{"id":23258,"date":"2023-03-17T10:26:06","date_gmt":"2023-03-17T10:26:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kedisa.gr\/chinese-spy-balloon-or-chinese-unmanned-civilian-airship\/"},"modified":"2026-01-21T22:31:54","modified_gmt":"2026-01-21T22:31:54","slug":"chinese-spy-balloon-or-chinese-unmanned-civilian-airship","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kedisa.gr\/en\/chinese-spy-balloon-or-chinese-unmanned-civilian-airship\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cChinese spy balloon\u201d or \u201cChinese unmanned civilian airship\u201d?"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Yang Xiao Tong \u6768\u6653\u7ae5, Intern at KEDISA<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

On the 28th<\/sup> of January, 2023, a balloon of Chinese origin entered American airspace via the Aleutian Islands in Alaska. The balloon crossed into Canada briefly before emerging once again in American airspace, it traversed through much of the continental United States before it was finally disabled by a single missile fired from an F-22 fighter jet, 6 nautical miles off of the coast of the American state of South Carolina.[1]<\/a> The event saw the further deterioration of an already tense relationship between the United States and China. On the US side, the US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin voiced his displeasure regarding the incident, describing it as an \u201cunacceptable violation of our (American) sovereignty\u201d perpetrated by Beijing while the US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken postponed his visit to China as a result.[2]<\/a>, [3]<\/a><\/sup> On the Chinese side, Beijing has condemned the US\u2019 response to the incident and promised to take \u201cnecessary\u201d retaliatory measures, describing the \u201cspy balloon\u201d in question as being merely an \u201cunmanned civilian airship\u201d on a weather research mission that has only strayed into the American airspace by accident.[4]<\/sup><\/a> However, this was refuted by the United States, whom argues that what China claims to be \u201cunmanned civilian airship\u201d are in fact \u201cspy balloons\u201d.[5]<\/a>, [6]<\/a><\/sup> So, who is right? Was the balloon intended for civilian or for military use?<\/p>\n

In order to answer this question, I will begin by laying out the benefits of the military using balloons for surveillance purposes. Although experts have argued that balloons are not exactly a sophisticated piece of technology and their surveillance values are limited by a number of constraints which will be mentioned later on in this article, balloons were never intended to be used by themselves. When used in conjunction with other more sophisticated technology, such as drones or satellites, balloons can enhance a country\u2019s overall intelligence gathering, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities. This is because balloons offer a number of advantages satellites and drones do not have.<\/p>\n

For example, balloons can intercept communication and electronic signals which would have been otherwise impossible to achieve with satellites due to them orbiting at too high an altitude, not to mention that balloons are considerably cheaper than satellites. [7]<\/sup><\/a>, [8]<\/a><\/sup> Furthermore, according to Bryan Clark \u2013 the Director of the Hudson Institute\u2019s Centre for Defence Concepts, unlike with satellites, which have a predictable path and thus can be easily avoided if you either cease all activity or implement a form of disguise for the brief duration that the satellite passes overhead, balloons are considerably more difficult to avoid due to their ability to remain relatively stationary in one location for an extended period of time and less predictable by nature.[9]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Balloons also offer a number of advantages when compared to drones as well. For example, drones are relatively difficult to detect via radars which is due to several reasons. Firstly, drones are relatively small which means that they possess a small radar cross section and therefore, they are often filtered out as noise. Secondly, drones usually fly at a relatively low altitude, which means that they are virtually invisible to most radars, because most radars are preoccupied with scanning higher altitudes for more conventional threats such as adversarial planes or missiles. Drones are not impervious however. For example, drones are susceptible to being detected by the naked eye precisely because they are flying at such low altitudes, which also makes them vulnerable to attacks from anti-aircraft missiles, anti-aircraft guns or being jammed.[10]<\/a><\/p>\n

In comparison, even though balloons can be quite large, the Chinese \u201cspy balloon\u201d had a height of approximately 60 metres and carried a payload that exceeded a ton, they can be surprisingly difficult to detect via radars due to the balloon being primarily comprised of non-metallic material which renders them virtually invisible to radars as well.[11]<\/a>, [12]<\/a>, [13]<\/a> <\/sup>Furthermore, balloons can fly at an altitude of approximately 37 kilometres above the Earth\u2019s surface, which means that they are well beyond the range of most anti-aircraft missiles and anti-aircraft guns that is not fixed to an aircraft and intercepting fighter jets have to perform dangerous manoeuvres that could endanger the life of the pilot in order to destroy the balloon because fighter jets can only fly at a height of approximately 20 kilometres above the Earth\u2019s surface.[14]<\/a><\/p>\n

However, even though balloons offer a number of advantages compared to other technologies that could supplement Beijing\u2019s overall intelligence gathering, surveillance and reconnaissance ability and China has a motive to acquire more intelligence on the United States, it still does not mean that the balloon in question definitely belongs to the Chinese military. Firstly, there is a number of inconsistencies with the ways in which Washington responded to this incident.<\/p>\n

