East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone

[Blitzo]

But there has to be some sort of real-world effect of the zone. Otherwise, what's the point

EDIT: I've just read Jeff's post above. I sort of understand the concept of showing other countries you're keeping an eye on aircraft moving through an area, but I'm not sure that declaring the zone has been a net positive for China.

Well, what negatives are there?

It depends which ones you're talking about, but generally airlines are going to do anything to avoid trouble. They're businesses, they're not there to get involved in political disputes. I'm sure they usually file plans whenever a country asks them to do so.

I have a feeling China is more interested in military aircraft entering the zone.

Definitely. And if a nation makes their airlines not file flight plans, at best it's just political meddling in business matters (like that's neverhappened before lol), at worst it's putting those civilian airliners under unnecessary need to be identified.

China is definitely more interested in military aircraft entering the zone, but it doesn't expect foreign military aircraft to not enter the zone. Chinese military aircraft enter's Japan's ADIZ all the time. Russian aircraft enters US ADIZ all the time.

Well, yes, because they see it (rightly or wrongly) as a provocative act. Like if someone said "I like your girlfriend, she's mine now". Simply saying it doesn't make it so, but you'd want him to shut up nonetheless.

Yes, but at the very least they do recognize that the ADIZ exists now.

I don't want to put words in Sampan's mouth, but the way I read his post was that this was a victory for China, ergo the US had shown weakness.

Of course the US could have been more forceful, it could have launched a pre-emptive attack on China. But that would have been daft and unthinkable. I think the US' "measured" response as you put it was the sensible option, not because it gave a victory to China but because it put the ball back in China's court without making things significantly worse.

Well I think we agree that the US's response was relatively measured and it could've been more forceful but it decided not to escalate.

anyway I'd say the US B-52 "incursion" was the end of the first quarter rather than tossing the ball back in China's court.

Now the US and Japan are sending aircraft into the ADIZ, and China is operating its surveillance, identification , and fighter sortie duties to what it believes is an equivalent response to that.

I don't see either side as having a particular onus to act to prove anything.

You see I don't agree with that. People take note of China's military modernisation, but it's China's actions that define how people react to it. Like I don't think anyone is threatened by the Royal Navy building two big new aircraft carriers, despite we haven't had that sort of power-projection capability for several decades.

I don't quite agree with that either, because of a few reasons.
1: Media bias. Let's face it, for right or for wrong, the media bias will almost always villify china and contort events to make China out to be the bad guy. On the BBC their coverage of this event has said that "tensions only started to rise in the previous few decades due to oil and gas discovered near the islands in the 70s". Bull. Freaking. Cr*p. Tensions only started to rise in 2010 when Japan arrested the Chinese fisherman and purchased the islands in 2012. This is just a one sentence example.
2: Ideology. China is not a free market democracy. Every article about China on the global stage either has to include "the communist country," or "the communist leadership". The fact that China doesn't operate like western nations is portrayed as a threat.
3: Geography and history. The Royal Navy, despite the suffering it has enabled internationally in centuries past, now has a well respected and well furnished recent history. The RN's new carriers might not be seen as threatening, exactly because of recent history and its alliances with europe and america (also, there is some level of skepticism as to whether the UK can meaningfully operate its carriers unilaterally in an advanced operation but that's another question).


the UK's new military assets doesn't challenge the existing system of power.
China's new military assets do. Fairly simple difference imho.

I wasn't aware of that, but I don't see that warning someone ahead of time you're going to encroach on what they see is their territory is much of a concession.

China had also said that they were willing to discuss the matter in "friendly manners" or something like that.

And compared to how much warning they gave Japan, this is a relatively more cooperatively tinged act.

This is a forum staffed by Chinese and non-Chinese mods, and I'm not really sure what your point is. If it's to do with how nationalist Chinese are v other countries, I was merely thinking over possible reasons for declaring the zone. I'm not suggesting Chinese are all rabidly nationalist. Hope there was no misunderstanding there.

Right cheers. I was merely pointing out that by there are very nationalistic individuals in all forums on both sides, and using that pretext to support my point that the Chinese government almost certainly didn't instill this ADIZ to satisfy "nationalism".

So at what stage will China send planes up? It's easy to dismiss the B-52 incursion as not worth worrying about, but it just begs the question when will the zone be enforced?

If we're to believe the MoD (and there's no reason not to at this stage), they already have sent fighters up to patrol the ADIZ and "identify" the foreign military aircraft.
Whether that means a wing to wing interception or a more distant "shadowing" of the aircraft is another question.

