Re-form the Treaty on Open Skies, which already addressed and solved this problem in the early 90s. You simply let the other country know that you are flying surveillance equipment overhead and the target country grants overflight.
It doesn't fundamentally change either sides ability to conduct surveillance operations, but it does avoid situations like this that may escalate to armed conflict.
We had a good thing going until the previous administration let Russia out of the agreement, enabling them to build up for the invasion of Ukraine.
The Treaty is based on "allowing countries to openly surveil each other...to prevent misunderstandings" [1]. That has not panned out.
Yah, sure-- but are you being deliberately misleading? After the US announced withdrawal in May 2020 under Trump (in response to Russian violations of the treaty), Russia did leave in 2021.
This need to mislead about politics and events is so annoying. Arguably the Trump administration had good reasons to withdraw, but pretending that the Russian withdrawal was because of Biden is wack.
Agreed. The increasingly post-truth nature of public narratives is disturbing.
But I wonder what do you consider to be "good reasons" (even if arguably)?
If your counterpart in a treaty isn't following it much of the time, you need to consider:
* Whether the benefit you're getting from their partial / grudging compliance is more than the downsides of complying yourself.
* The symbolic benefits and costs of the treaty continuing to exist despite being ignored.
* The precedent that you set by tolerating violations of important treaties; you might be emboldening that counterparty, or other counterparties, to engage in further violations.
Basically, there has to be a credible belief that it's at least possible/somewhat likely you'll have a big reaction to a violation of a treaty for the treaty to remain effective. It doesn't mean you need to have a big reaction to any given violation.
Was this actually the case?
Google tells me that "much of the time" seems like 3 specific instances. One of which isn't even technically related to Russia, but rather to Georgian (now Ossetian/Abhasian territories), implying that these are Russian territories (lol), while on another instance blaming Russia for providing an airport in Crimea, implying that these are not Russian territories (LOL! Truly logically consistent)
The third instance of limiting flight over Kaliningrad oblast to 500km (total size about 15000 km^2, sqrt is about 150km) seems like the only one somewhat substantial.
On the other hand, I see Russia accusing the US of denying flights over its territory on a few instances and also denying access by its newer planes back around 2014
Seems like the whole deal was somewhat dysfunctional already, but not like a total disaster, really.
I've also managed to google Trump's rhetorics on the treaty with stuff like "force Russia to bring China to the table".
Overall, it seems to me like a total insubstantial political bullshit, but I guess perspective may vary.
How is what I said deliberately misleading? The claim was that Russia left the treaty before 2021, which is false. They also claimed it is the reason Russia invaded Ukraine, which there's no evidence to support. I also NEVER said it was -because- of Biden, no idea why you are even putting words in my mouth.
If I make a factual statement to refute someone else saying something false, that is misleading now? What kind of "post-truth" world are you living in? Not everything has to turn into a nuanced discussion, especially when someone is making a direct false claim.
If you want to get nuanced, it's important to note that both Biden and Trump agreed in leaving it, Biden could have rejoined it (he was even asked, and said no); he has joined other things like the Paris Climate Accord which Trump left for example. The general reason the US left is because other countries, mainly Russia, kept breaking the agreement.
That was not the claim. The claim was the Trump administration "let Russia out of the agreement." Because the Trump administration left the agreement, they allowed Russia to leave the agreement without any further diplomatic consequence or scorn. It is hard to imagine any other action that "let Russia out of the agreement."
I am trying to assume good faith but this assumption is being sorely tested.
Which is false, because they left the agreement in 2021 on their own accord.
> Because the Trump administration left the agreement, they allowed Russia to leave the agreement without any further diplomatic consequence or scorn.
This was not the original claim made, this is goal post shifting for getting a fact wrong.
> I am trying to assume good faith but this assumption is being sorely tested.
Making false claims isn't "good faith."
Yes... after the agreement was rendered meaningless by Trump's withdrawal, Russia did leave too.
