From the first sentence in your previous post: Do you think that spying agencies across the world continue to use the same techniques for decades?
NorthHawk wrote:That's a rhetorical in the negative statement. Like saying to someone - Do you think I'm stupid?
Alright, I'll accept that.
sNorthHawk wrote:The fact is they could send over a number of balloons and all have different means of communication/encryption, with some of them with new methods. The military wouldn't know unless they captured the comm data or tried various methods of jamming.
Yeah, maybe. But that wasn't their main objection to bringing it down over land and doesn't justify letting it fly another 3,000 miles. They specifically said that they were worried about causing harm to citizens on the ground, one of their arguments being that it could have self-destruct explosives on board, and if that were true, my question is what possibility contains the most risk: Taking it down in a very sparsely populated area in Montana or Wyoming or taking a chance that it crash lands on its own in a more heavily populated area to the south and east along its flight path?
That's the type of question that I would hope that Biden asked those that were advising him. I hope he didn't just say "Works for me!", but my gut tells me that he was anxious to accept that recommendation because he didn't want to shoot it down anyway and their recommendation gave him some very convenient political cover.