... turns out its "weather" may be a tad militarized. Blogger Jennifer Zeng has done her homework.
The manufacturer of the Chinese spy balloons, China Zhuzhou Rubber Research & Design Institute Co Ltd., is a government-owned military research institute with weapon production licenses. Its military supporting products were used in the "Shenzhou V" manned spacecraft, and have won the PLA General Armament Department commendation. It is a designated research institution for the weather balloons of all military branches of the PLA, and the only professional research institute in the latex industry.
A recruitment notice shows that China Zhuzhou Rubber Research & Design Institute is a state-owned company. It develops & produces military products, it's a designated research & production enterprise of China Meteorological Administration and the Military Equipment Development Department of the Battlefield Environment Protection Bureau of #PLA, a key institute of China's National Torch Plan key high-tech enterprise (a famous military project), and Hunan Provincial Key Laboratory of Materials and Technology for Proximity Balloons, etc.
There's much more at the link.
Ms. Zeng has also noted on social media (click either image below to be taken to the original post):
I can't imagine why common-or-garden weather balloons, used all over the world, should be manufactured by a military supplier in China. Nor can I imagine why that company should suddenly scrub all information from its Web site about its military connections when they learned that their connection to the military had been publicized.
Unless, of course, they had something to hide, and that balloon was not a "weather" balloon at all . . .
Tucker Carlson offers his usual cogent thoughts. If you'd prefer to read them rather than watch and listen, the transcript may be found here.
Peter
Oh c'mon Pete. Isn't every major manufacturer in China owned, or controlled, by the military and/or the party? Maybe the fact that it isn't a differentiator provides a lot of cover.
ReplyDeleteFor a different take, try Reason:
https://reason.com/2023/02/06/nothing-about-the-chinese-balloon-saga-makes-sense/
I'm skeptical that the Chinese intelligence agency would commit a bungle of this nature. Could be it was an experiment to see how the US reacts. Who knows?
And don't forget that alarmism is a fundamental piece of the psyops puzzle. And that goes for the US State Department, et. al. too.
Interesting finds, and yes, she's done her homework!
ReplyDeleteEvery company in China is run by PLA/CCP. Since 1948, FFS.
ReplyDeleteIt's a nationwide effort to do what Michael Corleone always dreamed of: taking the entire Commie Family's business "legitimate".
If this is news to anyone, they're not tall enough to be let out in public without a zookeeper in attendance.
I've heard a couple theories about this, and the most likely occurrence is a combination of them.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if this was a quasi private effort by one company and the government or military unit that runs it to shake things up, or to get information that that unit can't get through normal channels.
I've read before about fairly significant international actions taken by a Chinese military unit without clearance or approval by higher ups - their destruction of an old satellite several years ago is one example.
This balloon likely had weather sensors on it - and just as likely had other sensors as well!
Also, there is data it can collect that a satellite can't, particularly air quality/ constituents, chemical makeup, etc.
From an article about the recovery.
ReplyDeletesnip: Officials have said the debris field is approximately the size of 15 football fields by 15 football fields and that the balloon had propellers and a rudder.
Not exactly a weather balloon.
But hey, don't worry be happy, the illegal immigrants are just families coming for a better life (sarc). See above article by Yon.
Where are these new units of measure coming from?
ReplyDeleteThe balloon is the size of 3 busses.
A 15 by 15 football field crash site.
"Excuse me!" Waves hand. "What would that be in meters, or feet?" The "news" media tends to cater to the lowest common denominator that can work a TV remote. Is it too much to hope for that the floaty information pipeline could be tapped into?
ReplyDelete