It has everything to do with the US leaving the INF treaty.
Also, your choice of words is rather curious, Russia had only left the Open Sky treaty in 2021 after the US had left it in 2019, which kind of made it rather pointless for the following 2 years anyway.
EDIT: whoops, not 2019, but 2020. Still, my point stands.
If you could find any expert on this topic that says this is the case, I'll gladly listen; but you'll struggle to find one, at least one that isn't a hack or serial "whatabouter." Especially given the conflict dates back to 2014 and Russian "little green men" had already been in Ukraine since; not to mention Putin had been drumming up war rhetoric for an invasion years before he invaded in 2022, well before the US or Russia left the treaty.
Always love the "whatabouter" bit, btw. Some sure like to perceive the world as a set of unconnected pieces existing in a perfect vacuum. But whatever, your choice.
I just wonder, do you actually live in the same infobubble as Putin's "rhetoric"? My impression of it was along the lines of "no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-YES"
Several days? This had been going on for like a whole year. All while Ukraine had been building up an army of its own near Donetsk.
This even became a popular topic for jokes in Russia.
In 1968, my dad spent a year at Galena AFB in Alaska. This was the closest base to the USSR. Their entire job was to counter the Soviet incursions. The Red Air Force was constantly testing and probing and provoking the US air defenses.
The usual thing was the Soviets would send over a bomber. Once they got close enough, Galena would send out a fighter or two to snuggle in close and let the bomber know that we saw 'em and we'd bwast 'em if they came any closer.
It was the cold war, and that's how it was played.
Absolutely. One of the contributing decision factor in the shot down of the Korean Air Lines Flight 007 was just that.
"Aircraft from USS Midway and USS Enterprise repeatedly overflew Soviet military installations in the Kuril Islands during FleetEx '83, resulting in the dismissal or reprimanding of Soviet military officials who had been unable to shoot them down."
"The end in this case meant not just the fate of the submarine and its crew, but potentially the entire world. Cut off from outside contact, buffeted by depth charges, its air conditioning broken, and temperatures and carbon dioxide levels rising in the sub, the most obvious conclusion for the officers of B-59 was that global war had already begun. But the sub had a weapon at its disposal that US officers didn’t know about: a 10-kiloton nuclear torpedo. And its officers had permission from their superiors to launch it without confirmation from Moscow.
Two of the sub’s senior officers wanted to launch the nuclear torpedo. That included its captain, Valentin Savitsky, who according to a report from the US National Security Archive, exclaimed: “We’re gonna blast them now! We will die, but we will sink them all — we will not become the shame of the fleet.”"
It seems the credit actually should go to Vasili Arkhipov.
Cold wars are GOOD.
Cold wars are how you prevent hot wars, and also how you prevent powerful aggressive countries from annexing and colonizing people at will.
Missiles in Cuba were a USSRs response to US nukes in Turkey, so I am not sure I understand your point.
The opponent wants to spy and probe and test. Destroying those drones is exactly what we should want, and what your opponent doesn't want.
The only reason to allow these drones/balloons to operate freely is if we already have effective anti-drone measures that we're keeping secret, in order to goad an enemy into a false sense of security -- which the article also considers but then dismisses as unlikely.
But aside from that hypothesis, I fail to see why destroying invading military technology would be "exactly what your opponent wants".
My question is what do we gain from showing them we can shoot them down? how much more detailed of info are they getting from these drones that they aren't getting from LEO satellites? Shooting them down just gives whatever opponents test data for getting past our defences when they potentially actually need to in the future when they're actively hostile.
Nothing. But if we can't jam and retrieve, shooting them down is a next best option.
That's the stuff you don't get from LEO satellites.
If they're here to try to assess our air defense network, then a reasonable response is don't turn it on. Don't turn on the best radars. Don't turn on the data links from the air combat control centers to the air force bases (or to the planes in the air).
Sure, they can see the vanilla stuff better than they can from a satellite. But if the good stuff is off, they don't find out much about it.
