A second potential surveillance balloon/item was discovered and this time it was shot down. The last balloon helped our politicians and military members determine better what the perceptions are in terms of what is and isn't considered a threat. Military people often understand threat as more immediate in nature while politicians think more broadly and abstractly (Its not a fact, it just some generalizations that come from learning, training, and experience.).
In this case, they appear unsure of the intent of the object so it is a calculated risk. Damn if you do and damn if you don't. There isn't enough information to be 100% sure so judgement comes into play. In the end one may decide it is or isn't a threat but it definitely is a hazard which gives justification no matter what the investigation finds. This could very well be private or a commercial piece of equipment but because it could be a threat we will ere on the side of caution.
Political pressure is always going to be part of the decision making process. That is normal and it makes sense up to a reasonable level. You want the military to make decisions independently and nimbly in day-to-day situations but also take general direction from politicians and the wider needs of the public. I think it is designed that way to ensure one can respond to immediate threats but do so in alignment with the long term strategies demanded by elected representatives.
The military will recover the debris if they can get it and study them diligently I'm sure to determine intent and origin. Everyone looks at it from their own skewed angle. They really don't have an option either way no matter what it ends up being. It posed an unknown risk. You have to judge decisions by the factors known at that time based on the time constraints in which a decision would need to be made to ensure everyone's safety. It doesn't actually make a difference if junk, company, spy, etc. if it is unknown and the downside risk is that its a little embarrassing because it was the latest delivery drone from one of our favorite burger joints or something (Not actually but I'm just trying to say that no one knew what it was and it was in the way of traffic no matter what it is!).
There is a possible silver lining we can think about. As we brainstorm on how to secure airspace, let us shoot two birds with one stone and also think about detecting UAPs and other items through an improved air defense system. Putting our brains together we might find some stronger methods of tagging/tracking/bugging these items to learn more about them (Personally I would love to see the military tag one of these UAPs. Maybe we could shoot them with a tagging device by retrofitting older planes and/or specially designed drones to shoot a weighted net over them, tag them, land on them, derail their rout, jam/mislead signals and remove air/functionality, etc. Maybe.).
Another key point that General Ryder made is that there are differences between what information can be released to the public and what can't be released to the public. In my limited perspective, people misuse and share information all the time to make political/personal points without thinking about the long term strategic consequences of not keeping such information private. Thus, there is a balance between public knowledge and esoteric specific tactical knowledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment