More than three decades ago, the U.S. faced the threat of the Soviet Union in the Cold War.
Now, the U.S. might be facing a situation with China that could be more dangerous than at any moment in the Cold War, in the wake of the shooting down Feb. 4 of a Chinese spy balloon after it flew over U.S. territory.
âWell, one of the more concerning reports out of this whole thing is the fact that the Pentagon rang up their buddies over in China, a hotline, and said, âWeâre concerned about this thing, whatever it is,â and nobody on the Chinese side answered the phone,â Dakota Wood, senior research fellow in defense programs in The Heritage Foundationâs Center for National Defense, says on todayâs episode of âThe Daily Signal Podcast.â (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)
âSo, even during the heights of the Cold War, our U.S. Pentagon and their counterparts in the Soviet Union would at least keep these communication lines open. Weâve got communication lines with Russia as it continues to be involved in the war in Syria,â Wood says. âSo, the ability to talk to each other really helps to mitigate the risk of misinterpreting something or a road to war or something along those lines.â
Wood joins âThe Daily Signal Podcastâ to discuss the Chinese spy balloon, whether we are seeing heightened aggression from China, and how the downed spy balloon compares with the three other downed aerial objects since.
Listen to the podcast below or read the lightly edited transcript:
Samantha Aschieris: Joining todayâs podcast is Dakota Wood. Heâs a senior research fellow here at The Heritage Foundationâs Center for National Defense. Dakota, thanks so much for joining us.
Dakota Wood: Great to be with you. Thanks.
Aschieris: Yes. Now, letâs talk about these balloons. As of this recording, the U.S. military has shot down four objects over the last week and a half. The first was, of course, that Chinese spy balloon that drifted across the U.S. for a few days, and then on Friday, another one was shot down over Alaska. On Saturday, an object was shot down over Canada. And then on Sunday, we had one that was shot down over Michigan.
Dakota, first and foremost, what can you tell us about these four objects? Are they all the same? Whatâs going on?
Wood: Well, the governmentâs reporting theyâre different. So, the very first one, this Chinese spy espionage surveillance balloon was very, very large. The balloon itself a couple hundred feet in length, and it was carrying a box, roughly a ton, so, 2,000 pounds. So, a very large container. Sometimes, itâs been described as the size of three buses, so it gives you visual image. And it had a large solar array. So, just like you see a space station with these big arrays to give it solar power. So, thatâs the size of this thing.
The other three have been much smaller. Think of a small car, dramatic difference. So, the balloons are going to be smaller. Theyâre not having to carry as big a payload. Whatâs common amongst all these things is these weather balloons, if you want to think of them like that, the material is kind of a rubberized material, so thereâs not a whole lot of metal. You consider it kind of a soft object, instead of a hard object.
So, if you have a radar system thatâs looking for stuff in the sky, these are not commercial airliners. Itâs really hard to get a radar return on a big, rubbery balloon. These things are going to be the same temperature as the surrounding air; so, you donât have a hot jet-exhaust engine for a temperature differential. And again, the metallic component on this, not a big return.
I guess the last characteristic is the speed. So, you probably saw in the news that NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defense Command, has tweaked its radars. So, weâre not looking for flocks of geese or ducks or whatever. Theyâre looking for, in the old days, Soviet bombers or Russian military aircraft or a missile coming in. Itâs hard, itâs hot, and itâs moving really fast. And so, thatâs what these radar systems are looking for.
So, now that weâre dealing with balloonsâsoft, cold, moving really slow, werenât geared to pick up on that. And so, you tweak the software to look for slow, soft, cold things, and now this stuff starts popping up on the radar scope. So, I think itâs a good way, and these altitudes, the Chinese [spy balloon] was at 60-some-odd thousand feet. Another one was about 40,000 feet. And then I think this last one might even been a 20,000 or something like that.
Aschieris: Yeah, I think so.
Wood: Yeah. And so, the varying heights. An average airliner flies about 30,000, 35,000 feet. Mount Everest is 29,000 feet. So, if something like the Chinese balloon was at 60,000-plus, twice the height of Mount Everest, there arenât even very many military aircraft that can fly that high.
So, people have talked about, âWell, why canât we just grab the thing?â There ainât a helicopter built in the world that can probably get above 25,000 feet. Those are very specialized like mountain rescue climber crews and stuff. So, things just donât fly that high. And thatâs why these balloons are such an effective way to carry big boxes. The box can have anythingâradio gear, cameras, sensors to pick up on thermal activity, or whatever it might be.
