-03 23:53:10

Re: "The Pentagon said it would not shoot down the balloon because of the danger falling debris could pose to people on the ground."

5.  Doing something that isn't consistent with 1-3 may reveal something about US capabilities we would prefer remain secret.

You may have a point there.  Maybe they have their receivers tuned toward it and are listening to what it's saying.

........................................................................

#15 2023-02-03 23:55:29

Re: "The Pentagon said it would not shoot down the balloon because of the danger falling debris could pose to people on the ground."

I am sure that the Chinese are continuing to transmit and receive from a spy balloon that is all over the world's media.


facepalm

........................................................................

#16 2023-02-04 14:34:03

Re: "The Pentagon said it would not shoot down the balloon because of the danger falling debris could pose to people on the ground."

This place used to gave some intelligent comments. Now its a tardfest.

........................................................................

anon user #3
#17 2023-02-04 14:36:13

Re: "The Pentagon said it would not shoot down the balloon because of the danger falling debris could pose to people on the ground."

........................................................................

#18 2023-02-04 16:30:48

Re: "The Pentagon said it would not shoot down the balloon because of the danger falling debris could pose to people on the ground."

wrote:

This place used to gave some intelligent comments. Now its a tardfest.

I, for one, am no longer dispensing free intel.

........................................................................

#19 2023-02-04 17:44:48

Re: "The Pentagon said it would not shoot down the balloon because of the danger falling debris could pose to people on the ground."

This would be a great opportunity for the US to display it's power (if it wanted to)

Not by shooting the balloon down but by capturing it, packing it up and sending it back to China in working order.  That would be a much larger display of power rather than shooting it.

........................................................................

#20 2023-02-04 17:45:25

Re: "The Pentagon said it would not shoot down the balloon because of the danger falling debris could pose to people on the ground."

wrote:

This place used to gave some intelligent comments. Now its a tardfest.

Camp idiot used to be about camping and the idiots that did it.
\
old

........................................................................

#21 2023-02-05 20:01:36

Re: "The Pentagon said it would not shoot down the balloon because of the danger falling debris could pose to people on the ground."

wrote:

A list of things to think about:

1.  The service ceiling on US fighter jets is published as 60K feet, which might almost reach the balloon
2.  The ballon may not present enough of a radar return to get a missile lock, or get a missile to detonate.
3.  The U2 could reach that altitude but isn't armed.
4.  Putting a missile or bullets through the balloon may not be enough to bring it down.  Ballons like that are quite large, and filled with helium so they won't explode like the Hindenburg.
5.  Doing something that isn't consistent with 1-3 may reveal something about US capabilities we would prefer remain secret.
6.  One other possibility is the experimental stuff the US has done with laser weapons.  But see #5.

That wasnt so had was it? Just needed some balls. A week late.
Liberals pwnt again. As usual.

........................................................................

AusCarFancier
#22 2023-02-12 08:38:14

Re: "The Pentagon said it would not shoot down the balloon because of the danger falling debris could pose to people on the ground."

wrote:

A list of things to think about:

1.  The service ceiling on US fighter jets is published as 60K feet, which might almost reach the balloon
2.  The ballon may not present enough of a radar return to get a missile lock, or get a missile to detonate.
3.  The U2 could reach that altitude but isn't armed.
4.  Putting a missile or bullets through the balloon may not be enough to bring it down.  Ballons like that are quite large, and filled with helium so they won't explode like the Hindenburg.
5.  Doing something that isn't consistent with 1-3 may reveal something about US capabilities we would prefer remain secret.
6.  One other possibility is the experimental stuff the US has done with laser weapons.  But see #5.

Wow. Good thing you didn't post that horseshyt while regged, Phildo.

........................................................................

Previous | First | 1 | Last | Next
Share on Facebook . Share on Twitter  . UP . MUP . Zewg Inc