Was China's 'Spy Balloon' Just Blown Off Course? (cbsnews.com) 112
China appears to have suspended its global surveillance balloon program after a balloon was spotted drifting over the United States in February.
But now an anonymous reader shares this report from CBS News: Seven months later, Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, tells "CBS News Sunday Morning" the balloon wasn't spying. "The intelligence community, their assessment — and it's a high-confidence assessment — [is] that there was no intelligence collection by that balloon," he said.
So, why was it over the United States? There are various theories, with at least one leading theory that it was blown off-track. The balloon had been headed toward Hawaii, but the winds at 60,000 feet apparently took over. "Those winds are very high," Milley said. "The particular motor on that aircraft can't go against those winds at that altitude..."
After the Navy raised the wreckage from the bottom of the Atlantic, technical experts discovered the balloon's sensors had never been activated while over the Continental United States. But by then, the damage to U.S.-China relations had been done.
On the CBS News show Sunday Morning, the host had this exchange with America's chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
CBS: "Bottom line, it was a spy balloon, but it wasn't spying?"
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: "I would say it was a spy balloon that we know with high degree of certainty got no intelligence, and didn't transmit any intelligence back to China."
But now an anonymous reader shares this report from CBS News: Seven months later, Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, tells "CBS News Sunday Morning" the balloon wasn't spying. "The intelligence community, their assessment — and it's a high-confidence assessment — [is] that there was no intelligence collection by that balloon," he said.
So, why was it over the United States? There are various theories, with at least one leading theory that it was blown off-track. The balloon had been headed toward Hawaii, but the winds at 60,000 feet apparently took over. "Those winds are very high," Milley said. "The particular motor on that aircraft can't go against those winds at that altitude..."
After the Navy raised the wreckage from the bottom of the Atlantic, technical experts discovered the balloon's sensors had never been activated while over the Continental United States. But by then, the damage to U.S.-China relations had been done.
On the CBS News show Sunday Morning, the host had this exchange with America's chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
CBS: "Bottom line, it was a spy balloon, but it wasn't spying?"
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: "I would say it was a spy balloon that we know with high degree of certainty got no intelligence, and didn't transmit any intelligence back to China."
Jet stream winds (Score:2)
blow from west to east
It was going to go over north america somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
blow from west to east It was going to go over north america somewhere.
Blowing from Alaska down to the continental United States.
So, first blowing south. Then west to east.
Re: (Score:3)
The balloon was supposedly at an altitude 60,000 feet. This is significantly above the altitudes at which the jet stream typically occurs, generally ranging from a little more than 20,000 to 40,000 feet. At 60,000 feet, winds are usually calm.
But let's assume that this was an extraordinary weather event and the jet stream was actually that high. Balloons are capable of attaining much higher altitudes than 60,000 feet. It sounds like there was something wrong with this balloons control and/or propulsion syst
what happened to diplomacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that China knew exactly where this innocent balloon was at any time point. Sure, balloons drift of course, but then why was there no diplomatic contact between China and US alerting them on this problem? If there was contact, why would it be kept secret from the public? Any of both parties could have published the email no?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If there was contact, why would it be kept secret from the public?
Because it doesn't fit the US narrative on China.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:what happened to diplomacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
The report comes a long time after the fact, when public opinion is already rooted.
So, yeah, it fits the narrative. It actually fits it very well.
1. You yell and whine about "evil Chinese balloon".
2. Public opinion is swayed towards hating the "evil Chinese".
3. You publish a report which 1% of people notice, saying "oops, we were wrong".
4. Public opinion remains largely unchanged.
5. From now on, if someone asks about it, you tell them "we are oh-so-honest, we published an apologetic report", but your initial goals were already met.
Or maybe I am paranoid, you decide.
Re: (Score:2)
If there was contact, why would it be kept secret from the public?
Because it doesn't fit the US narrative on China.
If there was contact, and the US was keeping it secret to make China look bad, then China could have publicized it at any time and made the US look bad.
So what you're ultimately saying is that China is pathetically incompetent. How does that help China's image?