So, thatâs just kind of a roundabout discussion of what these things appear to be. The last three, smaller than the Chinese [spy balloon]. The government hasnât attributed them to a source. Everybody kind of suspects that theyâre China, but we havenât been explicitly told that. So, right now theyâre just kind of unknown things. The furor that came up with not shooting down the China balloon, you can bet the administration is not going to make that same mistake. And so, theyâre being much more aggressive at how we deal with them.
Aschieris: Yes, I was going to ask if we have heard anything else about where these last three objects, balloons have come from. As of this recording at least, we donât know that information. But can you speak to the reaction that we saw? Obviously, the Biden administration received some backlash, some criticism for not initially shooting down the Chinese spy balloon when they first saw it. It was eventually shot down off the coast of South Carolina. So, can you talk a little bit more about the response that weâve been getting from the Biden administration?
Wood: Yeah. So, where I think the Biden administration has continued to make missteps is in just not being honest. If you donât know something, just say, âI donât know.â And it actually enhances your credibility, this legitimacy, and at least I can trust that youâre telling me something because youâre not trying to pull one over on me.
And so, the Biden administration has just been very vague. Theyâre not saying, âOh, I donât know something,â but youâre not telling me something very specific. And so, that leads to doubt and speculation and everything from, these are alien spacecraft to something out of Area 51 to who knows what else. I guess all of those are possibilities, but at least tell me what we do and donât know. So, I think thatâs where the Biden team really messed up early on.
The other criticism was if we knew that this big spy balloon, the very first one, was from China, and itâs floating so serenely through all this U.S. airspace, why the heck didnât we shoot it down to begin with? Hence, this more aggressive approach to the others. Now, in kind of defense of the administration, if I could put it that way, again, radar is looking for a specific type of thing. They have varying ranges. And the broader kind of surveillance aspect you have on these, the less likely they are to pick up very small, hard-to-define things.
For example, in a military use, a targeting radar is a fairly narrow beam. Iâm looking in a specific direction, and I get a really strong return so that I can apply a weapon against it, as opposed to just a big surveillance. Itâs like focusing on something or just looking around the landscape. And so, with this balloon coming across the Pacific Ocean, we donât have a whole lot of radar systems in the middle of the North Pacific. And so, it has to get close enough to land before it could even be picked up.
This was probably visually spotted early on. And so, as you start to be aware that there is something there, now you can focus your efforts, maybe send up a high-flying aircraft or a very narrowly defined radar beam to get a better idea of what this thing is. And so youâre going to have these gaps. If our Alaska stations are focused westward towards China or the old Soviet Union, Russia kind of thing, well, once it gets past Alaska, well, whoâs looking in that direction?
We donât normally try to collect [information] on Canada. And so, it gets into the western reaches of Canada, pretty sparsely populated, not a lot there. You donât really start to pick up things again until youâre getting down into the lower 48. And so, you are going to have these kind of gaps. You have to reacquire it. You have a sense of the path that it was on; so, thereâs an idea of where to look, but you still have to find it. Again, itâs cold, slow-moving, soft target. And so, it just takes a while.
So, there is some defense of the military community or intel community not picking up on it real quickly, losing track and then having to reacquire it. But that does not forgive them, the government, the agencies for not being as forthcoming as possible, just keeping the public informed.
Aschieris: I want to talk a little bit more about one of the objects that was shot down was in Canada. We were talking before the recording and sort of why the U.S. was responsible for shooting it down. MSNBC asked White House Press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre about this over the weekend. I just want to play that for you now and get your thoughts on her answer.
Jonathan Capehart: Why is the American military shooting something out of the sky over Canada?
Karine Jean-Pierre: Because itâs part of a NORAD. The NORAD is part of a, itâs what you call a coalition âŚ
Capehart: A consortium, a pack of nations.
Jean-Pierre: A pack, exactly. And so, thatâs why we were able to do that. Again, we didnât do it on our own. We did it clearly in step with Canada.
Aschieris: So, Dakota, first and foremost, your reaction to the White House press secretaryâs response. And then also can you tell us a little bit more about why the U.S. was responsible for shooting this object down that was in Canada?
Wood: Yeah, it wasnât really a confidence-inspiring response from the spokesperson for the White House. Clearly wasnât really familiar with what NORAD is. So, again, itâs the North American Aerospace Defense Command. It was organized back during the Cold War, where Canada and the United States said we both have mutual interest in making sure that old Soviet missiles donât come over the polar cap and destroy our cities.
