Pentagon accuses Chinese vessels of harassing U.S. ship

[Jeff Head]

Lets take Iraq for example, its an illegal invasion, but not for the US since no other country is willing to enforce the law at the cause of going to war with the US.

Probably best not to try and argue the Iraq war on this thread.

Since there was/is no UN or other large international resolution indicating that the Iraq war was illegal, it is a weak arguement anyway...particularly since the Saddam Hussein regime had violated so many UN resoultions and agreements it had made to end the original Gulf War and since ultimately 39 countriues joined the US in contributing ground forces to the war.

Clearly the Iraqi people are better off without Hussein and they have shown it themselves by electing their own representatives (under threat of death by terrorists when they were voting) who then tried and executed the tyrant.

At any rate, this thread is not about that and I would advise staying clear of that particular subject to try and justify this action because it is likely to only be contentious and get the entire discussion pulled.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Again international law is a bunch of bull. It's a tool for more powerful nations to use and break as they will. Such as MTCR is not a law. It's mob rule used to gang up on countries (usually smaller nations). When China didn't sign on, they said China broke the law. No it didn't. MTCR is a mutual understanding among a group of nations to prevent "non-desirable" nations from having certain missile capabilities by promising not to do business with them. So the only ones that can break the "law" are ones that signed on. Just like the US breaks the law by doing nuclear business with India who had not signed on to any of the agreements regarding nuclear testing and proliferation. And don't bring anything China has done because that was before China signed on unlike the US who helped Israel with its nuclear weapons. Of course people will make excuses how that's different but then what's the point of the "law" then?. Which is why, again, laws don't mean anything except to those with power to enforce or break them as they will.

 

[ravenshield936]

The water is China's EEZ, and activities there are regulated by China.


First, that's not a claim. Second, China doesn't need to make any claim as it was exercising its rights in regulating the EEZ. If US vessels don't conform to the regulations, then it will be escorted/forced out of the area, plain and simple.


It is either in international water, or isn't, and EEZ is NOT international water.


It isn't about what China can or cannot do. It is about what the Impeccable can or cannot do since it was in China's EEZ:



Except it is NOT in international water.

also
to use bigstick's comparisons of actions, the American's vessel used water hose to spray on the ship and the crew. That's actual contact. In contrast, the chinese vessels were close, but never made any contact with the American vessels. Yet in the report the US even seemed to try justifying their actions of spraying the other side with their hose.
Regardless, in the end,
1. the US still complied and left the scene. If they're in international waters the Chinese might not have even shown up, and the US won't have left.
2. the main confronting vessels were chinese trawlers. civilians. and incident occurred in EEZ. to see the simple picture, the American vessel was disturbing chinese activities, and thus the chinese civies don't want them around
3. despite close encounters with the american vessels, they've made no "physical" contact, or attempted any. the american vessel, in contrast, used the fire hose. i've laid this point out very flat, so i don't need to explain more.

 

[ravenshield936]

From Chinese Side POV the solution is simple, just send a ship close enough to the US spy vessel and make alot of underwater noise to drown out the sonar listening device. No need to get rough and entangled at all!!

that would only spell out to them that there are really something around here that the americans are looking for

 

[SampanViking]

Please Sampan you seem to be a pretty intelligent guy you should remember that North Korea makes noises like this everytime the US and ROK have particularly large exercises. The increased volume is probably a result of some secret diplomatic dealings or something along those lines, plus the fact that the new South Korean president has been far more hardline with the North, and the North Koreans are trying their usual brinksmanship to put pressure on the US and ROK. Quite frankly they are like the Boy Who Cried Wolf, always threatening people with this or that. I'm reminded of nothing so much as a child demanding attention. They're a one trick pony.

Under normal circumstances I would be the first to agree with you, but his year is significantly different for the reason you omitted from the quote you took from me. So I will repeat it.

The Japanese threat to try and intercept the missile is credible

This is a highly aggressive act and far more than an exchange of fire betweem gunboats. The T2; if it is the DPRK's LRBM, is a cornerstone of their Strategic Defence and an essential ingrediant in their Nuclear Weapons programme. An attack on the missile is an attack on North Korean security at the most fundemantal level.

If this were not bad enough it takes place against a backdrop of severe global economic hardship and when many of the players have transitional or weak leadership, which means plenty of internal jockying and struggles.