The B-52 is a well recognised sign of American power. It's a message that everyone understands, regardless of what country they come from. Much like sending a battleship somewhere (when navies still had them), despite the arrival of powerful anti-ship missiles.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree here.
I still believe the US could have sent much more powerful aircraft than the B-52.
They might have sent the B-52 exactly for its symbolic power, but if they wanted more symbolic power they could have sent a squadron's worth of F-15s or even a few B-2s up.

Umm, the US was concerned China was going to invade Taiwan. Is there any suggestion China might be readying for an attack on Japan? No. You're comparing apples with oranges.

My point remains, that the US have been much more forceful in the past and the B-52 skimming the ADIZ edge is a relatively small drop in the bucket.

 

[Rutim]

My point remains, that the US have been much more forceful in the past and the B-52 skimming the ADIZ edge is a relatively small drop in the bucket.

US had published a map or coordinates for the B-52 'skimming' ?

 

[Blitzo]

US had published a map or coordinates for the B-52 'skimming' ?

China has provided very specific details on the B-52's movements.

200km east from the diaoyu islands, and they flew north and south. If you draw that out on the map, that is very much just in the edge of the ADIZ.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Are you serious bra?

I'd simply send some escort for the Japanese airliners once they reach ADIZ unannounced as directed by Abe so their their revenues and stocks can plummet like a rock. Nothing more is needed to bend the Japanese over.

actually rereading it it comes of as a accusation. That was not intended as there is no evidence of any 747 crashes. I blame this on Spell check demon, and I curse him from the deepest nether regions of my craven broiling bowels...
in any event

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

the airlines were always going to observe the rules of it the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans and Americans know this. Any thought otherwise is just blind partisanship. The air carriers have to much to loose and as the disputed islands don't get to much tourism they could careless. Stating that is a admission is also useless as they frankly have to deal with both sides. For them its just another headache. The potential for trouble is more then its worth.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

I think there's more to both sides on use of B-52s. They were unarmed and not escorted so the message was we're crossing your ADIZ line and testing you but not full on provoking looking for a fight. Also, they came from Guam and not from any base in Japan which helps separate and lower the tone a little, it reassures Japan but doesn't convey to Japan that they should do something to further ratchet up the issue.

Lack of response from China with the B-52s doesn't outright mean they were caught off guard. At the end of the day, they aren't primarily doing this to go head on with the US but it's about responding to Japan's patrols and threat of shoot downs. So it could be a bit of courtesy to not completely push the US into a corner where it would need to ante up.

I have to correct you on two points one even if they were armed its not something the Chinese would have been able to tell without having a aircraft to confirm it, two if they had been armed its not like it would of meant much. B52s defenses are not going to do much against a armed fighter despite what the Dale Brown novels say. So there would have been little point unless the mission was to flatten the Senkaku back into the pacific. In which case it would have done the world a favor.

 

[Blackstone]

Looks like Japan turned to the UN for support on China's ADIZ. It's probably a good gambit to internationalize the issue as much as possible. On the other hand, it's hard for Japan to maintain its "no dispute" fantasy when all they do is dispute.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

JAPAN has asked the world body that regulates air travel to take action after China's declaration of an air-defence identification zone in the East China Sea.

With backing from the US, Britain and Australia, Japanese envoys met with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which is based in Montreal, Canada.

Friction has been rising since Beijing told the world a week ago to register whenever it sends planes through a region that includes the Japanese-controlled Senkaku islands. The islands were declared part of an air-defence identification zone (ADIZ).

The US, Japan and South Korea sent military jets to criss-cross the zone to show they reject the Chinese declaration. The islands lie near oil and gas reserves and are claimed by China as the Diaoyu and by Taiwan as the Tiaoyutai islands.

Japan said the ICAO should become involved because China's actions may threaten security and order in civil aviation. The Japanese news agency Kyodo said China was strongly opposed to ICAO intervention.

Japan told its own commercial airlines on Wednesday not to comply with the Chinese demand. But the US government advised its civilian airlines on the same day to comply, it has since emerged.

"The US government generally expects that US carriers operating internationally will operate consistent with NOTAMs (notices to airmen) issued by foreign countries," the US State Department wrote in the statement posted on Friday on its website.

But it added that this "expectation ... does not indicate US government acceptance of China's requirements."

