Chinese spy balloon carried ‘multiple antennas’intelligence - US State Dept.

[revchuck38]

I'm trying to reconcile two things that we're being told.

Don't worry, we were jamming their signals so that nothing was getting out, while analyzing their capabilities the whole time, so that this was an intelligence win for America;

vs.

We flew U-2s over the balloon and were able to check on directional communications links from the balloon to Chinese satellites. (I know I'm not using the exact terminology.)

There may well be an explanation, but these two statements seem to be at odds. Are we sure we were able to prevent the balloon from relaying information to satellites?

Admitting that I don’t have access to anything other than news reports, my experience as a former intel weenie is that both statements can be true. It’s not a win as such, since we can’t undo the damage from intel they’ve gathered in the past, but we did take one of their better arrows out of their quiver.

[GyroF-16]

SIGINT isn’t sexy.

And many people people who would say that firing a gun straight up into the air is criminally negligent and we’re accountable for every round fired still wanted .gov to drop a sensor array (that we had already been observing, tracking and jamming) as long as three buses from 65,000ft over CONUS.

Okay…. But where do you propose drawing the line for what we DO shoot down over (or approaching) CONUS?
If not a reconnaissance balloon, then…
A fixed-wing reconnaissance drone?
A maned military reconnaissance aircraft?
A drone capable of carrying weapons?
A manned bomber that’s capable of carrying weapons?
An armed bomber?

Our whole method of enforcing “Air Sovereignty” is based on compelling compliance by being willing to use force.
The message to manned aircraft approaching a defended area is “if you do not comply, you may be fired upon” (I know, because I wrote the script used by NORAD interceptors).
So if we refrain from using force because objects may fall onto the homeland, we’re left with saying “Stop, or I’ll be forced to say “Stop” again!”
Which is to say that you only have actual sovereignty if you can and do deny entry to unauthorized entities.

It goes without saying that I’m very disappointed that a known foreign military aircraft was allowed to spend days over the CONUS without decisive action being taken.

[BWT]

Broken record reply:

There's a difference between legitimate questions and gnashing of teeth over assumed incompetence, making authoritative statements that are patently false, or responding to this incident by saying it's an embarrassment to the country without any context why.

And, the tribalist part isn't really just my opinion. There's been several people here to openly state such, including the forum owner.

I find the latter three more tiresome, which is why I'm withdrawing more and more from the forum and let my membership lapse. YMMV. I'm still not going to pretend that dumb shit should be entertained just to make people feel better, or that the forum should be more inclusive of said dumb shit.

I can elaborate on a separate sub-forum and had articles referencing that, but I didn’t post them given it’s the General Discussion.

That’s unfortunate about you tuning out as I like you personally. I don’t care that we disagree. I’m not going to stop asking questions respectfully because we disagree either - we’re in a place to have discourse.

I just had a friend that’s a different political view than me (polar opposite actually - we talk all the time - friends for years) tell me while on a lunch break he didn’t hire a Christian because they asked him to pray in the interview and ask me my thoughts given I’m a Christian. I shared my opinion and we kept talking (I didn’t think it was appropriate in the situation).

I work for a man that’s different politically and we get along just fine - I left my job where I was happy and politically aligned with that manager to come to this job to a manager I was politically unaligned with because I like him and his character. The jobs basically the same and I was offered the same money at my old job. I just trust him more and we’ve worked together in the past was one of the elements at play.

I understand your frustration - but it’s not as simple as you make it. Want me to PM you the article?

Thanks,

[TGS]

Okay…. But where do you propose drawing the line for what we DO shoot down over (or approaching) CONUS?
If not a reconnaissance balloon, then…
A fixed-wing reconnaissance drone?
A maned military reconnaissance aircraft?
A drone capable of carrying weapons?
A manned bomber that’s capable of carrying weapons?
An armed bomber?

Our whole method of enforcing “Air Sovereignty” is based on compelling compliance by being willing to use force.
The message to manned aircraft approaching a defended area is “if you do not comply, you may be fired upon” (I know, because I wrote the script used by NORAD interceptors).
So if we refrain from using force because objects may fall onto the homeland, we’re left with saying “Stop, or I’ll be forced to say “Stop” again!”
Which is to say that you only have actual sovereignty if you can and do deny entry to unauthorized entities.