Re: (Score:2)
> If there was contact, and the US was keeping it secret to make China look bad, then China could have publicized it at any time and made the US look bad. So what you're ultimately saying is that China is pathetically incompetent. How does that help China's image?
The confusion is really simple:
Then : "Even before Pelosi’s visit, the U.S. says China declined or failed to respond to over a dozen requests from the Department of Defense for top-level dialogues since 2021."
Now : "that relations between
Re: (Score:2)
If there was contact, why would it be kept secret from the public?
Because it doesn't fit the US narrative on China.
If there was contact, and the US was keeping it secret to make China look bad, then China could have publicized it at any time and made the US look bad.
So what you're ultimately saying is that China is pathetically incompetent. How does that help China's image?
I think its helpful to the Chinese for the USA to look like frothing lunatics.
And the US plays that role oh so well. Only Russia does it better.
Re: (Score:2)
I think its helpful to the Chinese for the USA to look like frothing lunatics.
And the US plays that role oh so well. Only Russia does it better.
Riiiight, China has death vans and concentration camps and the US looks frothier. Go on, pull the other one, it's got fifty cents on it.
Re: (Score:2)
I think its helpful to the Chinese for the USA to look like frothing lunatics.
And the US plays that role oh so well. Only Russia does it better.
Riiiight, China has death vans and concentration camps and the US looks frothier. Go on, pull the other one, it's got fifty cents on it.
People in the USA live in such fear that they walk down the street with guns and have to have a gun handy when they answer the door, sometimes shooting strangers who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The USA has a long history of invading and otherwise fucking with other countries, China does not.
Frothy there.
Re:what happened to diplomacy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently this was the first time anyone outside the US military noticed. According to later reports, China had already flown several balloons. Also interesting that Milley says it was just the wind blowing the balloon when it hit as much military bases as it could.
I guess the military just builds bases straight in the path of a major windstream.
Re:what happened to diplomacy? (Score:4, Informative)
this was not some basic weather balloon, it had a payload the size of a minivan. So yes, I think they tracked that one.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
So after Joe got slammed for waiting until it crossed the entire country to do anything about it, you think they'd then confirm it was a spy balloon thus cementing that humiliation?
Or would they say, "oh no it was just a weather balloon! We're not unserious fuckups who sat on our thumbs watching a spy balloon hover over multiple military bases for weeks"?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying it was no weather balloon, I'm just saying that I'm pretty sure people track weather balloons with such an expensive payload. Because they are expensive
Re: (Score:1)
The stated philsophy of the PRC is to lull their enemies into a false sense of security until a decisive blow can be landed. The PRC has no reason to provide any truthful information about their intent and the rest of the world has no reason to ever trust the PRC.
Re: (Score:2)
what happened to diplomacy?
You're looking at it.
Re: (Score:2)
Diplomacy and spying are not mutually exclusive. Countries around the world spy on even their best "friend" countries. The diplomats aren't going to easily reveal this.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that China knew exactly where this innocent balloon was at any time point. Sure, balloons drift of course, but then why was there no diplomatic contact between China and US alerting them on this problem? If there was contact, why would it be kept secret from the public? Any of both parties could have published the email no?
China had a motive to keep quiet since leaving the balloon to be discovered by the Americans could reveal the US's ability to monitor airspace.
The Americans also had a motive to keep quiet since they didn't want the Chinese to know how good their counter-surveillance was.
Unfortunately the US public found out, so the need for the US to save face in front of other countries and their own public trumped secrecy and they had to show some of their cards.
There's still some ambiguity, did the balloon really stop f [gwynnedyer.com]
Really? (Score:3)
If memory serves, relations between the countries were already in the shitter, and this incident - or non-incident - was barely even a daub of icing on the crap-cake.
Re: (Score:1)
Of course it was (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, of course it was just blown off course. China would never, ever intentionally send a spy balloon over the United States, and it would definitely never have it linger for hours and hours over military installations, missile silo farms, or other places we wouldn't want people to spy on. No, hell no, China would never ever do that.
