Eliminatus said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

So it seems the former military guys here all agree that we should not have shoot it down prior to this. Why did we even let it get here?

This seems like a massive **** up by our military to allow it to even get over our air space. Explain that.

That's what I mean by carrying the water. Y'all seem to be defending, poor performance and bad decisions.

---

Pretty sure most military guys here were saying shoot it down in Montana at the extreme latest. Including myself. This was such a failure of our government that I am still trying to process it.

And it wasn't our military. Our civilian leaders pick the targets and when to shoot. Military just pulls the trigger. Been this way for generations.

HTH clear some things up for you.

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

So it seems the former military guys here all agree that we should not have shoot it down prior to this. Why did we even let it get here?

This seems like a massive **** up by our military to allow it to even get over our air space. Explain that.

That's what I mean by carrying the water. Y'all seem to be defending, poor performance and bad decisions.

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

We can't just shoot stuff down and endanger civilians. That debris can kill people and destroy property.

---

You have no idea how few people live in the areas it's flown over do you? But that doesn't stop you from gracing us with your nonsense.

---

redcrayon said:

---

Stringfellow Hawke said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

We can't just shoot stuff down and endanger civilians. That debris can kill people and destroy property.

---

Since when does the govt care about its people?

---

Believe it or not, the military doesn't want to kill civilians.

Some of you need to take a step back.

---

redcrayon said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

We can't just shoot stuff down and endanger civilians. That debris can kill people and destroy property.

---

When it was over Montana, there are virtually nothing for it to fall on. Should have been blasted out of the sky right then and there.

Actually, should have shot it down over the Aleutian Islands.

---

Why would we do that when we had disabled it's ability to gather and transmit data?

You can't predict where the debris will land. This isn't that simple.

---

MarathonAg12 said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

So it seems the former military guys here all agree that we should not have shoot it down prior to this. Why did we even let it get here?

This seems like a massive **** up by our military to allow it to even get over our air space. Explain that.

That's what I mean by carrying the water. Y'all seem to be defending, poor performance and bad decisions.

---

I'm not former. I'm current.

For reasons that go beyond your comprehension of national defense. There are experts conducting surviellnce in china, the Pacific Ocean and at home. This goes way beyond "see bad balloon, shoot bad balloon". With some of the most sophisticated intelligence gathering platforms in the world, both on ground and space, we deemed it to be a threat not worth shooting down over American soil.

Think strategic level impacts and influence and not tactical capabilities.

---

redcrayon said:

---

mike0305 said:

---

Bloomberg article:

Ballons

Relevant passage, not sure how Trump national security officials who weren't aware could know if Trump was briefed on it:

One top national security official from the administration of former President Donald Trump said none of the Chinese spy balloons were near sensitive sites or had payloads as large as this one appears to carry. Other senior Trump national security officials said they were not personally aware of intelligence on any Chinese surveillance balloons over the United States during Trump's four years in office and do not believe Trump was made aware.

---

So not facts?

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

We can't just shoot stuff down and endanger civilians. That debris can kill people and destroy property.

---

When it was over Montana, there are virtually nothing for it to fall on. Should have been blasted out of the sky right then and there.

Actually, should have shot it down over the Aleutian Islands.

---

Why would we do that when we had disabled it's ability to gather and transmit data?

You can't predict where the debris will land. This isn't that simple.

---

Actually, we can. Ever heard of physics?

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

So it seems the former military guys here all agree that we should not have shoot it down prior to this. Why did we even let it get here?

This seems like a massive **** up by our military to allow it to even get over our air space. Explain that.

That's what I mean by carrying the water. Y'all seem to be defending, poor performance and bad decisions.

---

They shot it down so it would fall in water off the East coast near Norfolk where a bunch of Navy water recovery assets are. Yes, they clearly decided to wait to do that. And anybody opining they definitely made a mistake okay you slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night and know for sure that was the wrong approach. Everybody has a right to their opinion.

---

.

Do you not think that letting it get over US soil was a mistake?

---

redcrayon said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

We can't just shoot stuff down and endanger civilians. That debris can kill people and destroy property.

---

When it was over Montana, there are virtually nothing for it to fall on. Should have been blasted out of the sky right then and there.

Actually, should have shot it down over the Aleutian Islands.

---

Why would we do that when we had disabled it's ability to gather and transmit data?

You can't predict where the debris will land. This isn't that simple.

---

Actually, we can. Ever heard of physics?

---

I guess you should call the Pentagon and let them know that you are better at physics than they are. I'm sure they'd love your assistance since they're all idiots.

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

So it seems the former military guys here all agree that we should not have shoot it down prior to this. Why did we even let it get here?

This seems like a massive **** up by our military to allow it to even get over our air space. Explain that.

That's what I mean by carrying the water. Y'all seem to be defending, poor performance and bad decisions.