For instance, General Glenn VanHerk, whom has been in charge of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) since the August of 2020 and other officials, have revealed that at least three Chinese \u201cspy balloons\u201d had passed over the United States during the Trump presidency. From the information currently available, it seems that these balloons were neither detected immediately nor were they destroyed. If VanHerk\u2019s claim is indeed true, then this means that the Chinese \u201cspy balloon\u201d which was shot down on the 4th<\/sup> of February, 2023 was by no means the first incident of a Chinese \u201cspy balloon\u201d passing over the United States.[15]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> However, then why did Washington not respond to these previous incidents? Especially considering the fact that the Trump administration was by far more hostile towards China than the Biden administration? Why is former President Donald Trump and former Defence Secretary Mark Esper denying the existence of these incidents or claiming that they were never informed? [16]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Or perhaps these previous instances of Chinese \u201cspy balloons\u201d were somehow less important than those that occurred after the 4th<\/sup> of February, 2023?<\/p>\n

This revelation by VanHerk and other officials is incredibly suspicious considering that immediately following the \u201cfirst\u201d incident on the 4th<\/sup> of February, three more similar objects were subsequently detected and destroyed.[17]<\/a> This suspicion is echoed by Senator Susan Collins, \u201cif there are gaps that are caused by a lack of equipment or sensors or better radars, the Department of Defense needs to provide us with that information. The fact that the military was able to act so quickly on these subsequent objects raises very serious questions about why they did not act quickly on the first one\u201d.[18]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Responding to Collins\u2019 question, VanHerk explains that the sudden increase in NORAD\u2019s detection ability can be attributed to the changing of the radar\u2019s \u201cvelocity gates\u201d, which has been changed in response to the \u201cfirst\u201d balloon incident. This change then allows the radars to detect low speed clutters which would have otherwise been filtered out.[19]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> However, then why did VanHerk not change the \u201cvelocity gates\u201d following the actual first instance he himself has experienced while he has been in charge of NORAD during the Trump Presidency? Furthermore, if NORAD is able to detect the balloons which is evident from the later incidents, then why is VanHerk warning the Senate of a \u201cdomain awareness gap\u201d caused by NORAD\u2019s continued use of antiquated technology?[20]<\/a><\/p>\n

One possibility is that since approximately 53% of unidentified aerial phenomena witnessed ultimately turned out to be normal aerospace material, which includes civilian balloons and civilian unmanned vehicles, it would have been awfully inconvenient not to mention awfully expensive if Washington was to dispatch fighter jets or reconnaissance aircrafts to manually inspect every instance of low-speed cluster in order to make sure that it is not an adversarial spy balloon or drone.[21]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> In addition, these balloons \u2013 at least the one that was shot down on the 4th<\/sup> of February lacked a weapon system and therefore did not pose a physical threat to the United States according to one anonymous senior government official.[22]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> However, currently, this remains only a speculation and there is no definitive evidence to explain why there exists a discrepancy between the different way in which VanHerk responded to the alleged instances of Chinese \u201cspy balloons\u201d passing over the United States under the Trump presidency and those under the Biden presidency, and even this speculation is insufficient in explaining the causes. Regardless, what is certain is that VanHerk\u2019s inconsistent response to these \u201cspy balloon\u201d incidents seriously place some doubt on whether or not the Chinese balloon is military in origin.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, there is the question of the balloon\u2019s effectiveness had it indeed been a \u201cspy balloon\u201d, which can reveal whether or not the balloon is civilian or military in origin. Currently, there are experts such as William Kim of the Marathon Initiative thinktank whom claims that the Chinese balloon appears to have had \u201cadvanced steering technology that the US military has not yet put in the air\u201d, and that recent developments in AI has made it possible to control the direction of a balloon which does not have its own locomotion system by simply adjusting the attitude.[23]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> However, upon a careful examination of the contradictory claims coming from the various American government officials, I am more inclined to believe that Kim and other experts\u2019 claim about the balloon possessing excellent propulsion \u00a0capability is wrong.<\/p>\n

In order to explain why these experts are wrong; I will begin by addressing the question of where was the intended destination of the \u201cspy balloon\u201d. While some American government officials have theorised that Chinese \u201cspy balloon\u2019s\u201d intent was to conduct reconnaissance mission over the various missile silos dotting the landscape of continental United States, other argues that the balloon\u2019s original destination had been American military installations such as Guam or Hawaii and that it has merely passed over continental United States by accident.[24]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a>, [25]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

