Really briefly, can you speak to rumors
that there is another Chinese balloon
above Alaska
or any other parts of the U.S.
territory that the U.S. shot down?
So I can confirm
that the Department of Defense
was tracking a high altitude object
over Alaska
airspace in the last 24 hours.
Out the
the object
was flying at an altitude of 40,000 feet
and posed a reasonable threat
to the safety of civilian flight
Out of an abundance of caution
and at the recommendation
of the Pentagon.
President Biden
ordered the military to down the object
and they did
and it came in inside
our territorial waters.
And those waters right now are frozen
but inside
territorial airspace
and over territorial waters.
Fighter aircraft assigned to U.S.
Northern Command
took down the object
within the last hour.
And we just go back for a moment.
So
another aircraft of some sort,
airship balloon,
something was shot down today.
Who owns it?
What were the circumstances?
Was the president directly
involved in ordering this?
And is wreckage being recovered?
Well, Kate, so I'm going to try.
Remind me if I forget something.
Yes.
The president
absolutely was involved in this decision.
He ordered it
at the
recommendation of Pentagon leaders.
He wanted it taken down.
And they did that.
They did it using fighter aircraft
assigned to U.S. Northern Command.
The Pentagon will have more to say
about the details of this later
on this afternoon.
It's only just within the last hour
we're calling this an object
because that's the best description
we have right now.
We do not know who owns it,
whether it's a
whether it's state owned or
or corporate owned or privately owned.
We just don't know.
We don't we don't know.
As I said, state owned.
We don't know if it's state owned.
And we don't understand the full purpose.
We don't have any comment.
We don't have any information
that would confirm
a stated purpose for this object.
We do expect to be able to recover
the debris since it fell not only
within our territorial space,
but on what we
what we believe is its frozen water.
So it a recovery effort will be made.
And
we're hopeful that it'll be successful.
And then we can learn a little bit
more about it
with its appearance,
like the Chinese aircraft
No, it was it was much, much smaller
than the spy balloon
that we took down last Saturday.
The way it was described to me,
it was roughly the size of a small car
as opposed to
a payload
that was like two or three busses size.
Right. So much, much smaller.
And and they're not of the same.
Not not no.
No significant payload if you will.
And lastly,
is it
now the policy of the United States
that if
unidentified aircraft are over U.S.
territory, that it is likely
the president will choose to shoot it
down?
The president will always act
in the best interest
of our national security
and in the safety and security
of the American people.
Jackie, we're going to take
John to the Pentagon or this new object
be taken down over Alaska.
The president ordered it.
President ordered it.
So is it a fair
take away, then,
that the Pentagon regrets
not taking down the first balloon
before it crossed the entire U.S.?
Well,
I'm not going to speak for the Pentagon
and tell you
that the president doesn't regret
the way that we
handled the first balloon and that time.
First of all,
apples and oranges here in terms of size.
As I said,
this was size of a small car
and it was over
a very sparsely populated area,
but also more critically over it was over
water, water, space.
When we ordered this down, as we did, as
we did the last one,
but it completely different size
and the debris field for this,
we expect to be much, much smaller
than would have been for the other one.
That's difference.
One difference, too.
We knew for a fact that the
pretty balloon
that we shot down
last week
was, in fact, a surveillance asset
and capable of surveillance over
sensitive military sites
and that it had stealth propulsion
and maneuver capabilities.
There's no indication that this one did.
The other one,
the first one was able to maneuver
and loiter. Slow down. Speed up.
It was a very
it was very purposeful
that flight path with inside the inside
the jet stream.
That would suggest that maybe.
And, you know, over Alaska, too, though.
Well, I know the Pentagon's already
spoken to this question about
whether or not they
should have or
could have shut it down over
Alaska airspace.
I would refer you to
it was 2 hours
and hours of testimony yesterday on that.
On the communications, though,
we still don't know
and correct me
if I'm wrong,
we don't know what intelligence
or communications
could have been collected or what devices
they were targeting, as I understand it.
So that being said,
how can the president say
it was not a major breach?
We don't know that.
What we do know is
we knew this basic flight
path of this thing,
and we were able to take steps
at sensitive military sites
that we believed would be all along
the flight path to
significantly curtail
any intelligence ability
that the Chinese could get
get from from the balloon,
certainly curtail
anything that would be above and beyond
what they normally try to
collect through other means.
Go ahead, Zeke, and get around
was this latest object
that was shot down within the last hour?
Was that detected based upon
any information
gleaned from the monitoring
of the last balloon over the last
or last week?
In terms of what you learned
about that Chinese program, tension
that informed the decision to shoot down?
I think I'd I'd be careful
saying that anything specific to to
what we've learned
from that last platform
and you know, we did
we were able to collect
some information from it
while I was in flight.
That was another reason why, uh,
we let it traverse
over land the way it did.
But I, I would be
I would not say that information
gleaned from
our surveillance
of that surveillance balloon
provided insights that that permitted
this detection and track
and as of this moment.
Are you convinced that you shot down?
Do you know what you shot down?
That it wasn't
just a harmless weather balloon
that you know,
that there was some motivation
behind this over U.S. airspace?
Or is it is it truly.
I think we're going to try to learn more.
I can tell you it was an object
and it was at 40,000 feet.
And the the the predominant
concern by the president
was the safety of flight issue
at that altitude.
Remember, the one that was shot down
last Saturday,
it was a 65 plus thousand feet.
So no threat to civilian aircraft.
This one at 40,000 feet
could have posed a threat
to civilian aircraft.
And it did not appear to have
the maneuverable capability
that the other one did.
So,
you know, virtually at the
at the whim of the wind Thank you.
So just thank you
for beefed up to follow up
on what you just said about
civilian aircraft.
Is that what you meant
initially when you said
there was a reasonable threat to you?
Yeah, my exact words were a reasonable,
uh, threat to the safety
of civilian flight.
Okay.
And
Q Given what you said earlier
about intent
with regard to the Chinese spy
the land, does the U.S.
give any credence to the Chinese argument
that the balloon
accidentally veered off
course and ended up where it did
the which you're talking
about the one from last week?
Yeah.
Say that again.
Or is it
the US
give any credence to the Chinese argument
that this thing
accidentally veered off course
and ended up where it did, you know, so
was it targeting specific
places for the targeting military site?
What we know
is that the flight path executed
took it over sensitive military sites.
What we also know
is that it could maneuver, that it had
propulsion capability
and storage capability
and could slow down speed up and that it
it was on a path to transit over
sensitive military sites.
Thank you. Thanks.
Admiral Kirby,
if I'm the latest to object,
you said it did not appear
to have
the maneuverability capabilities
that the Chinese spy plane have.
Did it
have any maneuverability or was it
flying on its at this time?
All in all,
I can tell you
that it did
not appear to have the ability to,
uh, to independently maneuver.
Will will attempt recovery
and we'll see what we
can learn more from. So.