nauseus

He's asking how these three earlier (Trump era) events were identified so recently and after the supposed fact? Of course there is no information about that, just like a lot of other stuff, like the size/type of previous balloons, where they were and for how long. All as flaky as an old scab.

Far too long, I agree. If this detection capability was enhanced so greatly early in 2021, then the balloon must have been detected by the relevant command, NORAD, which also covers Canadian airspace. Plenty of opportunities to bring it down. Whatever the story, sending these things around the world is dangerous, even if they are not a military threat. I doubt that there is much control over them and if altitude control is lost then these 3-bus size balloons could descend into the altitude ranges used by commercial aviation and cause a tragedy.

I don't think it is clear who identified the balloon first but if it was not the US military then that would be a worry. It seems that this only became public knowledge once Larry Meyer had his photographs published in the Billings Gazette.

Not really. The Aleutian Islands off Alaska reach 1200 miles all the way west to the date line. Plenty of room to shoot balloons well away from Russia.

Perhaps these CNN features reveal a few more more likely details?: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/06/politics/military-intelligence-report-china-balloon-trump https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/06/politics/military-intelligence-report-china-balloon-trump But Bolton asks the right questions and makes a valid observation at the end of the clip.

Why can't you guys say what you really mean? ????

Too much bias and guesswork does not give you a pass either. In the meantime there seems to be no agreement on the reality (or not) of previous balloon incursions: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/3844561-trump-and-biden-admins-clash-over-reports-of-previous-chinese-balloons/

Maybe they were dinky wee party balloons over the western Aleutians just for a day trip?

Not easy at 60,000ft. The air force shot it down with a single missile (no warhead) so that the debris would come down in shallow water. The navy is retrieving what they can for evaluation.

Once again - no evidence - just hearsay with no detail. If there were truly three previously under Trump then at least one of them would have made the news. I expect that The Billings Gazette will know. But will they tell?!

I can't open your link but never mind. Trump did not demand 4% but he did suggest it. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-nato-summit-trump-spending-idAFKBN1K12C0 He also warned Germany not to become over-reliant on Russian gas. As we can see now, both were good ideas and both would not have made Putin happy!

In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending but most NATO members did not follow that guideline. By the Wales Summit in 2014, NATO Leaders agreed to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets. Even after Russia annexed Crimea, several members were still deficient contributors by the time of the 2022 Ukraine invasion. The fact is that several NATO members relied on the USA to provide and pay for European security for decades - Trump decided that that was not fair - and I agree with him on that. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm

The spending was increasing too, but not from all. https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/nato-allies-now-spend-50-billion-more-defense-2016 Nothing to do with my boat. All Trump wanted was for NATO members to contribute the 2% that they agreed to spend themselves (2% of GDP on defense).

Other President's failed. However, Trump was effective in getting defense spending increase pledges across NATO, particularly from Germany,

Poor guy, that is not the way that anyone should go. RIP. Telescopic toilets coming out of the ground in the middle of the night? Why don't they just have public conveniences anymore? People often need to take a pee when the sun's up too!

No worries, The link with the OP opened up OK for me.

This is the byline: By Charlie Savage, Adam Goldman and Katie Benner The New York Times Jan 27, 2023 at 3:30 pm This is the copyright: c.2023 The New York Times Company

Talk about living on the edge! I see a few flights moving ex Auckland now - let's hope there is no more harm to people.

SCUBA tanks by the look. They need to stop things like this if they want to the aid to continue coming in because any anti-aiders will jump on it.

I read it. It's just the same old style of propaganda, with no actual proof of any of its claims.

Look at it more closely.

NYT again with nothing that has any meat, really. Same old.

I know. The story said that dairy had become more profitable. But the cost of the pollution is high in all other ways - this has already affected lower reaches of rivers, nearly all of which eventually drain into the sea. Fertilizer run-off can deplete the oxygen in rivers careful and harmful algal blooms have wide-ranging effects on aquatic species that can be lethal too. South Island, in particular, is mostly rugged and a far more natural environment for sheep than cattle. I was hoping that the UK could help out and import more sheep again now we're out of the EU. We owe the Kiwis after all! ????

This backs up the "rock snot" stories I've been hearing about in some NZ rivers over the last few years. Anthropogenic eutrophication from the nitrogen and phosphorus used in farming fertilizers is a problem everywhere they are used. I think that NZ dairy exports were driven up by demand from China but it looks like a return to sheep farming would be a better way to go - there must be a better market for lamb these days - it's expensive enough.

Followed the jumping cow.