My own assessment in this dispute is that had the balloon been indeed a spy balloon, then its destination would likely have been either Guam or Hawaii because there is simply no need for Beijing to spy on the various American intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos in continental United States since the little information that can be discerned about these silos via an instrument as rudimentary as a balloon is already public knowledge. This hypothesis is supported by Hans Kristensen \u2013 the Director of the Nuclear Information Project, who argues that with the advent of modern technology, it is entirely possible for Beijing to simply use civilian technology such as Google Earth to accurately track the location and the construction of the various American ICBM silos, and this is not considering the fact that Beijing has more sophisticated technology other than Google Earth under its belt, such as the Beidou system.[26]<\/sup><\/sup><\/a> Kristensen is certainly not alone in his belief that the \u201cspy balloon\u201d had little to no value if their intended purpose had been to spy on the various ICBM silos. According to an anonymous senior American defence official, the balloon \u201cdoes not create significant value added over and above what the PRC (People\u2019s Republic of China) is likely able to collect through things like satellites in Low Earth Orbit\u201d.[27]<\/a>, [28]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Thus, given that the destination of the \u201cspy balloon\u201d had either been Guam or Hawaii, and that it has passed over continental United States merely by accident, not once, not twice, but multiple times if VanHerk\u2019s claim were to be believed, and taking into account that Guam, Hawaii and continental United States are thousands of kilometres apart. It is safe to say that the balloon exhibited only limited locomotive capability at best. Although this does not necessarily mean that the balloon does not belong to the Chinese military, but it does raise the question of why would Beijing dispatch something as prone to malfunction as these \u201cspy balloons\u201d? In all likelihood, in combination with VanHerk\u2019s inconsistent response to these \u201cspy balloon\u201d incidents, these balloons were civilian in nature. Although, of course, I cannot claim to be 100% accurate.<\/p>\n

As to why the United States is so riled up with what is in all likelihood, an unmanned civilian airship is well beyond the scope of this article. However, I could give some theories, ranging from the American military needing a reason to demand more funding, to Biden using this event and the Democrats and the Republicans\u2019 mutual antagonism towards China to acquire bipartisan support in preparation for the next year\u2019s presidential election, to the Republicans using this event to criticise the Democrats for being too soft on China so that it will lose popular support\u2026 the list continues, though it should be noted that all these are merely speculations and not predicated on any tangible evidence.<\/p>\n

Endnotes<\/strong><\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> Politico, Timeline: A Chinese Spy Balloon\u2019s Trip across the United States<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Al Jazeera, China Condemns US Military Strike on Suspected Spy Balloon<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Al Jazeera, Blinken Postpones China Trip as Balloon over US Fuels Tensions<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Al Jazeera, China Condemns US Military Strike on Suspected Spy Balloon<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Jeremy Herb, Jennifer Hansler, Kylie Atwood & Manu Raju, US Officials Disclosed New Details about the Balloon\u2019s Capabilities. Here\u2019s What We Know<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Courtney Albon, Why Stratospheric Balloons Are Used in Era of Space-Based Intelligence<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> Haley Britzky, Pentagon Releases Selfie Taken by US Pilot Showing the Chinese Spy Balloon in Air<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> Courtney Albon, Why Stratospheric Balloons Are Used in Era of Space-Based Intelligence<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> Daniela Pistoia, Detecting and Neutralizing Mini-Drones<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> The Straits Time, Chinese \u2018spy\u2019 balloon may be guided by advanced AI technology, says expert<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> Bernd Debusmann Jr., Suspected Chinese Spy Balloon Was 200ft Tall \u2013 US Defence Official<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> Haley Britzky, Pentagon Releases Selfie Taken by US Pilot Showing the Chinese Spy Balloon in Air<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> The Straits Time, Chinese \u2018spy\u2019 balloon may be guided by advanced AI technology, says expert<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[15]<\/a> Joe Goud & Bryant Harris, After UFO Shoot-Downs, Senators Fret over Holes in Homeland Defences<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[16]<\/a> Natasha Bertrand, Chinese Spy Balloons under Trump Not Discovered until after Biden Took Office<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[17]<\/a> Joe Goud & Bryant Harris, After UFO Shoot-Downs, Senators Fret over Holes in Homeland Defences<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[18]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[19]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[20]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[21]<\/a> Ryan Finnerty, US Lawmakers Describe Unknown Objects as Nothing New after Classified Brief<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[22]<\/a> Helene Cooper, Pentagon Says It Detected a Chinese Spy Balloon Hovering over Montana<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[23]<\/a> The Straits Times, Chinese \u2018spy\u2019 balloon may be guided by advanced AI technology, says expert<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[24]<\/a> Natasha Bertrand & Katie Bo Lillis, US Intel Assessing Possibility That Chinese Spy Balloon’s Path over US Was Accidental<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[25]<\/a> Reuters, Downed Chinese balloon aimed for Hawaii but was blown off course \u2013 U.S. official<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[26]<\/a> Phil McCausland, Map: Here\u2019s How Close the Chinese Spy Balloon Flew to the U.S. Nuclear Arsenal<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[27]<\/a> Courtney Albon, Why Stratospheric Balloons Are Used in Era of Space-Based Intelligence<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[28]<\/a> U.S. Department of Defense, Senior Defence Official Holds a Background Briefing on High-Attitude Surveillance Balloon<\/em>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Bibliography<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n