#shorts On 2/10/2023, a reporter asked National Security Council spokesman Adm. John Kirby, “So, 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 shoot it down?

MR. KIRBY: There was — yes.
Reporter: Or was there something else?
MR. KIRBY: My exact words were “a reasonable threat to the safety of civilian flight.”

Reporter: Okay. And to — given what you said earlier about intent with regard to the Chinese spy balloon, does the U.S. give any credence to the Chinese argument that the balloon accidentally veered off course and ended up where it did?

MR. KIRBY: The — which one? You’re talking about the one from last week?
Reporter: The spy balloon. Yeah.
MR. KIRBY: Yeah. There — say that again. Was it —

Reporter: Does the U.S. give any credence to the Chinese argument that this thing accidentally veered off course and ended up where it did?

MR. KIRBY: No.
Reporter: So, was it targeting specific places? Was it targeting military sites?

MR. KIRBY: 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 steerage capability and could slow down, speed up; and that it — it was on a path to transit over sensitive military sites.

other clips of this published longer video is here: https://youtu.be/4KTbM7wWKJ0
Chinese argument that the balloon accidentally veered off course? a reasonable threat?