Re: (Score:3)
Flip, meet Flop (Score:1)
"The intelligence community, their assessment â" and it's a high-confidence assessment â" [is] that there was no intelligence collection by that balloon," he said."
Which is the exact opposite of what he said while the balloon was in US airspace, when he was practically begging Biden for permission to shoot it down because it was gathering intelligence on our military installations and posing a 'clear and present danger to the national security of the United States' (his exact words during his inte
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, amazing how the opinion changed after doing a thorough analysis of the wreckage.
Re: (Score:1)
"The intelligence community" - is literal a group of professional liars!
There is no reason at all given all the revelations over the past fifty+ years to think for even a second anything released from these sources for public consumption should be taken at face value. Is some of true - of course, if it was always counter factual nobody would ever believe any of it. Even when it is true, timing ( background of other unrelated events) and cherry picking sill mean its often propaganda.
The only sane thing to do
Missing explanation (Score:5, Insightful)
All of which leads me to the conclusion that China didn't care how it looked: they were happy to throw out such a provocation and see how the U.S. reacted. Or the explanation offered - that it wasn't actually spying - is bogus. Or that China lost the ability to communicate with it at all - including some kind of flight termination system, and nothing like a watchdog timer - and they were too worried about losing face they couldn't make a simple phone call.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
That's all based on the assumption that it was a spy balloon, for which there is very little evidence. Even the US has admitted that it didn't collect any data over the US, let alone sent any to China. Not one part of it has been shown to the press, despite being recovered and examined.
Why isn't the US using this huge propaganda win? The only explanation is because it's actually more embarrassing for the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the most simple explanation is the answer. All control was lost due to a failure. Better to say nothing than risk the embarrassment of admitting failure.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
and they were too worried about losing face they couldn't make a simple phone call.
If you know anything about Chinese culture, you'd know this is actually a REALLY big deal, and could reasonably explain the entire incident. Regular Chinese parents demand their failing students pass to the next grade, despite the damage it would do to the child's continuing education, to save face in front of other parents. A whole town revolted when the local school system started cracking down on cheating, because the parents cared more about their children getting the correct grade than they did about t
Re: (Score:2)
They probably lost communications with it. No control. No idea where it is exactly. But a situation that might remedy itself once the balloon passes back within view of a satellite. So they can't self destruct it. And they may not want to destroy an otherwise functioning asset.
This may explain why no intelligence gathering was detected by the USA. Lose sight of your relay satellite for some specified time: Scrub your memory and go into a downwind requisition mode.
Re: (Score:2)
Did they remote wipe it? (Score:2)
If I lost control of a surveillance asset, I'm pounding the confirmation button for "Sure you want to delete?"
I miss... (Score:2, Insightful)
...when slashdot was more than a mouthpiece for Chinese and Russian propaganda.
Re: (Score:1)
It's pretty clear the US has been compromised by both of those hostile actors. How the fuck did this happen? Why is no one doing anything?
Do we really want to see what would've happened if we lost ww2?
Just asking the REAL questions.....
Sure... (Score:2)
Piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
This is BS (Score:2)
Certainly had a mission (Score:2)
Balloon navigation is tricky. They are launched hours and days in advance of when and where they are needed. They are
Re: (Score:2)
I find it hard to believe that their weather models are worse than Google's Project Loon. I'm pretty sure all this hand-wringing about the US not being a target this time is, in fact, diplomacy and allowing China to save face.
it was spying, but it spied nothing (Score:1)
Translated from MICese. (Score:2)
Was it blwn off course? (Score:2)
The answer, my friend
Is blowin' in the wind
The answer is blowin' in the wind
gentleman's agreement (Score:2)
It's 100% lies. With high confidence, I say the US and China have made a gentleman's agreement that we will pretend it wasn't spying if you just knock it off already. Win-win.
So... (Score:2)
AKA: We were correct in shooting it down, but don/t blame us for anything because it didn't do anything important.
This is just massive CYA.
Peace Is Our Profession (Score:2)
I kill people for a living.
But I'm honest, honest!
