Colonel Leighton, what is going on?
This is the latest incident,
this third shootdown of of a craft.
First it was a balloon.
Now we have these unidentified objects
in a week.
What are your thoughts
as you're looking at all of this?
Is this
you know,
these things are shot down
and as an abundance of caution and,
you know,
they're on our radar screen
and we're looking for them
because it's top of mind.
Or is there
something more to be concerned
about here?
Well, I think, Jim, the
the big thing is that obviously there's
heightened awareness now at this point.
So, you know,
you had the incident
a week ago where we shot down
the Chinese surveillance balloon
who were pretty convinced that
that's exactly what that was.
And then we started
seeing all these other objects.
Clearly, the radar operators for North
are very sensitive
now to anything
that even looks remotely
like an unusual object in the skies.
And the fact of the matter is, is,
you know,
when you look at where these other two
objects, the second and the third object
where they were,
the second one was near Prudhoe Bay,
which is a major energy
production area for the United States.
And then you look at the third
one over the Yukon,
also rich in resources
So there are
all kinds of possibilities here.
Could it be a weather balloon?
Absolutely.
Are there other things that it could be?
Yes.
We just have to really find out
exactly what kinds of things these are.
But it's very clear
that at least in one instances,
one instance,
we've had a testing of the American
and Canadian air defense systems
in the other two instances,
that could also be the case.
And so we have to really assess
where these came from and what they
what the capabilities of these
objects are.
Is it a little strange
that we're we're about a day
or more than a day
since the shooting down of that
object over
Alaska off the coast of Alaska?
And yesterday,
we still haven't
been told by the government what it is.
Yeah, that's
that is a bit strange,
although I guess
we have to keep in mind that,
you know, it's a very remote location.
I've been up there in that area
once in my Air Force career,
and it is believed
it's the end of the world.
It is literally the end of the world.
And, you know, it's it's
one of those areas
where it's very hard
to get all the rescue missions in there
and the retrieval missions.
So to do the forensic analysis
that is being conducted now
on the Chinese surveillance platform
that is going to take some time.
And also keep in mind, it's
a long distance from Quantico
if they choose
to bring it to Quantico again.
So that's
you know, that's another reason
why they probably don't know exactly
what it is yet.
And once that happens,
we'll probably take a week or two
before we get some idea of
of what
these two last objects actually are.
And what about this
element of Natasha
Bertrand's reporting
that the pilots had differing accounts
as to what they saw and this one
particular piece of information
that she just reported again
a few moments ago,
which I think might be giving some people
the willies, which is
the pilots could not ascertain
as to what
the propulsion system
was of this particular object.
Yes.
So, Jim, these
you know,
your thoughts on the pilots,
you know, whether they fly
by very quickly, they've got,
you know,
a few seconds to take a good look at
this craft or whatever object this is.
Yeah.
And in some cases,
what's called a misread is the report
that the pilot submits to headquarters
into the intelligence shop.
And when they look at that,
then they can determine it's
basically an eyewitness account
of a car crash or something
similar to that.
And when you look at that,
then you start piecing together, okay,
this is what they saw.
And then you combine
that with the actual forensic evidence
of the pieces
and parts
that we're able to gather
from these incidents.
And then we can perhaps better ascertain
whether or not
there really was a propulsion system
where there just flew
along with the wind stream
or if there was some other aspect to this
that we don't know about,
are there
technologies that are being used
that we don't understand yet?
All of that is possible.
Unlikely, but possible
and so those are the things
we have to consider.
And the possibility
that we might have a foreign power
like China
or Russia
sort of poking and prodding
with these objects.
How concerning is that
from a national security standpoint?
So these are the kinds of
things are a Major No-No, aren't they?
Well, we do that all the time.
We do it to them.
They do it to us.
But here's the No-No part.
We don't overfly their territory.
They have in these cases,
overflown our territory
if it is, in fact, the objects.
Two and three are in fact, from either
China or Russia.
We know that in
the case of the first object,
the balloon,
obviously the Chinese did that.
That was the big No-No.
So the way things run in the
reconnaissance world now
is, yes, you test the systems,
but you don't overfly the systems,
the air defense systems of
of an adversary don't get caught.
And you certainly don't get caught.
Like, for instance,
Gary Powers back in the early 1960s,
you know who definitely got caught.
The rules have changed since then.
So we don't do that
kind of thing anymore.
Now, when it comes to
these kinds of assessments,
yes, the Chinese
and the Russians
are obviously always
testing our air defenses.
It's very logical
that they did this again.
Let's see if the facts bear that
supposition out.