The US and China are nowhere near a state of war. The balloons have nothing to do with a state of war. Xi can keep doing exactly what Xi is doing, and there won't be a war. China would have to escalate dramatically.
The sane thing to do here is assume this is an attack, or precursor to an attack. Don’t follow up with force, yet. However there’s no reason the balloons should’ve been here in the first place.
Telling people not to be concerned of Chinese balloons entering another countries airspace, especially the US, makes you look odd to say the least. Are you Chinese?
> The sane thing to do here is assume this is an attack, or precursor to an attack.
What makes that sane, if it's absolutely false, a waste of resources, creates panic in the public, and increases the risk of escalation?
It's far, far out of the realm of possibility. China doesn't have nearly the resources to attack the continental US. They generally aren't believed to have the resources yet to attack Taiwan, 100 miles away. If they had the resources, an attack would require a massive buildup and positioning of those resources; it could not be missed. Major wars don't start by surprise. Look at the buildup required by Russia to attack Ukraine, a much smaller country right on its border. China has shown zero interest in attacking the US.
Anyone who is saying otherwise, you've learned something about: They are full of crap.
> Telling people not to be concerned of Chinese balloons entering another countries airspace, especially the US, makes you look odd to say the least.
Maybe odd to you, but not to most people, nor to anyone who knows what they are talking about. But if you say I'm odd, you're the expert!
> Are you Chinese?
This violates HN's guidelines. Calling people names demonstrates that you have nothing better to say.
> What makes that sane, if it's absolutely false, a waste of resources, creates panic in the public, and increases the risk of escalation?
Because it will not lead to an escalation, retaliation or public panic in this case. Do you realize how many times per day the DEFCON level is raised on various bases within US soil? The public does not know, therefore will not panic. Do you also believe there is not an aircraft carrier within close proximity of China currently? Would this not lead to an escalation? That's SOP, put a ship off the coast of any country doing questionable things to the mainland. Would that not lead to an escalation?
> China doesn't have nearly the resources to attack the continental US.
You say this but then you contradict yourself. If they don't have the resources to attack, then right now is the perfect time to show we mean business.
> If they had the resources, an attack would require a massive buildup and positioning of those resources; it could not be missed.
This is ignorant. North Korea hides an entire nuclear testing facility inside a mountain and you don't believe China has the resources to hide their national security interests?
> Major wars don't start by surprise. Look at the buildup required by Russia to attack Ukraine, a much smaller country right on its border.
Nobody has said such a thing. A precursor to an attack does not mean an attack is imminent. It means instead they are checking current defenses to keep up to date for a future attack.
> China has shown zero interest in attacking the US.
They've only threatened to march on the US with the largest standing army the world has ever seen. Additionally why check US defenses? What's the point of a country checking the defenses of another if they have no intent on attacking ever? You don't probe an attacking countries mainland defenses when planning to defend.
> Maybe odd to you, but not to most people, nor to anyone who knows what they are talking about. But if you say I'm odd, you're the expert!
You claim I'm not the expert, does this mean you believe you are? We both know that anybody actually involved in the planning and discussion of these events that will have any effect on its outcome would not be on HN discussing it. So you're not an expert either. What I am, however, is ex-military. They certainly do train military on such things. What are your credentials?
Have you polled people to determine their position on these events? How did you come up with the non-number "most people"?
> This violates HN's guidelines. Calling people names demonstrates that you have nothing better to say.
Hardly, point to the rule where asking someone's ethnicity is against the rules. The fact is there are Chinese operatives all over American social media and forums attempting to sway public interest, and you sound exactly like one. So again, are you Chinese?
Do you have any evidence that it's connected to a war?
I'm not an expert, but I do read them quite a bit. Zero experts are saying that these events have anything to do warfare between the US and China. Can you point one out who does say it?
I specifically said either way and I didn't imply or suggest it is or isn't to do with a war. I'm just saying that only a few people know the reality of the situation with China and it's unlikely you're one of them.
We know nothing at all unless we are experts? That is such a difficult life to live. Express an opinion and support it.
Or even more extreme: Everything is possible until we prove the negative? It goes the other way: You need to prove the positive statement for it to be credible.
I am not trying to throw around "fake news" accusations, but linking a Memri article as a proof of something might not be as convincing as you think.
Memri is extremely notorious for posting english translations of their articles that are often not only inaccurate, but distort what was actually said to mean something entirely different. There is a massive "Translation accuracy and controversy" section on their wikipedia page dedicated just to that.
Sidenote, they are also a source of some of the most genuinely hilarious and deranged quotes (or rather, translation of thereof) that I've ever heard on TV. A guest going on about the grand conspiracy of Spongebob (yes, the nickelodeon tv show) being the tool of Israel to turn children gay was something else[1].