Dont underestimage China's incompetence (Score:2)
"Breaking News" (Score:2)
Some more details [gwynnedyer.com]:
Mumbled explanations to the Washington Post by embarrassed American officials who must remain nameless have now revealed that the US intelligence services saw the balloon launched from Hainan island off the southern Chinese coast in late January – and it was headed straight east for the US-owned island of Guam.
Guam is the major US air and naval base in the western Pacific, and an obvious target for a military reconnaissance balloon. National airspace only extends twelve nauti
Military & intelligence (Score:1)
Re: Of course it had no intelligence (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Of course it had no intelligence (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone is spying on everyone else, but that doesn't mean they would try something as ridiculous as sending a spy balloon that is easily detected and shot down.
If there had been any spy gear on that balloon we would have seen it paraded for the media by now. The US would be presenting it as evidence at the UN.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
We should want to a cold war! China only gets bigger and stronger by the day. We do not share their vision and values, we ARE on a collision course. It is only harmful to wait.
Re: (Score:2)
We should want to a cold war! China only gets bigger and stronger by the day. We do not share their vision and values, we ARE on a collision course. It is only harmful to wait.
You'd be surprised how much an American conservative might have in common with a Chinese conservative.
The harm comes from thinking in such a limited way about long term geopolitics.
Re: (Score:2)
If there had been any spy gear on that balloon we would have seen it paraded for the media by now. The US would be presenting it as evidence at the UN.
Not if the US Government prioritizes trying to cool the relationship more than escalating tensions. I said in the other story about this, I could buy the course wasn't intended. The claim that it didn't collect intelligence once it was on that course doesn't pass the smell test though. Of course it did; it changed altitude to gain additional loiter time over our missile bases! You think that was a coincidence?
I'm not mad at the PRC, we would have done the same thing. We do the same thing. And when we get caught with our hands in the cookie jar we aren't always outed by the other side. Sometimes we are, Google "Francis Gary Powers", but frequently it's kept from public view and becomes the subject of behind the scenes talks. That's almost certainly what's happening here. Neither side wants this to escalate out of control. Do you? I sincerely hope not!
Geopolitics is complex. I support my Government calling out the PRC, in certain contexts, but I'm not particularly keen to see it escalate into a new Cold -- never mind Hot -- War. It will be a decade or longer before we actually know what that balloon was up to and that's perfectly fine, IMHO.
Where is the political capital for any American politician in cooling things down??
How will they get more corrupt money for their military industrial complex buddies?
The USA thrives on international conflict and chaos.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if the US Government prioritizes trying to cool the relationship more than escalating tensions.
With China? Like I get your general point about geopolitics, but given the current and very specific US/China relationship your post falls a bit flat. The USA is doing *nothing* to appease China right now in any way. In fact they seem to largely be seeing how much they can poke the Poohbear.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone is spying on everyone else, but that doesn't mean they would try something as ridiculous as sending a spy balloon that is easily detected and shot down.
Yes, so easily detected that we went back through our sensor logs and, whoops! There were several balloons earlier that we didn't detect. Wait, why didn't we detect them if these balloons are so easily detected?
Re: (Score:1)
They were detected, they were just ignored... Because weather balloons are a really common thing. The US alone launches over 70,000 a year. On average there are around 1,800/day launched world-wide.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that it is easy to make a spy balloon look like a weather balloon, to the extent that we would ignore it? Wouldn't that assist it in a spying mission? And wouldn't it compromise our surety as to which past balloons were spying, and which were just used for weather analysis?
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
The CCP has paid over $31 million to Hunter and 'The Big Guy': https://nypost.com/2022/01/27/... [nypost.com]
If I'm the president and I've taken a lot of Chinese money, I'm probably not going to allow anyone - DoD, DoJ, FBI - to makes wave about Chinese spying.
Another example:China is running shadow pol
Re: (Score:2)
If there had been any spy gear on that balloon we would have seen it paraded for the media by now. The US would be presenting it as evidence at the UN.
Here, let me make this easy for you. It doesn't matter what it was doing. It was in US airspace un-authorized so we had ever right to shoot it down.
