Re: Nice Shooting. We shot down a balloon with a single $1,090,000 missile.

[george lewis]

On 05 Feb 2023, !Jones <x...@y.com> posted some
news:7rp0uhtnpuiuk4qa5...@4ax.com:

> First of all, unpropelled objects that are lighter than air don't
> "fly" any more than a brick "dives" when tossed into a lake. Both are
> simply obeying that physical property known as the "Archimedes
> principle".
>
> It's just a gas filled envelope until proven otherwise. It only
> becomes a "spy balloon" when there is solid evidence to support such a
> claim; besides, a satellite makes a far better intelligence gathering
> platform.

It was over US airspace. It doesn't matter if it's a Chinese democratic
party balloon or a flying donut dick balloon, we can shoot it down
whenever using whatever we want to.

[!Jones]

I believe I said: "Once your balloon crosses an international border,
it stops being yours." By that, I meant I'd agree with what you said.

My main point, though, was that a gas bag isn't much of a threat. If
by "*we* can shoot it down", you mean *me*, I'd have punched a few
holes in it with a rifle when it was at low altitude. It would have
been on the ground within 24 hours. The positive side of that
approach is we'd have had the payload intact. (It's not clear that
we'll ever retrieve it from the bottom of the Atlantic.)

Of course, to a gun loon, blowing the shit out of it with a missile
that costs well over a million bucks is much more satisfying. At
least we managed to pop the balloon with a "single missile"... that'll
teach those slopes to mess with us!

I'm 'minded of the time I went to a church Christmas party. As the
opening prayer concluded, a balloon tree decoration popped. The
leader of the prayer threw up her hands and cried: "Hallelujah! What a
glorious manifestation of God's power!"

I see similarities.

[Just Wondering]

On 2/6/2023 8:19 AM, !Jones wrote:

> On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 george lewis wrote:
>>
>> It was over US airspace. It doesn't matter if it's a Chinese democratic
>> party balloon or a flying donut dick balloon, we can shoot it down
>> whenever using whatever we want to.
>
> I believe I said: "Once your balloon crosses an international border,
> it stops being yours." By that, I meant I'd agree with what you said.
>

> If by "*we* can shoot it down", you mean *me*, I'd have punched
> a few holes in it with a rifle when it was at low altitude.

No you wouldn't. You're not capable of hitting a moving target
at a distance of three miles and an elevation of 11,000 feet.

[!Jones]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 08:34:37 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Wondering <J...@jw.com> wrote:

>No you wouldn't. You're not capable of hitting a moving target
>at a distance of three miles and an elevation of 11,000 feet.

Man, you gotta *work* at it to be that obtuse! I won't even bother
explaining it to you because you wouldn't understand.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 13:34:32 -0600, !Jones <x...@y.com> wrote:

>>> If by "*we* can shoot it down", you mean *me*, I'd have punched
>>> a few holes in it with a rifle when it was at low altitude.
>>

>>No you wouldn't. You're not capable of hitting a moving target
>>at a distance of three miles and an elevation of 11,000 feet.

>Man, you gotta *work* at it to be that obtuse!

Quite obviously *you* don't.

[Just Wondering]

On 2/6/2023 12:34 PM, !Jones wrote:

> On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 08:34:37 Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 2/6/2023 8:19 AM, !Jones wrote:
>>>
>> I'd have punched a few holes in it with a rifle when it was
>>> at low altitude.
>>

>> No you wouldn't. You're not capable of hitting a moving target
>> at a distance of three miles and an elevation of 11,000 feet.
>
> Man, you gotta *work* at it to be that obtuse! I won't even
> bother explaining it to you because you wouldn't understand.
>

All anyone needs to understand about this is that you are not
capable of using a rifle to hit a target moving at 30 miles per
hour at a distance of three miles and an elevation of 11,000 feet.

Not to mention the very real danger you would put people in
downrange by making the attempt.

[max headroom]

In news:oj62uhd1jsdno0gb5...@4ax.com, !Jones <x...@y.com> typed:

> ... Of course, to a gun loon, blowing the shit out of it with a missile
> that costs well over a million bucks is much more satisfying....

It's not often that a pinkie calls Joe Biden a "gun loon."

[!Jones]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 12:54:43 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Wondering <J...@jw.com> wrote:

> > Man, you gotta *work* at it to be that obtuse! I won't even
> > bother explaining it to you because you wouldn't understand.
> >
>All anyone needs to understand about this is that you are not
>capable of using a rifle to hit a target moving at 30 miles per
>hour at a distance of three miles and an elevation of 11,000 feet.
>
>Not to mention the very real danger you would put people in
>downrange by making the attempt.

Please read before you post:

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Nice Shooting. We shot down a balloon with a single
$1,090,000 missile.
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2023 20:38:58 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <7rp0uhtnpuiuk4qa5...@4ax.com>
< from which I quote: >
"Had we taken C130 up [on a cold morning] and punched a few dozen
simple bullet holes in it with a rifle, the envelope would have come
down slowly.
< /quote >

Thank you.