The most logical answer seems to be that this was a mistake on the part of the Chinese. For whatever reason this balloon may have lost altitude and ended up somewhere it wasn't supposed to.

However, now that multiple more objects have been shot down, the chance that all of this is just a Chinese "fluke" blown out of proportion by the U.S. is far less likely, and the act seems more deliberate. — Tzeentch

We're on the verge of entering a period of major geopolitical strife, in which Russia and China will likely band together against the U.S. to challenge its position as hegemon. — Tzeentch

First off I'd like to point out that this is a major international incident. — Tzeentch

It's worth noting that during most of the Cold War, invasions this deep into the other's airspace were quite rare, and generally avoided. — Tzeentch

What is strange about these events is that, while invasions of another nation's air space are highly illegal and not very common, reconnaissance fly-overs with satellites, balloons and planes that fly on the edge of space (above national air space) are nothing new, albeit still somewhat controversial. — Tzeentch

If China has the means to carry out its reconnaissance in a legal manner in space, why would it invade U.S. air space? — Tzeentch

I think we're already in that period. I'm very worried about where the war in Ukraine will lead. On the other hand, I think the idea that Russia and China will somehow "band together against the U.S. to challenge its position as hegemon," is wrongheaded on three counts. 1) Most importantly, the US's position as "hegemon" is going to over soon whether we like it or not. That's not because of China and Russia in particular but more because other countries, some former third world, are taking a larger role in the world. 2) That's probably a good thing, both for the world and the US. 3) Russia and China are in no position to become hegemons. Russia is very weak except for nuclear weapons. China is still a limited thread, although it is growing. 4) Neither Ukraine nor Taiwan is worth risking a wider war with other nuclear powers. Hey, wait. That's more than three. I could probably come up with more. — T Clark

This is not true. Look up "U2 incident 1960." — T Clark

I'm not saying it's not important, but why such a big deal? — T Clark

I found this interesting article on the legality of the situation. I'm not qualified to judge it's contents, but it seems reasonable. — T Clark

I see all four points as perfectly compatible with my statement, — Tzeentch

U2 reconnaissance aircraft flew on the edge of space, far above what is normally considered "national air space". So technically the U.S. did not invade Soviet air space in 1960. — Tzeentch

The first reason would be, because it's illegal under international law, just like violating national waters is illegal. Both are essentially breaches of a nation's sovereignty. — Tzeentch

The second is that a nation's air space (especially that of superpowers) is heavily surveilled for purposes of national defense and security. All the missile defense systems in the world are not going to help if the enemy launches its attack when it's already ontop of one's cities. — Tzeentch

However in a period like this, where large-scale conflict has already broken out in Europe and can break out tomorrow in the Pacific, an incident like this is not so innocent anymore. — Tzeentch

More interesting was how the act of shooting down the balloons was viewed, as the Pentagon apparently on several occasions made statements that would imply the shooting down of the balloon may have been unlawful. — Tzeentch

According to Wikipedia, the U2 flies at a maximum altitude of about 70,000 feet and the edge of space is defined as about 300,000 feet. — T Clark

I said I don't understand why it is such a big deal. — T Clark

A good case could be made for extending national air space all the way into space, though. — Tzeentch

an incident such as this one is quite extraordinary. — Tzeentch

My point here is that if the Chinese came up with the grand idea that they were going to hold a camera over Montana and think they were going to see something that airplanes, radar, satellites, Google maps, and passersbys don't already see and that was going to give them some advantage, they aren't quite the threat we thought them to be. — Hanover

At the same time, the Chinese weather balloon excuse doesn't sound that convincing either, would you agree? — Tzeentch

My point here is that if the Chinese came up with the grand idea that they were going to hold a camera over Montana and think they were going to see something that airplanes, radar, satellites, Google maps, and passersbys don't already see and that was going to give them some advantage, they aren't quite the threat we thought them to be. — Hanover

"Bemusement" is a more intellectual, sophisticated word for "confusion." Alternatively, it is a word for a more intellectual, sophisticated confusion.