And so, there is a joint or a combined military command, where both governments contribute to that, and we share a common aerospace, common awareness. So, Canada, itâs part of that. A system picks up on this balloon. Justin Trudeau, the prime minister over there, says, âWow, this is a problem. We want to take care of it, but we Canada donât have the aircraft that can get up to that altitude and then engage this particular target.â
So, Canada has routinely purchased U.S. military aircraft, F-18s, et cetera. Those just canât get to the altitude needed. So, we used American F-22 Raptors, which can fly to that altitude to neutralize or kill or destroy, take out this evil balloon. So, thatâs the explanation. Itâs a jointly shared command, NORAD. Both sides have various assets that they contribute to that. The F-22 is selected because itâs one of the few planes that carries a weapon that can get to that altitude and then engage that target and bring it down.
Aschieris: I was very interested in that because when I saw the news over the weekend, I was wondering, âWell, why?â But there we go. You just answered it for me.
So, I also wanted to talk about moving forward, Lucas Tomlinson, heâs a correspondent for Fox News, tweeted on Monday, âU.S. fighter jets have shot down three objects over the past three days. NORAD and Pentagon officials told reporters Sunday night they wonât rule out more in the coming days.â
So, do you think now that the U.S. is just more aware of these objects following the Chinese spy balloon incident and these other three objects that we saw, or is this happening more frequently? Are we seeing this kind of heightened aggression, so to speak, from China?
Wood: Itâs probably both. And Iâm reminded, when you buy a new car, itâs new to you, and then all of a sudden you realize how many other people are driving that kind of car because now youâre aware of it.
Aschieris: Yes, yes.
Wood: And theyâre probably on the road all the time anyway. Well, now that everybody is aware that you have these balloons, and our radar systems are now tuned to find them where they werenât in the past, these things could have been flying around all the time and just they never posed a threat. Nobody was concerned about them.
This Biden White House criticism of the Trump administration, that, âOh, there were three or four balloons back in your day, and you didnât do anything.â Well, the administration of the military is saying, âWe went back to look at past game tapes. Now we know what weâre looking for. Oh, there was this unidentified thing. Nobody thought anything about it.â But now we, three years later, weâll call it what we think it was back then. So, there is an enhanced awareness, but you could also have this greater use of these things.
So, increasing U.S.-China tensions over Taiwan, China could be using this as an opportunity to really conduct some fairly sophisticated surveillance. Why donât you use the satellite? Everybody has them. A satellite appears through a huge layer of atmosphere. Itâs far away from target sites they might want to collect on. A balloon instead of being 300 miles out in space is only 60,000 feet above the earth. So a balloon gets you closer to the emission sources of various types of energies that cameras donât have to look through as much atmospheric air. So, it could be that China is just using things like this to look at areas of interest in the United States.
Intercontinental ballistic missile, ICBM fields, B-2, which is our stealth bomber base at Whitman Air Force Base in Missouri, naval ports on the eastern seacoast. So, it could be a combination. Weâre aware, so now weâre looking more, and have tuned our tools to find [them]. There also could be a heightened use of these things.
And I think itâs also useful to recall that in the weather balloon world, something like 1,800 of these are launched every single day. So, most of them are fairly low-altitude, short-range, temperature-gradient, pressure differences. Is it raining or not, weather, wind patterns. Theyâre not going to go to 60,000 feet and fly a halfway around the world. But it gives you an idea of how many of these silly objects are floating around in the atmosphere, right?
Aschieris: Yes, thatâs crazy. I didnât realize that many weather balloons every day. Thatâs crazy. I didnât even know that.
Wood: Yeah. And itâs again, these altitudes, what can you go up and get at that height? How easy or difficult it is to find? How many of these things? So, thereâs just a lot of variables involved here. Everybodyâs fixated on balloons. Wow, four in 10 days. Is it an alien invasion coming in, or is this just a heightened great power competition thing? Are they some college students that are kind of pranking the system?
So, you got a group, maybe theyâre in India or Nepal or Japan or whatever, and they let this balloon up into the atmosphere, they float, and they see the crazy reaction from the Americans and the news media, going nuts. That could be the case. Itâs just that we donât know. And so, there is a risk of speculation, hysteria, really overreacting, and yet you cannot ignore the potential threat.
This one-ton box suspended beneath a balloon, well, maybe itâs a nuclear weapon. Maybe itâs an electromagnetic, an EMP, electromagnetic pulse source device that blacks out power grids and stuff. So, there are real dangers out in the world, and thatâs why we have to be careful at this and canât just dismiss it. But that doesnât mean that every balloon poses a ginormous threat.