It goes without saying that I’m very disappointed that a known foreign military aircraft was allowed to spend days over the CONUS without decisive action being taken.

You're approaching it from a traditional air defense/sovereignty POV, and in that context it makes sense.

However, in an intelligence context, a viable practice can also be to let the actor execute their operation so we can learn more about them: their capabilities/limitations, their objective and what they do/don't know, operational structure, feed them disinformation, or even use their own asset(s) to spy on them or other parties. Or, to present the adversary with any number of scenarios that we want them to believe about us, even if that means using some aspect of national security (information, equipment, operations, etc) as a sacrificial lamb.

Offensive counterintelligence operations can be worth it to sometimes allow things that you wouldn't otherwise allow. If we instantly destroyed every piece of intelligence apparatus we found, or arrested every spy as soon as we discovered them...well, we wouldn't be very good at intelligence.

[Risto]

Here is my senator in the balloon briefing. He seems pretty frustrated. I watched the whole briefing and it sure seems like the homeland defense gal wanted to explain things but couldn’t fully because of the non-classified nature of the briefing.


https://youtu.be/-5SQxBdwf9s

[GyroF-16]

You're approaching it from a traditional air defense/sovereignty POV, and in that context it makes sense.

However, in an intelligence context, a viable practice can also be to let the actor execute their operation so we can learn more about them: their capabilities/limitations, their objective and what they do/don't know, operational structure, feed them disinformation, or even use their own asset(s) to spy on them or other parties. Or, to present the adversary with any number of scenarios that we want them to believe about us, even if that means using some aspect of national security (information, equipment, operations, etc) as a sacrificial lamb.

Offensive counterintelligence operations can be worth it to sometimes allow things that you wouldn't otherwise allow. If we instantly destroyed every piece of intelligence apparatus we found, or arrested every spy as soon as we discovered them...well, we wouldn't be very good at intelligence.

I fully get where you’re coming from on using known adversary collectors to learn about capabilities and/or feed misinformation.

But once a spy (or balloon, or manned reconnaissance aircraft) is publicly known to be operating where they aren’t allowed to be, action must be taken. To allow the spy to continue to collect information when they are openly acknowledged to be a spy risks losing credibility and undermines deterrence.

[TGS]

But once a spy (or balloon, or manned reconnaissance aircraft) is publicly known to be operating where they aren’t allowed to be, action must be taken. To allow the spy to continue to collect information when they are openly acknowledged to be a spy risks losing credibility and undermines deterrence.

1) From matters of public record, this is a statement that is 100% incongruous with reality, but I can't really elaborate on that further due to my job. That much I can say just because it's no secret that we let their spies play to a degree, and they let us play to a degree...when appropriate. Life is not black and white.

2) I'd just consider that you're allowing yourself to become emotional (i.e feeling disappointed) over a situation which you have no verifiable information. None of us do. For all we know, that balloon flight could've been known about months in advance and we purposely transmitted a bunch of dick pics on its route, just to shoot it down in the ocean to be a bunch of dicks about it. Or maybe it wasn't even Chinese, and we leveraged them to take ownership of it and share in a nominal amount of press coverage just to save the world from a situation nobody wants to open a can of worms on based on who the actual operator and purpose was. Or maybe we are trying to purposely give the impression that we were unaware, disjointed, and inept.

Truth is, none of us know, so there's not much reason to get wound up, disappointed, embarrassed, or any number of emotions that people are feeling over this.

[Caballoflaco]

@GyroF-16 I had been working on a much longer response and checked the thread before posting to see that @TGS had said most of what I was going to, including the line about sending them dick pics, but he did it a lot more eloquently and with more retail.

I have no problem with us shooting down a foreign aircraft of whatever type and having it crash into a preschool if that’s necessary for the greater defense of our country, shit happens. But, on this one I’m trusting the people who said the falling debris would be more of a danger than what this balloon could do. Maybe they were wrong, or maybe we have awesome EW/intelligence assets and we can trust those folks to do what needs to be done.

