• FlowVoid@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m afraid you are the one making things up. The article doesn’t say anything about balloons following air currents, quite the opposite:

    That’s because balloons still offer unique advantages: They don’t disturb their surrounding environment, they’re very gentle on scientific instruments, they can hover in one place for extended periods of time

    Normal weather balloons are far smaller and incapable of crossing an ocean. The Chinese balloon was not a normal weather balloon.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is going to blow your mind, but there are different kinds of balloons for different purposes. Also, the word can has a different meaning from the world must. Perhaps work on your reading comprehension?

      • FlowVoid@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Sure, it’s possible that China deployed a completely novel type of weather balloon. But if so, it should not be surprised by the interception of its unusual balloon when it entered US airspace.

        For that matter, if you designed a brand new weather instrument that was carried in the back of a Cessna, and then you flew that Cessna into Chinese airspace to carry out your measurements, then you should expect to be intercepted and probably arrested. After all, Mathias Rust was sentenced to four years for violating Soviet airspace.

          • FlowVoid@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            You should read the articles before you link to them. This one describes normal weather balloons, which are far smaller than the Chinese balloons and can only travel about 100 miles.

              • FlowVoid@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                And does it explain how air currents can add two thousand pounds of equipment to a balloon?

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What does that have to do with anything. Just to repeat this, the context of the whole discussion is that US *admitted that there is no spy equipment on the balloon. The fact that you keep keep digging here is absolutely hilarious. You made an absurd statement that is disproved by 2 seconds of googling. Then you got called out on it, and instead of admitting that you stated nonsense you just keep doubling down. It’s absolutely incredible to watch.

                  • FlowVoid@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    US *admitted that there is no spy equipment on the balloon.

                    Once again, you are making things up.

                    The US said the spy balloon was certainly capable of spying, but it did not collect information over the US, in part because of the American response.

                    “We’re aware that it had intelligence collection capabilities, but it was our – and it has been our – assessment now that it did not collect while it was transiting the United States,” Ryder said during a briefing, adding, “As we said at the time, we also took steps to mitigate the potential collection efforts.”