Re: (Score:1)
Go ahead, shoot down every balloon that comes your way. Those missiles can't be very expensive, can they?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying shoot down everyone. Just it was in US airspace and we had every right to shoot it down. Just like China would have every right to shoot down on its airspace.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying shoot down everyone. Just it was in US airspace and we had every right to shoot it down. Just like China would have every right to shoot down on its airspace.
Or the soviet union and your spy planes.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like when they told us about all the people developing myocarditis from the COVID shots
You mean like those studies [yale.edu]? Not everything is a conspiracy. Or do you believe the vaccines was just there to innoculate you with 5G chips?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the article still says the vaccine caused the myocarditis....even though not directly by the anti-bodies formed by the mRNA, but the increased immune response it causes to go overboard in some people.
There is still a risk, to alleviate it...they want to push the time between 2x shots to 8 weeks instead of 4 I believe it said.
But still, it WAS the cause of healthy young men developing myocarditis, no disputing that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but the OP (anonymous coward) was saying:
a) that there was a cover-up to hide those deaths: if there had been a cover-up or conspiracy, public studies wouldn't come out to show that
b) it was also using a broad semantic ("all those people developing myocarditis"), whereas studies show that there is indeed a causation, but that the occurence although noticeable is still small (22 to 36 out of 100000 individuals)
Furthermore, the conclusions of all studies is that "the risk of severe forms of myocarditis i
Re: (Score:2)
But, we've seen that the "vaccine" for covid does NOT prevent you from catching or spreading covid.
It only gives you a better chance of a less severe case of covid when you catch it.
I mean...the CDC had to go onto their website and r
Re: (Score:2)
It only gives you a better chance of a less severe case of covid when you catch it.
I know you like to move the goal posts, but this was not the question. Let me say it again: there was no cover-up that the COVID mRNA vaccine was the cause of a few myocarditis cases. And those cases were... quite rare. Overall, you have more risk of a severe form of myocarditis by not taking the vaccine.
The OP was wrong, and just pushing a story of conspiracy that is just not there. You can keep pushing that narrative, that won't make you look smarter though.
Re: (Score:3)
But still, it WAS the cause of healthy young men developing myocarditis, no disputing that.
That's the strawman. Nobody (knowledgable) has ever been disputing that. At one point, when the first evidence had come in and before that evidence was confirmed, they might have been disputing whether it was a confirmed side effect.
More important, the real dispute is whether that's an important thing about the vaccine. As the linked article notes, the vaccine has a small chance of giving you myocarditis whilst the virus has a much bigger chance of giving, mostly the same people, myocarditis. Given that COV
Re: (Score:2)
"They just say "vaccine causes myocarditis" instead of "very very rarely, vaccine may trigger myocarditis but overall it reduces your risk" which is the truth that matters to people"
For the vast majority (of idiots), the 1st statement is more credible as it's the simplest subject-verb-object construction.
Statements with adverbs or modal verbs are highly suspicious
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, for a certain kind of person, direct statements and sweeping generalizations are more trustworthy than correct statements.
True statements tend to have caveats, hedges, probabilities, and other forms of nuance.
Nuance is something the world really needs right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, for a certain kind of person, direct statements and sweeping generalizations are more trustworthy than correct statements.
True statements tend to have caveats, hedges, probabilities, and other forms of nuance.
Nuance is something the world really needs right now.
America twice elected a man who said this: "Joe, I don't do nuance" - Dubya Bush to Joe Biden, 2004
"https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2004/02/17/bushs-war-against-nuance/1f2af155-c701-47f9-8dc0-84d270b4d1c5/"
Re: (Score:2)
Also the myocarditis was mild.
