Balloon raises controversy

Regarding “Chinese spy balloon over the US: An aerospace expert explains how the balloons work and what they can see,” (Feb. 4): I’m a certified flight instructor and an airline transport pilot. While balloons are not airplanes, they are aircraft. All aircraft on international flights must file flight plans per International Civil Aviation Organization rules. Aircraft found crossing boundaries are subject to interception and must follow the instructions of the intercepting aircraft.

There is no real difference between a military aircraft and a civilian one other than the cargo. People and commercial products are carried by civilian aircraft. Aircraft carrying spy equipment, weapons or military personnel are military aircraft. The Chinese balloon violated multiple international rules. The United States was justified in shooting it down.

That said, why was the shoot-down so clumsy? Why didn’t the Department of Defense just spray the balloon with liquid nitrogen and have it descend to a soft landing?

James A Babb, Friendswood

Could it be that at least some previous UFOs were simply spy balloons too small to be easily identified by civilians? And could it be that the military knew what they were and maintained secrecy for once?

But then why would China send the monster balloon over here? Perhaps because they did not want to meet with Secretary of State Antony Blinken at this time? If so, it worked.

David Rosenberg, Houston

Regarding “White House: Improved surveillance caught Chinese balloon,” (Feb. 6): The Chinese surveil us, we surveil them. Satellites, U-2s, balloons, sonar, microwave, Sunglider, Solar Impulse, on and on especially as time and technology advances. It’s actually a good thing. They know what is going on over here; we know what is going on over there. Mutual assured knowledge is a good thing.

Walt Lind, Nassau Bay

William Shakespeare gives us a little context for the Chinese “weather balloon” incident in his play “The Tempest” when Antonio says, “What’s past is prologue.” It reminds me of the 1960 U-2 crisis when one of our spy planes was shot down over the Soviet Union.

Eisenhower was forced to take personal responsibility for the incident and that along with the Cuban Missile Crisis put Kennedy in the hot seat at the 1961 Vienna Summit.

Eisenhower said that spying is a “distasteful but vital necessity” but, as a contributor to the Washington Post put it, one fraught with danger. Kennedy concluded that it was vital for him to be able to speak directly to Khrushchev in person, day or night.

The question now is, will Xi Jinping be willing to assume the Eisenhower role in order to avoid a Cold War type of situation? Let’s hope that common sense prevails.

Carl Lloyd, San Antonio