[Crazy Dane]

I'm gonna quote multiples.

Okay…. But where do you propose drawing the line for what we DO shoot down over (or approaching) CONUS?
.

How do you justify shooting down a claimed weather balloon that is approaching or "just reached" US airspace? China may not be a friend but isn't/wasn't a sworn enemy either (though we are approaching that real quick). Heavy bombers, drones and other aircraft approaching would be hard decision without some kind declaration of hostility/war. The Russians have been pushing the limits for ever. It could be the very thing that starts a war.

I'm glad I'm not one of the people that will have to make that decision.

You're approaching it from a traditional air defense/sovereignty POV, and in that context it makes sense.

However, in an intelligence context, a viable practice can also be to let the actor execute their operation so we can learn more about them: their capabilities/limitations, their objective and what they do/don't know, operational structure, feed them disinformation, or even use their own asset(s) to spy on them or other parties. Or, to present the adversary with any number of scenarios that we want them to believe about us, even if that means using some aspect of national security (information, equipment, operations, etc) as a sacrificial lamb.

Offensive counterintelligence operations can be worth it to sometimes allow things that you wouldn't otherwise allow. If we instantly destroyed every piece of intelligence apparatus we found, or arrested every spy as soon as we discovered them...well, we wouldn't be very good at intelligence.

This is what I have been thinking all along, game the gamer.

I fully get where you’re coming from on using known adversary collectors to learn about capabilities and/or feed misinformation.

But once a spy (or balloon, or manned reconnaissance aircraft) is publicly known to be operating where they aren’t allowed to be, action must be taken. To allow the spy to continue to collect information when they are openly acknowledged to be a spy risks losing credibility and undermines deterrence.

Why do you think there was inaction, and the balloon was allowed to continue to collect data? Just because it was allowed to float along doesn't mean that there was nothing being done.

I'm trying to understand why I've had this conversation with so many people. The biggest reason so far is that they don't trust the current administration which I don't either but it's a tiring excuse.

[GyroF-16]

1) From matters of public record, this is a statement that is 100% incongruous with reality, but I can't really elaborate on that further due to my job. That much I can say just because it's no secret that we let their spies play to a degree, and they let us play to a degree...when appropriate. Life is not black and white.

2) I'd just consider that you're allowing yourself to become emotional (i.e feeling disappointed) over a situation which you have no verifiable information. None of us do. For all we know, that balloon flight could've been known about months in advance and we purposely transmitted a bunch of dick pics on its route, just to shoot it down in the ocean to be a bunch of dicks about it. Or maybe it wasn't even Chinese, and we leveraged them to take ownership of it and share in a nominal amount of press coverage just to save the world from a situation nobody wants to open a can of worms on based on who the actual operator and purpose was. Or maybe we are trying to purposely give the impression that we were unaware, disjointed, and inept.

Truth is, none of us know, so there's not much reason to get wound up, disappointed, embarrassed, or any number of emotions that people are feeling over this.

Re #1 above, I suspect we’re talking about two different things. I recognize that they’re a “cultural attachés” and the like at embassies who are tacitly acknowledged intelligence officers.
But if Fox News and CNN report that “sources in the federal government acknowledge that John Smith is a known spy for China”, then the value of John Smith for counterintelligence activities by our government is lost. My point was that once it’s acknowledged that there’s a Chinese reconnaissance balloon over CONUS, then we can’t very well use it to pass bogus information to the Chinese. The technology would still be exploitable, however. If there’s more to it than that, and you can’t discuss it (especially in this forum), I’ll take your word for it.

Re #2 above - you’re probably right. Over the past decade, I’ve grown admittedly cynical. I tend to no longer trust what used to be trustworthy and reliable entities of government. When the administration’s spokesman claims that they didn’t shoot the balloon down so that they could “turn the tables and spy on the Chinese” (paraphrasing), I tend to see it as political ass-covering and nothing more. I acknowledge that I could be completely wrong there.