Most of these balloons were large to massive. The one we're still sticking to the "spy balloon" story on was about 90 feet in size, and was estimated to have capabilities similar to a spy satellite. [1] So you can send some giant object which will inevitably be detected, and cause a conflict, or you can keep using your already present surveillance satellites to do the exact same thing, 'invisibly.' What, exactly, is supposed to be the logic here?
I also find our own reaction somewhat telling. It seems difficult to imagine that $800 billion a year isn't enough to find some way to recover a balloon. Yet we chose to destroy it, and send the debris for a swim on top of it. Whatever's left of the device is almost certainly completely wasted. Would you want to do this if you believe there might be evidence of surreptitious behavior, potentially to try to compromise high security locations, on that balloon? Or would you deploy signal jamming technology and work to recover the balloon intact?
Our reaction just feels like a meme. I can't help but hear this song [2] playing in the background as I envision an F-22 making its flyby locking on $400k missiles to bring down a balloon.
[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/03/us/politics/chinese-spy-b...
[2] - https://youtu.be/5uPoDNEn3I0?t=8