---

They shot it down so it would fall in water off the East coast near Norfolk where a bunch of Navy water recovery assets are. Yes, they clearly decided to wait to do that. And anybody opining they definitely made a mistake okay you slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night and know for sure that was the wrong approach. Everybody has a right to their opinion.

---

.

Do you not think that letting it get over US soil was a mistake?

---

Has anybody been hurt yet by this? Apparently no, and they shot it down in a way and over water near Norfolk naval base making it as easy as possible to recover it.

So folks against what they did, can you 100% say with factual evidence that approach was wrong?

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

We can't just shoot stuff down and endanger civilians. That debris can kill people and destroy property.

---

When it was over Montana, there are virtually nothing for it to fall on. Should have been blasted out of the sky right then and there.

Actually, should have shot it down over the Aleutian Islands.

---

Why would we do that when we had disabled it's ability to gather and transmit data?

You can't predict where the debris will land. This isn't that simple.

---

Actually, we can. Ever heard of physics?

---

I guess you should call the Pentagon and let them know that you are better at physics than they are. I'm sure they'd love your assistance since they're all idiots.

---

Hey man, I'm a big supporter of the military. But the recent history has not left a great taste in a lot of peoples mouths.

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

So it seems the former military guys here all agree that we should not have shoot it down prior to this. Why did we even let it get here?

This seems like a massive **** up by our military to allow it to even get over our air space. Explain that.

That's what I mean by carrying the water. Y'all seem to be defending, poor performance and bad decisions.

---

They shot it down so it would fall in water off the East coast near Norfolk where a bunch of Navy water recovery assets are. Yes, they clearly decided to wait to do that. And anybody opining they definitely made a mistake okay you slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night and know for sure that was the wrong approach. Everybody has a right to their opinion.

---

.

Do you not think that letting it get over US soil was a mistake?

---

Has anybody been hurt yet by this? Apparently no, and they shot it down in a way and over water near Norfolk naval base making it as easy as possible to recover it.

So folks against what they did, can you 100% say with factual evidence that approach was wrong?

---

Can you say with 100% accuracy that it was correct? What Intel was gathered as a traversed over Alaska and then over the rest of the country. What are they gonna use that intel for? Any ideas?

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

So it seems the former military guys here all agree that we should not have shoot it down prior to this. Why did we even let it get here?

This seems like a massive **** up by our military to allow it to even get over our air space. Explain that.

That's what I mean by carrying the water. Y'all seem to be defending, poor performance and bad decisions.

---

They shot it down so it would fall in water off the East coast near Norfolk where a bunch of Navy water recovery assets are. Yes, they clearly decided to wait to do that. And anybody opining they definitely made a mistake okay you slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night and know for sure that was the wrong approach. Everybody has a right to their opinion.

---

.

Do you not think that letting it get over US soil was a mistake?

---

Has anybody been hurt yet by this? Apparently no, and they shot it down in a way and over water near Norfolk naval base making it as easy as possible to recover it.

So folks against what they did, can you 100% say with factual evidence that approach was wrong?

---

Can you say with 100% accuracy that it was correct? What Intel was gathered as a traversed over Alaska and then over the rest of the country. What are they gonna use that intel for? Any ideas?

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

We can't just shoot stuff down and endanger civilians. That debris can kill people and destroy property.

---

When it was over Montana, there are virtually nothing for it to fall on. Should have been blasted out of the sky right then and there.

Actually, should have shot it down over the Aleutian Islands.

---

Why would we do that when we had disabled it's ability to gather and transmit data?

You can't predict where the debris will land. This isn't that simple.

---

Actually, we can. Ever heard of physics?

---

I guess you should call the Pentagon and let them know that you are better at physics than they are. I'm sure they'd love your assistance since they're all idiots.

---

Hey man, I'm a big supporter of the military. But the recent history has not left a great taste in a lot of peoples mouths.

---

I'm female.

I get it but there are still loyal, very smart people in the Pentagon. But they have civilian leadership. That's just the facts. Even if they advised shooting it down over the Aleutian Islands, they can't just do that unilaterally. Read Eliminatus' post.

---

Apologies. I "hey man" everybody.

I get it we all have leader ship, but at some point someone's gonna take accountability for this, which appears to be a failure, that this balloon was allowed to fly over North America for seven days.

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

Today, the U.S. sent a powerful message to the world: If a hostile nation invades our airspace with spy equipment, we'll let it loiter around our strategic military sites for days before we take it out.

I bet Putin is quaking in his boots.

— Election Wizard 🇺🇸 (@ElectionWiz) February 4, 2023

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

So it seems the former military guys here all agree that we should not have shoot it down prior to this. Why did we even let it get here?

This seems like a massive **** up by our military to allow it to even get over our air space. Explain that.

That's what I mean by carrying the water. Y'all seem to be defending, poor performance and bad decisions.

