Maybe we can call them PIOs, for “pre” identified objects, on the assumption that we don’t know what it is yet but we will after we shoot it down and pick through the debris.
It does make sense, though. The American jet had better air-to-air capability, but since this was Canadian airspace, it couldn’t proceed without the Canadian PM’s blessing/orders.
Hey, China, how many more targets do we have to hit to get a kewpie doll?
You know, this does make me wonder some sovereignty stuff. I know NORAD is already a longstanding US-Canada practice, so this is nothing in general. But if, say, some dangerous UFO was on the Mexican side of the US-Mexico border, and Mexico had nothing to intercept it with, could/would the Mexican government “invite” American fighter jets to cross the border (if they were already nearby and airborne,) and ask/order it to shoot it down (with the White House okaying it of course)?
Of course, everyone who grew up in Canada during the Cold War knows that we’re a pretty good route into the United States for things travelling over or near the North Pole. The Balloon shot down earlier this week did just that, in fact, travelling across a big part of Canada before entering the Continental US.
I suspect whoever is sending these things is, in part, testing US ability and willingness to shoot them down over places like Canada. Wait and see if we get a report like this from over Mexico, the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans.
A museum I worked for had the same rule, and we didn’t even have any proprietary technologies. If anyone from the media asked us anything, we were supposed to tell them nothing except contact information for the VP of Public Relations. The assumption was that the media was always out to create a story, even if there wasn’t one in actuality, and that anything said by anyone who wasn’t a trained professional at dealing with the media could be twisted into a “story” that was potentially very unfavorable to us.
Government officials have been making statements to let us know how much they know — without telling it to us. That’s what Major Gallant was doing. Here is more of that from the Washington Post:
As for enemies, It may be pointless to deny that Russia is an enemy, given our large effort to mass-produce arms currently being used daily to kill Russians. But our aim should be to not make other enemies.
True. Would that all other nations abided by that same logic.
An order must have come from Trudeau - but it applied to the RCAF. He has no authority to issue orders to US pilots, and they are certainly not allowed to act upon orders issued outside their own chain of command (at the top of which sits POTUS).
This was a NORAD operation, which means that the Canadian military is indeed in the chain of command for certain Americans. The Deputy Commander of NORAD is always Canadian.
Why the Hell are we wasting missiles on these things?
They’re balloons, for gosh sakes!
A quick burst of cannon fire would work fine.
Well, maybe just really big darts!
Also, unlike the President, the Prime Minister isn’t actually considered to be in the chain of command of the military. He didn’t “order” a shoot down so much as give approval for the shoot down. The dynamic in Canada is very different than in the US (citation: the clusterfuck that was the Convoy here in Ottawa last year. The reason that went on for so long was because the civilian leadership doesn’t actually have the power to order any particular actions be taken by the military or police, and the military and police were refusing to take any actions on their own authority.)
How about the New York Post or Washington Times?
While trying to learn how telecom companies are able to keep charges so damn high.
Of the four publications mentioned above, I only subscribe to the first two.
As for the others, I don’t read them enough for a fair critique.
Missiles have a limited shelf life (I believe some are 25 years.) If a Sidewinder is at the point where it’s about to expire anyway, might as well fire it.
+3
seems like “standard procedure” … i worked for multinationals in food-business, to the same rules …
Don’t talk unless authorized - and refer them to PR.
of course - this is completely bi-lateral material…
This former fighter pilot does not think guns would have been a good option:
TLDR version: the missile ensures the balloon comes down right then and right there. Bullet holes could not guarantee the same.
Yes, they wanted the wreckage to fall in US waters (12 mile zone of national sovereignty) not the fuzzier “economic interest” zone.
A missile does that. Bullets don’t.