"Rinky-dinkness" is a more amusing word for a lack of sophistication. Alternatively, it is a word for a more amusing lack of sophistication. — T Clark

I got my wife a balloon yesterday that said "Happy Valentine's Day. — Hanover

There’s probably at least 100 [large balloons] in the air, on any given day. It’s not very stealthy. The payload underneath it was about the size of a small plane, so it … looks like a plane on the radar. Previously, they had things set up to filter out what they would describe as clutter on the radar. These newer ones are the result of a heightened sense of caution. … [They] modified the algorithm that they use to determine whether something is of interest or not, and so things that have been there all along are now popping up for the first time. Because the wind speed varies at different altitudes, they can use that to basically change direction and steer to a certain amount. And you could, in theory, put some rudders and propellers on a balloon. With propellers, then I think you could overcome some of the wind and you could move from side to side. … You can imagine designing a trajectory; you’re mostly going from west to east, but you’re able to go north-south to some extent if you have some kind of propulsion system. The recent UAP reports that came out in January … they listed a whole bunch of new UAPs, and the vast majority of the ones that they identified were balloons, simply because it’s such a common thing to be in the air. In a military context, you never want to rule anything out—which is why they haven’t ruled out aliens. Out of an abundance of caution, you really want to consider all the possibilities. — Mick West

[They] modified the algorithm that they use to determine whether something is of interest or not, and so things that have been there all along are now popping up for the first time. — Mick West

Despite this uncertainty, US media overwhelmingly interpreted the Pentagon’s conjecture as fact. The New York Times (2/2/23) reported that “the United States has detected what it says is a Chinese surveillance balloon,” only to call the device “the spy balloon”—without attributive language—within the same article. Similar evolution happened at CNBC, where the description shifted from “suspected Chinese spy balloon” (2/6/23) to simply “Chinese spy balloon” (2/6/23). The Guardian once bothered to place “spy balloon” in quotation marks (2/5/23), but soon abandoned that punctuation (2/6/23).

Given that media had no proof of either explanation, it might stand to reason that outlets would give each possibility—spy balloon vs. weather balloon—equal attention. Yet media were far more interested in lending credence to the US’s official narrative than to that of China.
NYT: A Brief History of Spying With Balloons

Of course, governments have also been using balloons to track weather for more than a century—but that didn’t merit a New York Times article (2/3/23).

In coverage following the initial reports, media devoted much more time to speculating on the possibility of espionage than of scientific research. The New York Times (2/3/23), for instance, educated readers about the centuries-long wartime uses of surveillance balloons. Similar pieces ran at The Hill (2/3/23), Reuters (2/2/23) and the Guardian (2/3/23). Curiously, none of these outlets sought to provide an equivalent exploration of the history of weather balloons after the Chinese Foreign Affairs statement, despite the common and well-established use of balloons for meteorological purposes.

Even information that could discredit the “spy balloon” theory was used to bolster it. Citing the Pentagon, outlets almost universally acknowledged that any surveillance capacity of the balloon would be limited. This fact apparently didn’t merit reconsideration of the “spy balloon” theory; instead, it was treated as evidence that China was an espionage amateur. As NPR’s Geoff Brumfiel (2/3/23) stated:

The Pentagon says it believes this spy balloon doesn’t significantly improve China’s ability to gather intelligence with its satellites.

One of Brumfiel’s guests, a US professor of international studies, called the balloon a “floating intelligence failure,” adding that China would only learn, in Brumfiel’s words, at most “a little bit” from the balloon. That this might make it less likely to be a spy balloon and more likely, as China said, a weather balloon did not seem to occur to NPR.

Reuters (2/4/23), meanwhile, called the use of the balloon “a bold but clumsy espionage tactic.” Among its uncritically quoted “security expert” sources: former White House national security adviser and inveterate hawk John Bolton, who scoffed at the balloon for its ostensibly low-tech capabilities.

We're on the verge of entering a period of major geopolitical strife, in which Russia and China will likely band together against the U.S. to challenge its position as hegemon. — Tzeentch

Hi-tech can be defeated/confused by low-tech — Agent Smith