Aschieris: Just speaking of a ginormous threat, I want to talk about the U.S.âs relationship with China now after this balloon incident. And what does this mean for the United Statesâ relationship with China? Are we potentially heading for a war with China?
Wood: Well, one of the more concerning reports out of this whole thing is the fact that the Pentagon rang up their buddies over in China, a hotline, and said, âWeâre concerned about this thing, whatever it is.â And nobody on the Chinese side answered the phone.
Aschieris: Wow.
Wood: So, even during the heights of the Cold War, our U.S. Pentagon and their counterparts in the Soviet Union would at least keep these communication lines open. Weâve got communication lines with Russia as it continues to be involved in the war in Syria. So, the ability to talk to each other really helps to mitigate the risk of misinterpreting something or a road to war or something along those lines.
So, when the other side doesnât even pick up the phone, what does that say? And to me, it says theyâre either trying to play the United States, they think the Biden team is weak, and so who cares what the White House in the U.S. says? All those, itâs a recipe for disaster.
So, we have had increasing tensions over Taiwan as the U.S. has been involved in European affairs, especially with Russiaâs assault of Ukraine. Weâre focusing kind of on that direction. Itâs kind of like the balloon thing. Which direction are you looking in? So, maybe thereâs an opportunity that China senses for a distracted U.S. to not be in the Indo-Pacific and maybe they would make a move against Taiwan.
So, theyâre kind of playing this, and they arenât open on lines of communication. So, there is a risk. Does that result in war next week? Who knows? Could war never happen? Absolutely. But you canât guarantee one of those outcomes. And so, talking is very helpful. Having a military and intelligence community thatâs robust enough to do more than one thing at a time is also very helpful.
Aschieris: Well, just speaking of our military, the Chinese spy balloon incident comes after polling revealed nearly 70% of active military members have witnessed politicization in the military. And 65% of active duty military members are somewhat or very concerned about this development. And thatâs according to the National Independent Panel on Military Service and Readiness.
So, Dakota, can you tell us a little bit about this poll ,and are you surprised to see such a high percentage of active military members saying that they witnessed this?
Wood: So, the commission was helped put together by The Heritage Foundation and some great colleagues in Congress to really look at this problem. We talk about wokeism and gender identity things and lowering military standards so that you have more people that are making the cut because you lowered the cut line. Where does all this lead?
And so this commission was put together to look at these factors. Why is it that services have such a difficult time recruiting? Most of the services did not make their recruiting goals this past year, and the forecast is fairly bleak. So, whatâs going into all this stuff? And so, the survey was done: âPeople in the military, what do you think about the military?â And to the point that you made, they just hate the fact that all of this stuff is being forced on the military from the political establishment.
So, it seems to be White House, top-down directed. Some of these initiatives come from Congress via legislation, opening roles or service opportunities to communities in the United States that previously would not have been eligible for a great variety of legitimate reasons. But when youâre in the military and you see standards being lowered or slipping, youâre forced to attendâI donât knowâgender awareness training classes when youâd rather be out fixing the tank or flying the plane and all that, it really sours your perception.
And itâs not like you can say no, I donât want to do that. Military folks, men and women salute smartly, and theyâre going to execute to the best of their abilities. So, compounding this then is, you have presidential appointees who are put in as the service secretaries or key defense department officials, and you do have some politicization within the general officer and the admiralty flag officers within the Navy, and sometimes you find somebody that wants to climb the ranks by currying favor in political ways. And so, they will kind of work this to their advantage.
The military isnât immune to these sorts of things that also afflict other sectors of America. Itâs just people. Itâs popular with people. And so, this perspective of a hyper-politicization of the military was supposed to be apolitical, really rings hollow. It causes friction within the force. People then think about getting out early instead of staying for a career or not reenlisting or re-upping.
And when that happens, it makes the recruiting scene, bringing new people in, that much more challenged. And so, the results of this survey say weâve got some warning lights and bells and sirens sounding in all these areas.
Aschieris: Well, Dakota, thank you so much for joining me today. We discussed a lot. I appreciate all of your insight, and I would love to have you back on in the future. Hopefully, no more objects will be shot down, but that remains to be seen. So, thank you so much for joining us.
Wood: Great pleasure.
Aschieris: I really appreciate it.
Wood: Thank you.
Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email[email protected]Â and weâll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular âWe Hear Youâ feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.
Source link
Author: Samantha Aschieris