Re: (Score:2)
The vaccine will absolutely reduce the chances of you getting Covid, and will significantly reduce the symptoms of Covid, including myocarditis
Shame you're both AC, so I have no idea whether either of you will ever see this, but your statement is again exactly another truth that matters. Let's compare with the other AC
I'm guessing you're expecting that the vaccine is going to prevent you from catching COVID. But this idea has been proven false,
Not even wrong. The difference between "prevent" which is without nuance and "reduce the chances / reduce the symptoms" which is talking about statistics and averages and admits to exceptions is again the whole point. The vaccine won't "prevent" but it will "reduce the chances" and "reduce the symptoms" which means on average it's go
Re: (Score:3)
How did you learn about "people developing myocarditis from the COVID shots" or "all the evidence of criminal activity on Hunter's laptop"? Was it not the media? Or did you personally independently do COVID heart related health studies and forensic analysis of that laptop?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, you believe EVERY SINGLE Chinese tourist in the US is mandated to spy at EVERY opportunity possible?
Or every Chinese American with family in China is forced/blackmailed to spy on the US?
If not, then I guess you'd be incorrect to believe "the Chinese are spying on the US every chance they get"
I don't know about that balloon, but sometimes mistakes happen and Russia/China/Klingons or whoever don't always have malicious intent every time their paths collide with outsiders.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you really think anyone takes that sort of pedantic argument seriously? You knew what he meant. I don't have a problem with your overall point, but intentionally conflating the figurative with the literal is the most annoyingly disingenuous way to argue.
You could have said something like, "I suspect fears of Chinese espionage are overblown" and then included your last sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. When someone says they take "every chance they get", I take them at their word that they believe what they say. If we're left to assume they didn't mean what they said (in print), then where does it end?
And no, I don't know what "he" meant or that the person is even a he as you presume. Its not that hard to say what you mean without exaggerating facts. Doing that is really the most "disingenuous way to argue."
Re: Of course it had no intelligence (Score:2)
Usage dictates meaning. Your hyper-literalism is not common usage, so you are willfully failing to communicate effectively.
Re: (Score:2)
If you do not believe the Chinese are spying on the US every chance they get, you are a fool.
Sure. But that doesn't mean *everything* that happens is Chinese spying. Imagine some proved that aliens have visited the earth. That doesn't make every UFO sighting a spacecraft, but ufologists would see flying saucers everywhere. They'd be spinning conspiracy theories even harder turning meteor showers and Jupiter sightings into encounters that were getting "hushed up". They'd be even *more* convinced of a coverup because they knew *some* visits were happening.
The thing that's unique about critical thin
Re: (Score:2)
If you do not believe the Chinese are spying on the US every chance they get, you are a fool. Or as the Soviets called them, a useful idiot.
And what are you if you don't believe that the US is spying on literally everyone else, including, no *ESPECIALLY* their friends and allies?
Pot, meet kettle. Oh fuck theres so much soot on you both I can't tell which is which.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I tend to have the same opinion.
Huawei has dome some pretty shady things, scummy corporate stuff, and one might argue pretty much all corporations engage in similar things. The difference is, whether they have been caught, and if so, whether that serves someone's agenda or not.
My opinion is Huawei is no different from other corporations, but they got the shaft because the USA government / agencies needed an enemy.
Re: (Score:2)
This is just the US doing black propaganda to get Americans to hate a new superpower, now that the USSR has collapsed.
Apparently, exactly the opposite. This seems to be news saying that the Chinese actually weren't spying on the US.
...in this particular case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Obviously he's lying but the question is why. I assume it is because current China policy is detente not confrontation.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously he's lying but the question is why. I assume it is because current China policy is detente not confrontation.
If this is the USA not being confrontational wtf does it look like when you're getting confrontational???
Re: (Score:1)
In no particular order, it looks like this:
Grenada
Iraq
Iraq again
Vietnam
Korea
Afghanistan
Panama
Laos
Cambodia
Cuba
Japan
And that's just a subset of the last hundred years off the top of my head. There are many many others.
It's a historical fact, the US is a very militarily (and in other ways, too, as power isn't just bullets) aggressive country. Some of our actions were justified or even moral. Many others were not, even at the time. So far we have been very very light touch with China. We let them spy, we l
Re: (Score:2)
In no particular order, it looks like this:
Grenada
Iraq
Iraq again
Vietnam
Korea
Afghanistan
Panama
Laos
Cambodia
Cuba
Japan
And that's just a subset of the last hundred years off the top of my head. There are many many others.
