Thinking that Russia would blow up a nuclear power plant that Russia controls is deranged nonsense.
Reminder that most countries are still subsidizing fossil fuel companies on a massive scale.
What does that have to do with anything. Just to repeat this, the context of the whole discussion is that US *admitted that there is no spy equipment on the balloon. The fact that you keep keep digging here is absolutely hilarious. You made an absurd statement that is disproved by 2 seconds of googling. Then you got called out on it, and instead of admitting that you stated nonsense you just keep doubling down. It's absolutely incredible to watch.
I have, the article pretty clearly explains how weather balloons can get caught in air currents. 🤡
Haha yeah, I really enjoyed the first few books, and the last one just fell flat.
It's not a completely novel type of balloon, these types of balloons have been used literally for decades. I love how you keep lying about something that's very easy to verify. At this point you're just exposing yourself as a clown.
This is going to blow your mind, but there are different kinds of balloons for different purposes. Also, the word can has a different meaning from the world must. Perhaps work on your reading comprehension?
Of course they do, there are global air currents that high altitude weather balloons follow. Maybe stop making shit up already?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/14/world/spy-balloon-science-weather-uses-scn/index.html
Balloons that follow air currents have blown of course more than once, wow that's sinister. The fact that US reacted in an absolutely deranged fashion to a weather balloon being blown off course is the real story here. It shows the whole world that US is run by a dangerous and unstable regime. The fact that such unhinged lunatics have the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world should worry everyone.
If balloons were a good way to spy on countries we'd see US balloons canvas the globe by now.
The only way people would get confused is if they didn't bother actually looking at the article, at which point I don't think they can meaningful contribute to any discussion of the article.