"Some military analysis also pointed out that the missile may not be equipped with a warhead, and the U.S. military only selected a favorable attack position after monitoring the balloon in the past few days."
The grey cloud is the explosion. Real-life missiles don't look like a Michael Bay movie, and the balloon almost certainly carried no jet fuel for combustion.
What makes you think that comes from a warhead and is not a reaction of the mixed gasses from the missle and balloon? I don’t even known but I suspect a warhead would not even detonate when piercing a balloon
2. Because it doesn't reallly matter; the "how did the missile detonate" question is readily answerable, and all that gas in the balloon is well above the impact site and smoke cloud.
The parent poster expressed disbelief because of an entirely incorrect assumption about how missiles work.
Hydrogen is a more common choice than helium for unmanned balloons. Only 12 of 101 weather balloon launch sites operated by the US's national weather service use helium[1], and that's with unusually cheap helium access in the US. I would expect other countries to use helium even less frequently.
> GEN. VANHERCK: Yeah, absolutely. There was a warhead in the missile. You can see that explosion on TV as it goes through the lower part of the balloon and right there through the superstructure.
Arguably, upgrading to explosives counts as 'more brute'