---

They shot it down so it would fall in water off the East coast near Norfolk where a bunch of Navy water recovery assets are. Yes, they clearly decided to wait to do that. And anybody opining they definitely made a mistake okay you slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night and know for sure that was the wrong approach. Everybody has a right to their opinion.

---

.

Do you not think that letting it get over US soil was a mistake?

---

Has anybody been hurt yet by this? Apparently no, and they shot it down in a way and over water near Norfolk naval base making it as easy as possible to recover it.

So folks against what they did, can you 100% say with factual evidence that approach was wrong?

---

redcrayon said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

We can't just shoot stuff down and endanger civilians. That debris can kill people and destroy property.

---

When it was over Montana, there are virtually nothing for it to fall on. Should have been blasted out of the sky right then and there.

Actually, should have shot it down over the Aleutian Islands.

---

Why would we do that when we had disabled it's ability to gather and transmit data?

You can't predict where the debris will land. This isn't that simple.

---

Actually, we can. Ever heard of physics?

---

I guess you should call the Pentagon and let them know that you are better at physics than they are. I'm sure they'd love your assistance since they're all idiots.

---

Hey man, I'm a big supporter of the military. But the recent history has not left a great taste in a lot of peoples mouths.

---

I'm female.

I get it but there are still loyal, very smart people in the Pentagon. But they have civilian leadership. That's just the facts. Even if they advised shooting it down over the Aleutian Islands, they can't just do that unilaterally. Read Eliminatus' post.

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

Today, the U.S. sent a powerful message to the world: If a hostile nation invades our airspace with spy equipment, we'll let it loiter around our strategic military sites for days before we take it out.

I bet Putin is quaking in his boots.

— Election Wizard 🇺🇸 (@ElectionWiz) February 4, 2023

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

We can't just shoot stuff down and endanger civilians. That debris can kill people and destroy property.

---

When it was over Montana, there are virtually nothing for it to fall on. Should have been blasted out of the sky right then and there.

Actually, should have shot it down over the Aleutian Islands.

---

Why would we do that when we had disabled it's ability to gather and transmit data?

You can't predict where the debris will land. This isn't that simple.

---

Actually, we can. Ever heard of physics?

---

I guess you should call the Pentagon and let them know that you are better at physics than they are. I'm sure they'd love your assistance since they're all idiots.

---

Hey man, I'm a big supporter of the military. But the recent history has not left a great taste in a lot of peoples mouths.

---

I'm female.

I get it but there are still loyal, very smart people in the Pentagon. But they have civilian leadership. That's just the facts. Even if they advised shooting it down over the Aleutian Islands, they can't just do that unilaterally. Read Eliminatus' post.

---

Unless one knows what options and information was relayed by the Pentagon to the civilian leadership as input to make a decision, it is very hard IMO to opine how good or bad the decision making was.

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

We can't just shoot stuff down and endanger civilians. That debris can kill people and destroy property.

---

When it was over Montana, there are virtually nothing for it to fall on. Should have been blasted out of the sky right then and there.

Actually, should have shot it down over the Aleutian Islands.

---

Why would we do that when we had disabled it's ability to gather and transmit data?

You can't predict where the debris will land. This isn't that simple.

---

Actually, we can. Ever heard of physics?

---

I guess you should call the Pentagon and let them know that you are better at physics than they are. I'm sure they'd love your assistance since they're all idiots.

---

Hey man, I'm a big supporter of the military. But the recent history has not left a great taste in a lot of peoples mouths.

---

I'm female.

I get it but there are still loyal, very smart people in the Pentagon. But they have civilian leadership. That's just the facts. Even if they advised shooting it down over the Aleutian Islands, they can't just do that unilaterally. Read Eliminatus' post.

---

Unless one knows what options and information was relayed by the Pentagon to the civilian leadership as input to make a decision, it is very hard IMO to opine how good or bad the decision making was.

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

We can't just shoot stuff down and endanger civilians. That debris can kill people and destroy property.

---

When it was over Montana, there are virtually nothing for it to fall on. Should have been blasted out of the sky right then and there.

Actually, should have shot it down over the Aleutian Islands.

---

Why would we do that when we had disabled it's ability to gather and transmit data?

You can't predict where the debris will land. This isn't that simple.

---

Actually, we can. Ever heard of physics?

---

I guess you should call the Pentagon and let them know that you are better at physics than they are. I'm sure they'd love your assistance since they're all idiots.

---

Hey man, I'm a big supporter of the military. But the recent history has not left a great taste in a lot of peoples mouths.

---

I'm female.

I get it but there are still loyal, very smart people in the Pentagon. But they have civilian leadership. That's just the facts. Even if they advised shooting it down over the Aleutian Islands, they can't just do that unilaterally. Read Eliminatus' post.

---

Unless one knows what options and information was relayed by the Pentagon to the civilian leadership as input to make a decision, it is very hard IMO to opine how good or bad the decision making was.

---