---
title: "How existing laws could apply to shooting down UFOs"
url: "https://usubjects.com/article/how-existing-laws-could-apply-to-shooting-down-ufos-3842"
updated: "2026-09-30T16:04:17.119Z"
description: "The post shares an article by Michael Bohlander examining how existing laws governing civilian and military aircraft could apply to unidentified flying objects and the question of whether they may be shot down. The available excerpt does not provide further details or comment-based insights."
sources: ["https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/30/09/2026/should-we-shoot-down-ufos"]
licence: "All rights reserved"
---

# How existing laws could apply to shooting down UFOs

Published: 2026-09-30  
Source: [r/abovethenormnews](https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/30/09/2026/should-we-shoot-down-ufos)

### Overview

An analysis published by *Global Policy Journal* examines whether existing laws governing civilian and military aircraft can determine when, if ever, an unidentified flying object may lawfully be destroyed. In “Should we Shoot Down UFOs?”, Michael Bohlander argues that **uncertainty about an object’s origin or intentions should generally favor protection rather than destruction**, particularly when there is no evidence of hostile intent.

The issue gained renewed attention in February 2023, when the United States shot down a suspected Chinese surveillance balloon over South Carolina. Three additional objects were destroyed over North America in the following days. Unlike the balloon, the other objects reportedly showed no obvious propulsion system and were not immediately classified. The head of NORAD said officials were deliberately calling them “objects,” adding that he was not initially prepared to rule out an extraterrestrial explanation.

### Recent Encounters and Identification Problems

Pilot communications during the engagement with an object over Lake Huron on Feb. 12, 2023, demonstrated the difficulty of identifying such targets in real time. The encounters followed earlier incidents, including the 2004 USS *Nimitz* carrier-group encounter and the 2015 USS *Roosevelt* incident, both of which remain part of the broader UAP debate.

Bohlander places these cases within a wider pattern of reports from military and civilian aviators involving objects that are difficult to identify and appear, at least in some accounts, to demonstrate capabilities that challenge established assumptions about flight. A 2025 congressional hearing also featured video described as showing U.S. drones attacking a UAP with a Hellfire missile, apparently with little effect. The available account does not independently establish the object’s nature or verify the circumstances of that engagement, but it illustrates the operational and legal uncertainty surrounding encounters with unidentified craft.

### Possible Legal Classifications

A central problem is that a UAP cannot automatically be treated as either a hostile military aircraft or a harmless civilian vehicle. Bohlander identifies several possibilities: an object could be a secret human military platform, a civilian craft, a state-owned vehicle, or an aircraft operating with permission to overfly the relevant territory. Transponder signals, national markings and other identifying features might help establish its status, although government secrecy and the limited information available during an encounter can make those indicators unavailable.

The analysis also raises the question of whether biological entities are aboard. **The legal consequences could differ substantially between destroying an uncrewed machine and using force against living beings.** Yet determining whether a craft is crewed, remotely operated or autonomous may be impossible before a decision must be made.

### Existing Rules and the Use of Force

The relevant framework would likely depend on the location and circumstances of the encounter—whether it occurs in national airspace, over international waters, on land or during an armed conflict. Rules governing civilian aviation, military aircraft, territorial sovereignty and the use of force may all be relevant. In wartime, additional principles concerning military necessity, distinction and proportionality would shape any response; in peacetime, the threshold for using lethal force against an unidentified object would be especially significant.

Bohlander notes that public understanding is limited by the lack of transparency surrounding military rules of engagement. There has also been little open official discussion of how governments would respond to evidence of non-human technology or life. A U.K. research exercise concerning readiness for the discovery of life beyond Earth was reportedly paused indefinitely in 2024, underscoring the absence of a publicly developed, internationally agreed protocol.

### Protection as the Default

The article does not suggest that every unidentified object should be allowed to operate without interference. Authorities may still track, intercept, communicate with or attempt to force down a craft when it presents a credible threat. However, **an object’s failure to conform to known technology is not, by itself, proof of hostile intent**.

Bohlander’s proposed guiding principle is therefore precautionary: until an object’s nature, intentions and potential occupants can be assessed, the default should be protection rather than destruction. The approach would not eliminate difficult decisions for military commanders, but it would emphasize that legal authority to shoot down an unidentified object cannot be based solely on uncertainty.

## Provenance

This USUBJECTS page is a summary or digest of the linked original source. Any accompanying generated visual is an illustrative reconstruction, not evidence.