> don't turn it on
There is no need to? It was detected long ago and was followed both with radio and visually.
If these spy drones and balloons exist, then you can sure bet they're doing something of value. Militaries don't design and fly these things for the fun of it.
And why are you assuming it's only a problem if they're better than us at it? We could be spying on them even more effectively, but that's not a reason to not prevent them from doing the same to us.
For all we know, China may have decided that every Baptist church is a possible nuclear launch site and that they all need to be priority #1 for surveillance. Particularly on Wednesday nights when all the folks in the surrounding community come in early in the evening and sometimes don't leave until late at night.
You got it. There is no "aside". That is it.
Imagine you want to defeat a big powerful attack dog. You know the dog can only hurt you if it sees you. You send tiny mice towards the dog and you measure carefully how far they get before the dog kills them. If the dog is in the habit of killing every mice it sees then you can check exactly how well it can see, better than an eye-chart. And with that knowledge you can outmanoeuvre the dog.
If the dog chills out and only snaps at the mice which gets too brazen then the dog retained a strategic edge. Using this strategic edge during a real conflict the dog can surprise the attackers when the dog suddenly starts using their faculties to their fullest extent.
If these are surveillance drones trying to find weaknesses in our radar and comms then we should be destroying these things as quickly as possible.
If you do that, you destroy every surveillance drone you detect, then you just shipped your radar's specs to the enemy. Because you can not destroy drones you can not see. So every time the enemy's drone survives they know it is because it was small enough, or far enough, or stealthy enough to not be seen.
If you do that you might as well invite your adversary to the proving ground and currier them the design specifications.
You're now back to square one.
If you deploy this anti-drone measure anywhere else, your opponent now knows how to counter them wherever you deploy them until you find a new way to counter it.
This is exactly what US and Russia did in Cold War I. Probe, see responses, hope that they won't blow you up, develop counter responses. Repeat.
Honestly, probably not in a lot of cases. If the intent is to collect, then destroying the drone ends the collection.
It probably isn't optical data. Satellites are more than good enough for that, and near-realtime high-resolution data is even commercially available. It probably isn't electronic transmissions either. Having a field operative hide a SDR would be way easier, and way less conspicuous.
However, it could be trying to determine how the military responds to hostiles. Sending a jet after it and shooting it down might be exactly the kind of data it is trying to collect.
You can't send huge flying things across another country's airspace without permission and flight plans.
I don't know, maybe the USA should start flying planes over Moscow and Beijing. How do you think they'd react?
I don't get what the pushback against blowing up a balloon would be.
If I was president, I'd make sure I'd be flying balloons over China all the time, see how they like it.
shit, they are getting pissy about ships being in the South China Sea.
Fuck China.
It's ok to try, but expect your shit to be shot down if you're a dick about it.
Nothing happened when the U2 was shot down. But I personally am ok with the Soviet Union shooting it out of the sky.
Why should the USA do nothing when a balloon, by a massive military power and the USA's new competitor, fly over the USA without a polite, "Hey, do you mind if we fly this "weather balloon" with cameras over your military installations?"
I admit Americans have, and have been shot down. Why is it so weird the other way around? Why are you defending China indirectly by trying to equate it with the USA? If the USA gets shot down, why is that not mentioned by you and others? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
And, China certainly is getting weird about not having people sail ships through the South China Sea, despite it being ruled as international waters.
Googling with a date range filter set (to filter out recent Chinese balloon news) yields results like "Pentagon using spy balloons".
We'll have to see if China starts shooting down random civilian (or not) probes within a few months. Many countries try not to fuss about stuff other countries do to avoid unnecessary escalations and tensions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird
You think the US doesn't do that now? If you do, I'd like to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.
