"Was there a meaningful chance"? No.

China would have had the capability, and there is always the risk (to use China's metaphor) when one plays with fire, that one gets burnt.

Had China wanted to, it could have sent a fighter escort to guide Pelosi's jet away from Taiwan. And when a non-military jet is instructed to do something by a fighter, the non-military jet complies, just as you would if a soldier commanded you to walk away with a gun pointed at your head.

There are scenarios in which the fighters shoot first. There are scenarios in which a local SAM battery takes matters into its own hand. There are scenarios in which Pelosi's plane decides to ignore the threat from fighters. These are militarily possible (and no doubt someone in the military has planned for them, since that is what officers do) However there is not a "meaningful chance" of China deliberately shooting down a non-military plane without giving it the opportunity to change course.

But the clincher is this. Pelosi, her team, and her pilot have access to far better intelligence than I do. The pilot will have had to make an assessment of the risk. If there had been intelligence or any other evidence that there was a meaningful risk of being shot down, the pilot would not have flown. So, in the assessment of the pilot of this aircraft, it was sufficiently safe to fly to Taiwan.

"Was there a meaningful chance"? No.

China would have had the capability, and there is always the risk (to use China's metaphor) when one plays with fire, that one gets burnt.

Had China wanted to, it could have sent a fighter escort to guide Pelosi's jet away from Taiwan. And when a jet carrying civilians is instructed to do something by a fighter, the jet complies, just as you would if a soldier commanded you to walk away with a gun pointed at your head.

There are scenarios in which the fighters shoot first. There are scenarios in which a local SAM battery takes matters into its own hand. There are scenarios in which Pelosi's plane decides to ignore the threat from fighters. These are militarily possible (and no doubt someone in the military has planned for them, since that is what officers do) However there is not a "meaningful chance" of China deliberately shooting down a non-military plane without giving it the opportunity to change course.

But the clincher is this. Pelosi, her team, and her pilot have access to far better intelligence than I do. The pilot will have had to make an assessment of the risk, they would have had to answer exactly your question: "Is there a meaningful possibility that the People's Liberation Army will assassinate Ms. Pelosi". If there had been intelligence or any other evidence that there was a meaningful risk of being shot down, the pilot would not have flown. So, in the assessment of the pilot of this aircraft, it was sufficiently safe to fly to Taiwan.

"Was there a meaningful chance"? No.

China would have had the capability, and there is always the risk (to use China's metaphor) when one plays with fire, that one gets burnt.

Had China wanted to, it could have sent a fighter escort to guide Pelosi's jet away from Taiwan. And when a non-military jet is instructed to do something by a fighter, the non-military jet complies, just as you would if a soldier commanded you to walk away with a gun pointed at your head.

There are scenarios in which the fighters shoot first. There are scenarios in which a local SAM battery takes matters into its own hand. There are scenarios in which Pelosi's plane decides to ignore the threat from fighters. These are militarily possible (and no doubt someone in the military has planned for them, since that is what officers do) However there is not a "meaningful chance" of China deliberately shooting down a non-military plane without giving it the opportunity to change course.

"Was there a meaningful chance"? No.

China would have had the capability, and there is always the risk (to use China's metaphor) when one plays with fire, that one gets burnt.

Had China wanted to, it could have sent a fighter escort to guide Pelosi's jet away from Taiwan. And when a non-military jet is instructed to do something by a fighter, the non-military jet complies, just as you would if a soldier commanded you to walk away with a gun pointed at your head.

There are scenarios in which the fighters shoot first. There are scenarios in which a local SAM battery takes matters into its own hand. There are scenarios in which Pelosi's plane decides to ignore the threat from fighters. These are militarily possible (and no doubt someone in the military has planned for them, since that is what officers do) However there is not a "meaningful chance" of China deliberately shooting down a non-military plane without giving it the opportunity to change course.

But the clincher is this. Pelosi, her team, and her pilot have access to far better intelligence than I do. The pilot will have had to make an assessment of the risk. If there had been intelligence or any other evidence that there was a meaningful risk of being shot down, the pilot would not have flown. So, in the assessment of the pilot of this aircraft, it was sufficiently safe to fly to Taiwan.