Comments by "" (@krollpeter) on "Amit Sengupta" channel.

- the infrared sensor was replaced by an infrared colour sensing head - it is not easy to shot a moving object down in a height of 18 km above ground level - the usage of a machine gun would have allowed to ballon to still continue driving, and possibly past the US territory - they used the sidewinder, because this would make an aimed shot possible, which ensures as straight as possible vertical drop of the balloon's payload - the US and Canada allowed it to pass over, because they wanted to see what it does As we see on the image, there are large solar panels and antenna mounted at the payload. It had been stopped several times to stand still over certain target points. A weather balloon would not be able to do that. This is not a weather balloon. From knowing what the Chinese are looking at the US knows what they are busy with.
24
Greetings from Singapore!
12
Russia would need to build a few harbours to provide supplies to the ships, and also services for maintenance, crew needs, etc.. Russia should do exactly that, alone as much as possible. It would aim to grow infrastructure to the vast north. Of course it requires investments upfront.
10
@tsarcube9284 I always had a certain fascination with Siberia. Such beautiful landscapes, and so much human potential ...
4
The earning for the US from selling weapons for this war is much smaller than the damage to the economy, which is about 10 fold higher. And I'm not even talking about the damage to the world economy. This video commentary is just a pile of nonsense, so mistaking and not understanding the situation is astonishing.
2
I refuse to believe that China uses the virus as a bioweapon. I know Chinese as sloppy workers, but not as murders. However, just looking at the map it is plain to see what is the real intention towards Bhutan and the North-East of India. That with the infrastructure around the Chicken Neck tells it all already. China has territorial disputes with 40 % of its neighbours, which says already everything, IMO.
2
@TubeMeisterJC taking loans from China is like taking loans from your hangman.
2
 @rexsybimatrimawahyu3292 just a simple one. The damage to the world's economy is calculated to be 2300 billion $ for 2022. How could you ever sell weapons for that amount of money? Tell me.
1
@rexsybimatrimawahyu3292 So, here for the kindergarten level: - The sales of US weaponry in 2021 was 107 billion $, the sales in 2022 was 153.7 billion $ (Reuters). That's an increase of almost 50 billion $. - The damage to the world economy is calculated to be $ 2300 Billion (IMF for 2022, btw. forecasted to be a further 2000 billion in 2023) - The share of the US economy on the world's economy is ~ 24 % (figure from 2019). Probably 1 or 2 % lesser now. If you take these figures as a basis, the damage to the US economy is in far excess of the 50 billion sold more weapons. I am not even talking about costs of at least 10 years long rebuilding the Ukraine, which will probably be even more gigantic. All this money could be spent on hospitals, education of children, developing entire countries. Or buying Chinese products, that would make Xi happy. Not even talking about the loss of lives, there is +nothing+ that would justify such a war, absolutely nothing. Whatever you personally think about Europe or the US does not matter in view of the enormous damage done to the world. It is a crime against humanity, for which Putin should be incarcerated. You are ... I do not want to be too rude ... naive people looking videos confirming your simplistic prejudice and presumptions. You do statements without any proof, but you ask others to prove to you what you lack on facts and actual knowledge.
1
@rexsybimatrimawahyu3292 Another empty statement, nothing than assumptions, fluff. The one and only solution is that Russia will stop shooting and retreat from all territories of the Ukraine. If Russia does not do this, this war will go on. The GDP of Russia is 1780 billion $, the GDP of Europe is 17200 billion $ (World Bank, 2021). - What do you think who will run out of resources first? - What do you think who will stand there in the end as a poor country, with a reputation destroyed for decades? Just last week the US has decided to spend another 45 billion to aid the Ukraine, Europe has spent about 140 billion (AlJazeera). Russia roughly spent around 82 billion on this war so far (Forbes). Every single day war is estimated to cost up to 1 billion $. - Do you understand why Putina urgently needs China? - Do you understand why Xi is so glad to help him? Russian soldier, go home, and spend this money on your children, on your infrastructure, on your future.
1
@TubeMeisterJC good that you say recently. Otherwise all the neighbours here in South East Asia might start to look terrified. It not my problem, it'will be Russia's problem.
1
@TubeMeisterJC Russia's economy is lesser worth than Italy's, a country with half the population, which is actually considered unsound economically. Russia's GDP per capita is below that of countries like Greece, Turkey or Romania. Only Moscow's and St Petersburg's living standard can be somewhat compared to the Eu. I don't really care what you and other people believe the Chinese have done in the past, or not. What for me is the important point: Everyone knows what China does with economically weak countries. And Russia is very weak. War not needed.
1
@Real_OSHA_Unsafety_Engineer Kola Peninsular has only one single rail line connecting the military with the mainland for supplies. Since Finland with it's strong army is joining the Nato, this can be controlled relatively easy, since it runs for hundreds of km very close to the Finish border. Not that any EU country wants to do anything there, but just in case ...
1
@FCSMHooligan Ivan, here in Singapore a BigMac costs 400 rubles, that is about double the price of Moscow. But the average income per month is USD 3500, vs ~ USD 600 in Moscow, and your BigMac is a BigMacinsky. GDP has not much to do with purchasing power. It is an indicator for the economic power of a country. If you talk about the purchasing power, then you can not view this isolated. You need to compare this also to the income of the respective people. I do believe they use dollars, because they have to use a common basis. Go back to your vodka and your Prawda TV.
1
North-East India historically belonged to China. It therefore is an inseparable part of China. The Native Americans are of Chinese descent. Therefore, the USA and Canada are a natural part of China.
1
@NullPointerExceptionLife When god created man, he first baked the Africans. They became too dark. Then he tried again, the second batch came out too white. The third batch was just right, and they became the Chinese people.
1
@nikhilannur China is constructing a stealth bomber (the Xian H-20). For that it would be good to know which frequencies the US air force radars operate. The balloon had radar antennae. The US says they have taken "precautions" to block those data transfers. This would have to be seen as quite aggressive approach to a possible war preparation, it is not the usual (silent) spying approach. They must think the US are ixiots. Their reply is the dumbest reply from a government since decades.
1
@rvx5392 The material is a flexible plastic material. If there is a small hole only, the balloon might fly a lot further, which is what the US did not want. The sidewinder stopped it immediately, so the payload was dropping where they wanted it: In shallow waters. The answer to your second question is all over the internet: A satellite will fly over a target quite fast. A balloon only slowly. This particular balloon is actually more similar to an airship, a Zeppelin. It can be stopped. Which is what China did over the military installations in Montana. That is why all their responses are so stupid, an offence to anyone above Bonobo intelligence.
1
PS note how they precisely hit the lower part of the balloon, where the payload was anchored. It dropped off immediately. A nice exercise for the air force. It is not easy hitting a target 18 km above ground, not something they do every day.
1