"a United States U-2 spy plane was *shot down* by the Soviet Air Defence Forces"
Who says I'm giving China a pass? My point is that it's a balloon that was tracked from Alaska long before it crossed BC into Montana probably had its risk assessment done. It wasn't worth the hassle, and the potential risk of letting them get the telemetry on military hardware, and the cost to shoot one of those balloons; or to reveal the true operating envelope of a fighter and its armaments over a balloon that the US already was comfortable with it flying around from Alaska on.
If it was a serious threat to US national security, it would have been blown up over Alaska, or better yet, tell the Canadians to do it so that the risk isn't borne over American soil.
The point is that the USA, or any country, has the right to deny it's airspace to anyone. There is no rule that just because we let it fly through Montana that means the USA has to let it fly anywhere.
There are all kinds of instances of the USA being denied use of another country's airspace. I'm not quite sure on the exact situation as it was a while ago, but I think during Gulf War I, or maybe II, Turkey would not let the USA take off from Incerirlick Air Base to bomb Iraq.
Ah, here it is,they closed their airspace for a while in Gulf War II - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/20/iraq.helenasmi...
It seems like you are giving China a pass to me.
>If it was a serious threat to US national security, it would have been blown up over Alaska
Nope. USA has the right to do it anywhere. We don't know the strategy. Maybe there was some global strategic reason or tactical reason, or who knows? Neither of us is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or are the Secretary of Defense. What do we know? All I know is that the USA can shoot down any aircraft, at any time, for any reason, if it doesn't file a flight plan and let the USA know the purpose. That I know. But you saying "If it was a serious threat to US national security..." is silly. You are not the Secretary of Defense. How would you know? Or anyone know, unless privy to that information?
That's how it works.
Today, the House voted UNANIMOUSLY, 419-0, to condemn China's balloon surveillance program as a “brazen violation” of U.S. sovereignty, a rare and swift bipartisan rebuke of Beijing as questions mount about the craft the U.S. says was part of a vast aerial spy program.
“This resolution, I believe, sends a clear bipartisan signal to the CCP and our adversaries around the world that this action will not be tolerated,” said Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, referring to the Chinese Communist Party.
Are every single one of the House, D and R, wrong and you are right? I'm pretty sure the Senate would vote the same way.
"In a Congress riven by partisan splits, the shared anxiety over China's stealthy balloon surveillance program and the reach of the Beijing's global military and economic force provided an unusual opening for bipartisan agreement in the debate."
I am extremely interested in your response.
Today, the House voted UNANIMOUSLY, 419-0, to condemn China's balloon surveillance program as a “brazen violation” of U.S. sovereignty, a rare and swift bipartisan rebuke of Beijing as questions mount about the craft the U.S. says was part of a vast aerial spy program.
“This resolution, I believe, sends a clear bipartisan signal to the CCP and our adversaries around the world that this action will not be tolerated,” said Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, referring to the Chinese Communist Party.
Are every single one of the House, D and R, wrong and you are right? I'm pretty sure the Senate would vote the same way.
"In a Congress riven by partisan splits, the shared anxiety over China's stealthy balloon surveillance program and the reach of the Beijing's global military and economic force provided an unusual opening for bipartisan agreement in the debate."
I am extremely interested in your response, especially your comment that pertains to the Brooklyn Bridge. Are you going to sell that Bridge to every member of the House? Everyone but you does not understand things?
https://news.yahoo.com/us-house-votes-condemn-china-16553744...
Historically for a large preponderance of cases, absolutely nothing. By law of international treaty that the USA signed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Open_Skies
We've since left the treaty though, so now our own spy planes can legally be shot down when they fly over Russia.
If they hypothesis is true, that a bunch of these UFO are actually drones / balloon trying to provoke a response and gather telemetry, then isn't the act of reacting to it and trying to light up the drone is exactly what your opponent wants?
If this is a telemetry probe in drone / balloon form, this is honestly nothing new. That's why subs are routinely in opponent waters, or tailing training exercises while trying to remain undetected. Or just outright fly a plane into opponent territory, provoke a response, record it so that the home team gets something to work on. The US is the masters at this and it's acting surprised that others are trying to play the same game?