It's a historical fact, the US is a very militarily (and in other ways, too, as power isn't just bullets) aggressive country. Some of our actions were justified or even moral. Many others were not, even at the time. So far we have been very very light touch with China. We let them spy, we let them build up numerous mini bases in the South China Sea, we let them threaten Taiwan on a near daily basis, we still trade with them, give them technology, and don't really do much back. Trump had a short trade war. Biden effectively canceled a few Chinese companies from doing direct business with us. There have been diplomatic barbs in both directions, much more nasty from the Chinese side in general, which we mostly ignore.
Hostile would be cutting off all trade including oil, blockading their huge fishing fleets from entering international waters, and crippling the economy of any country who crossed us and traded any goods at all with China. That's an opener and there's nothing they could do to stop any of that. Day one of a Taiwan invasion is them firing a zillion missiles. Day two is they are entirely cut off from the rest of the world and starve to death. That is what confrontational looks like.
None of those are anywhere near peer level, apart from Japan in WW2. Its all just bullying 'counterinsurgency'.
And, yes, the USA is one of the most belligerent countries in the world, with a longer track record of fucking with other countries than anyone since the Roman Empire. Even Russia is a distant second place and China way way behind.
Re: (Score:1)
China is not a peer. And frankly neither was Japan.
Quote, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve".
The last peer the US had was the Soviet Union in the 70s and some debatable part of the 80s. None since then.
As far as China goes, if you can't defend your trade routes directly or through allies, you aren't a world power. At last check China doesn't have any allies of note and their last war was Vietnam kicking their ass all over the jungle.
Most belligere
Re: (Score:2)
China is not a peer. And frankly neither was Japan.
Quote, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve".
The last peer the US had was the Soviet Union in the 70s and some debatable part of the 80s. None since then.
As far as China goes, if you can't defend your trade routes directly or through allies, you aren't a world power. At last check China doesn't have any allies of note and their last war was Vietnam kicking their ass all over the jungle.
Most belligerent since Rome? Lol, no, did you forget the entire colonial era when pretty much every European country raced around the world raping every local culture of resources and destroying countless cultures for hundreds of years? Entire continents were demolished and changed forever. The US has a long way to go to match that.
The USSR and USA engaged in a global Cold War where both countries messed around with pretty much everyone equally. The Soviets were not in any way behind the US by that metric.
Your patriotism will surely be noticed.
yawn
Re: (Score:1)
Woooow, have you ever seen a history book much less read one? I just gave you a brief and factual history lesson in response to your shock about current China policy and you come back with that childish response?
Daaaaaamn..... Grow the fuck up. What a lame reply. Next time don't ask a question if you only want the virtue signal answer. As if my reply was so fucking mindlessly glowing. You didn't even read it. Adding you to the mindless virtue signalers list. I am sorry you are too brainwashed to acce
Re: (Score:2)
Russia has an economy roughly the same size as Ohio. Their war tech is out of date. Their people have access to outside information. The only thing they have going for them is thousands of aging nukes.
Please explain how a broken country like that is taking over anything? They've been fought to a stalemate by a country with 1/10th their population using a small number of weapons gifted to them by NATO countries. What do you think will happen if they actually attacked a NATO country and triggered article
Re: (Score:2)
Not even close. Russia's economy dwarfs Ohio's: 853 billion vs. 2,063 billion (or 4,989 billion based on PPP). Some organisations (e.g. World Bank) put Russia's economy at even more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know how PPP works? It's a decent metric when you're trying to compare things that are produced locally. It's not good when you're comparing things that have to be purchased on a world market.
Russia's PPP multiplier is 0.34, so your $2 trillion is 680 billion actual dollars. That's why Russia has lots of soldiers, paid in roubles, as befitting a $2 trillion economy, but for anything they have to import, primarily high tech stuff, they are indeed an economy smaller than Ohio.
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks for doing the math and correcting me. The last time I checked they were about the same as Ohio. I didn't realize they were smaller now. I suppose a pointless bloody war will do that.
Re: (Score:2)