Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "That Balloon" video.

  1. You're right - you're not an expert. Cannon rounds sail through the balloon skin and the leaks are very slow.
    4
  2. Well, yeah. It's so overpowered nobody wants any of that smoke.
    2
  3.  @jakeviolet2195  " If it is true that the balloon is impervious to attack, due to altitude, lack of heat signature, or whatever" - It was shot down by IR seeking missile. "they certainly as hell shouldn't have been admitting that vulnerability on TV." - lel that would make it even funnier, admit to vulnerabilities you do not have, allow enemy to try and exploit them.
    2
  4.  @dandytv1510  A future invasion? Russia got bogged down 60km away from their own borders, you think China is going to cross the Pacific and still have troops alive to conduct a land invasion?
    1
  5. "ThE uS iS PaThEtIc" meanwhile Russia is bogged down less than a hundred miles from their border when they were supposed to take 7 days to reach the river Rhine, and China has to resort to antics like these or shooting into the air to seethe about Pelosi. First Raptor air to air kill bishes.
    1
  6. Except that Puerto Rico isn't the US government in exile, the US and Mexico resolved their dispute a long time ago and the US hasn't been funding "Larger Texas" separatist republics to carve up Mexican land, and it was Russia who fired Grad rocket artillery into the city center of Mariupol from their land 8 years ago. Russia's complaints, as always, are projection - they accuse us of doing what they've always done.
    1
  7.  @andersandersen6295  That's not true. Payload is massive (thus costly) and you need to spend energy to de-orbit them. Rods from the Gods is a Sci-Fi concept weapon, nothing more.
    1
  8. If they wanted a first strike, ICBMs work just fine. Hypersonic this, balloon that... ICBM warheads already come down at hypersonic speeds. Stop with the buzzwords and hype weapons.
    1
  9.  @winstonsyme7672  The weapons coming from China would take like 15 minutes to arrive, while the balloon would take days to set up. The CCP does not have enough nukes or silos for a first strike yet, and even if they could, the US Navy submarine fleet could destroy Chinese and Russian silos at the same time on a first strike. This without even getting the Air Force involved. You simply cannot comprehend that the US's second strike capabilities ensure that first strikes are meaningless even if success was achieved. Which China could not due to insufficient numbers.
    1
  10.  @andersandersen6295  Terrible oversimplification. You get more bang for your buck from conventional weapons than from kinetic orbital bombardment.
    1
  11.  @joeymedina7115  It's easier to recover it in the Atlantic than in the Alaskan coast.
    1
  12. It had to be missile. The Canadians spent a thousand rounds trying to shoot down a balloon with the guns on CF-18s in 1998. The RAF then gave it a go and failed too.
    1
  13.  @awatt  It is if we're discussing guns.
    1
  14. Meds. Now.
    1
  15. You mean nukes. The only reliable way of delivering EMP is high altitude nuclear explosion.
    1
  16. There's no EMP device that could provoke the effects you claim other than high altitude nukes.
    1