Japan said earlier this week that its commercial airlines were flying through the zone without any problems, even after they ceased to provide flight plans to China.

China said its air force is on "high alert" and would take measures to "deal with diverse air threats" in its airspace.

It sent fighter jets and reconnaissance aircraft to monitor two flights made by US military planes and 10 by Japanese military aircraft.

US military flights routinely cross the area and will continue to do so, a Pentagon spokesman said on Friday.

 

[Blitzo]

Wow hypocrisy much?



In any case, can the ICAO even effect a country's announcement of an ADIZ at all?

Because I don't think any ADIZ in the world has any legal basis. It is merely some word to describe a nation's air force patrolling and intercepting potentially hostile aircraft at great distances.
That is to say, we can be sure the ICAO will side with Japan on this issue, and even if they somehow manage to get China to "dismantle" the ADIZ, there is nothing to stop China from simply continuing as if there was an ADIZ in place -- i.e.: IDing and intercepting aircraft more vigorously etc.

 

[delft]

I miss one point in our discussion. The vast majority of aircraft flying in the area are civilian and when they all operate their beacons they are easily recognized. When they diverge from their filed flight plan that will be recognized and proper assistance can be offered. As for the remaining aircraft these will be judged to act threateningly or not as the case may be. The ADIZ will so ease the work of the air defense organization.

It has been said that Chinese military aircraft have not been closer than 12 nm from the disputed islands. No doubt China will keep this action in reserve until Japan misbehaves in China's eyes, just like, a more extreme move, possibly intercepting Japanese airliners to give their passengers a clear look at a Chinese fighter.

Anyone who starts shooting will inevitably hit its own foot.

 

[antiterror13]

Japan firing the first shot isn't likely because it doesn't want war with China, or anyone else for that matter, and it's not sure if the US would come to its aid if it started the fifth Sino-Japanese war.

Why Japan only dare to say anything rather "provocative" after get a "nod" from the US, especially dealing with China ?

I thought JMSDF is strong enough, even dealing with China ? ... Is there any "law" to prohibit them to do so ?

 

[SampanViking]

Mr T said

I don't want to put words in Sampan's mouth, but the way I read his post was that this was a victory for China, ergo the US had shown weakness.

Of course the US could have been more forceful, it could have launched a pre-emptive attack on China. But that would have been daft and unthinkable. I think the US' "measured" response as you put it was the sensible option, not because it gave a victory to China but because it put the ball back in China's court without making things significantly worse.

I am more than happy to come back on this point and you may need to sit down before reading.
I was indeed giving the US credit for a very good play.

In an ideal world, we would all read all existing posts on a thread before making a comment. In reality however, with a large thread and especially one that has been posted at breakneck speed, most of us will only skim to try and get the a flavour of the discussion so far. In that respect, I am not surprised that you missed an earlier post in which I discussed Diplomatic or if you prefer strategic ambiguity. In this I referred specifically to China hoping to goad the US into doing something in which it had to abandon a large amount of its ambiguity, by doing something of significance in support of Japan and its own Pacific Front, at the same time that its policies in the middle east vis-à-vis Syria and Iran is causing concern for other allies such as Turkey or Saudi Arabia. The Chinese objective being to advance its influence in the area by "demonstrating" to Ankara and Riyadh that they are not the primary allies of Washington.

Instead I give credit to the US that it managed to maintain its Ambiguity by achieving the maximum positive result from the most minimum of possible actions. Simply by flying a couple of old unarmed cold war bombers, briefly into the far end of the zone and setting off the media on message, the US "defied" the Chinese ADIZ, showed solidarity with Japan and other regional allies, but did not make the disparity of action here sufficiently great in comparison with its current stance in the Middle East, that other global allies would feel relegated in America's affections.

Japan however will no doubt have wished for a stronger statement with maybe a more provocative flight of say a B2 deep inside the zone or a series of large flights of tactical aircraft through the zone. In that sense I think the US is signalling its continued displeasure over a number of policy postures adopted by Tokyo and also not to send Japan a wrong signal that could result in it making a miscalculation.

Another aspect of this is that the US does need to solicit the assistance/co-operation of the PRC to help secure Foreign Policy successes in other parts of the world, like Iran or indeed closer to home in North Korea. If the US were to make to strong a statement at this point, such co-operation would be firmly declined and so again ambiguity needed to be maintained.

I think the US got this very delicate balance absolutely right and shows that some of the old hands of the cold war are still in the background helping to keep the show on the road.