Well the good news is that if these are alien craft we've been taking out, they do not have force fields that work against our weapons.

The US May Have Shot Down a Small Hobby Balloon With a Sidewinder Missile

WaPo: Chinese Balloon Wound Up in the US Due to Unexpected Weather

 Red_Dragon wrote:

 R_P wrote:

Goddam, Richard. You are such an arrogant, obtuse prick.

Progress: The White House acknowledged there are flying devices such as weather balloons that are 'not nefarious at all'

 R_P wrote:
It’s called observation. Give it a try sometime.

 VV wrote:
Nope, I bow to your expertise on how the Chinese might think/act/react.

 R_P wrote:
So I see... after I agreed with you by saying that if China had good reason to believe the a balloon's purpose was surveillance they would be within their right to shoot it down, you are trying to start some other tangential argument? Does it help if I agree that the country who shoots down the offending object is under no obligation to return it? Well, I would say that is correct too. 
 
Any other tangents you want to spin off to? Are you only going to be happy when you find something we are at odds with?

 Proclivities wrote:

The family said they first suspected Falcon Heene was missing when, immediately after the balloon had taken off, Falcon's brother told them that he had seen the six-year-old climb into the balloon's basket beforehand ...   

 R_P wrote:
At least it wasn't this balloon.  

SCOTUS?

 Proclivities wrote:
Let's see how that might play out. So far we have a downed Chinese balloon and, of course, sanctions.

 R_P wrote:
Nah, I wouldn't expect the U.S. (or other major powers) to let such a thing "slide" completely, but it seems like there are often some sort of "back-door" retaliation methods.

White House says leading theory is objects shot down were ‘benign’ balloons as it tries to tamp down on conspiracies

 Proclivities wrote:
The surveillance drone was violating sovereign airspace and was shot down. Some preferred following that up with more illegal actions, but cooler heads prevailed. Also: a repeat in 2019 with retaliatory actions.

Anybody who thinks the U.S. would let it slide (despite of the fact that the affected nation has the right) hasn't been paying attention.

 R_P wrote:
That article seems tangential to what VV was getting at - Iran could've refused to return, or even destroyed that U.S. drone without committing an "act of war" or violating any international laws.  It seems it would be within China's right to shoot down aircraft which violates their sovereign airspace - as it is for any sovereign nation, though I believe manned aircraft are supposed to be warned first.

 VV wrote:
Great. Let's see how that might play out.

 R_P wrote:
Yes, I'm suggesting if they had good reason to believe the balloons' purpose was surveillance they would be within their right. 
 
And I'm also suggesting that they must not have believed that the balloons' purpose was surveillance or that is what they would have done. I don't think China would hesitate to do that and they certainly would not ignore it 10 times. Therefore, there must be some credence to the contention that the balloons were weather balloons otherwise they would have never all made it out of China's airspace.   

 VV wrote:
The White House said it's false.  Case closed.

You're suggesting they would have the right to do so and should?