[nprateem]

If a foreign adversary had invented such tech, the West would have sanctioned the country into the ground to stop them producing more.

So it's either the US but they claim it's not them, and they keep doing more investigations, or they're not human. I don't buy the faulty sensor argument given multiple corroborating sources.

[nl]

It's impossible to say with such certainty what the reaction would be.

What if the country that developed it was a Western-aligned country like Japan, Israel or France?

What if the country was a country like Russia or Cuba, and has had this tech since before the fall of the Berlin wall and the US intelligence community wanted to keep it secret?

What if the country was a country that is under Western sanctions for other reasons but those reasons were a pretext? For example, if the developer was Iran or North Korea how would you tell the difference without access to classified information?

What if the country was able to blackmail the US into not imposing sanctions? How would you distinguish between that an US foreign policy towards a country like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia?

What if the country was a historically neutral mid-power where there is significant downside in sanctioning them (for example Switzerland)?

What if some elements of the US intelligence community support working with the foreign power and others don't?

There are just too many possibilities to judge the veracity of a theory like this by looking at US foreign policy?

[nprateem]

I don't think so. These things can disable nukes according to testimony given to Congress. They're the basis of US supremacy.

In the above situations, it'd be imperative for the US to acquire the tech through war, economic pressure or espionage, or if that wasn't possible try to prevent them manufacturing more. If it was a friendly country they'd have to share the tech.

This tech is basically like developing 5th gen fighters in the Stone age. There's simply no way the world's largest superpower wouldn't acquire the tech by any means necessary, since it threatens its very existence

[nl]

> These things can disable nukes according to testimony given to Congress.

Citation required.

> In the above situations, it'd be imperative for the US to acquire the tech through war, economic pressure or espionage, or if that wasn't possible try to prevent them manufacturing more.

Perhaps this is exactly what the US is doing? Except the US knows it can't go to war because it'd lose.

[nprateem]

This is the one that talks about UFOs disabling nukes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64njI0uNvGg

My mistake, the subjects offered to testify under oath to Congress (I'm not sure if they went on to do so, I think they may have but I can't find that video right now).

Regardless, this shows the phenomenon is over 50 years old according to credible witnesses, which makes the foreign adversary scenario unbelievable.

Check out Dr Greer's Disclosure Project.

This Nimitz incident needs to be viewed in the wider context of reports over the years, UFO images in art, and explanations in other sources e.g. the Mahabharata.

I was initially sceptical, but one can be too sceptical - all options need considering.

Putting it altogether, on the balance of probablilties I think aliens are in fact the only plausible explanation.

[likeabbas]

Robert Salas was the Air Force captain in charge of Nordstrom Air Force Base where he was witness to 10 isolated nuclear ICBMs becoming decommissioned with a UFO hovering above. He's testified to congress before but he's been asked to testify again https://twitter.com/keptycho/status/1608097197857595392?s=46...

There's a really good book "UFOs and Nukes" that goes into great details the correlation between UFO sightings by military members around nuclear facilities / detonation events.