A direct challange to North Korean security at a time when the power of the dear leader is unclear can only lead to a very robust response. Please also do not forget the DPRK's secret weapon; the fact that once shooting starts all the major players (who are afterall most of the worlds most powerful nations by one measure or another) have no choice but to become involved, as no side can afford such a dramatic shift in the Strategic Geopolitical sitution as to have the Peninsular reunified against their interest.

Most sane nations will always bend over backwards to stop the fighting from starting, but once it does start, the priorties change and they will have no option but to switch from prevention to winning. Rapid escalation cannot be viewed simply as a possibility, but as a given and policy based on this view is exactly what we are seeing, hence the "unprecendented" diplomatic traffic in the region especially between the US, China and Russia.

 

[Rising China]

:china::china::china:

Beijing raises stakes with tit-for-tat deployment in South China Sea(Reuters)

Jane Macartney, Beijing
Beijing has increased tension in a disputed part of the South China Sea by sending a patrol ship to protect fishing boats after the United States deployed a destroyer in the area. The American move was in response to alleged Chinese harassment of one of its surveillance vessels.

The Yuzheng 311, a converted naval rescue vessel, is the largest and most modern patrol ship in the Chinese Navy, the Beijing News said. It was expected to arrive in the Paracel Islands today to patrol China’s exclusive economic zone and to "strengthen fishery administration" in the South China Sea. It will patrol the waters around the Paracels and the Spratly Islands, protecting Chinese fishing boats and transport vessels.

The remote reefs and atolls that comprise the Spratly islands are claimed by China, Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei and Taiwan. The islands lie on major shipping routes for oil tankers travelling between the Middle East and Japan, South Korea and China. They may also be above undersea oil reserves.

Beijing was enraged by a law passed last week by the Philippines laying claim to the disputed islands, describing the action as illegal.

The timing of the deployment of the patrol vessel appeared to be a response to a build-up of American might in the region. The United States dispatched a destroyer armed with torpedoes and missiles to escort its surveillance ships after harassment earlier this month by the Chinese Navy.

Five Chinese ships engaged in what the Pentagon described as aggressive and co-ordinated manoeuvres around the unarmed surveillance ship Impeccable, forcing it to respond by dousing the Chinese ships with fire hoses.

Chinese naval officers said that the US ship was on a spying mission. It said it had made repeated representations to the US to stop sailing so close to Chinese waters and within its exclusive economic zone. Washington says that the confrontation took place in international waters, but Beijing claims nearly all of the South China Sea as its own.

 

[Mr T]

This is a highly aggressive act and far more than an exchange of fire betweem gunboats.

Sampan, given that North Korea is probably the most aggressive and belligerent state in East Asia I think Japan would be more-than justified to shoot the missile down. Pyongyang could consider it pay-back for the years of fear Japan has put up with.

A direct challange to North Korean security at a time when the power of the dear leader is unclear can only lead to a very robust response.

I would bet you serious money that North Korea's "response" would be more screaming, sulking in the corner and a limited amount of sabre-rattling. I'm glad South Korea has developed some back-bone, because it has shown how empty North Korea threats are. It is a bully-state with no real power other than fear. Its leaders are cowards who enjoy the luxuries their positions provide. They will do nothing to threaten that, which is why any "response" would be no threat to anyone.

the fact that once shooting starts all the major players (who are afterall most of the worlds most powerful nations by one measure or another) have no choice but to become involved

Yeah, almost certainly against North Korea. No one is going to support it now. The Cold War is over. When Pyongyang acts aggressively it unites the old enemies against it.

By the way, what does this have to do with the thread? Perhaps it would be best to have these comments moved/the discussion continued elsewhere. Must be loads of North Korea threads.

++++

Rising China, thank you for linking to that post. Though a patrol ship doesn't really sound like too much of an escalation. Tit-for-tat, yes, but unless it starts trying to play chicken with US ships it shouldn't be a problem.

 

[bd popeye]

Gents , you all are doing a great job in this thread of keeping the discussion civil. However please remain on topic..Avoid politics and N.Korea etc...

bd popeye super moderator

 

[Sczepan]

some more pix - chinese view:

 

[Jeff Head]

:china::china::china:

Beijing raises stakes with tit-for-tat deployment in South China Sea(Reuters)

Jane Macartney, Beijing
Beijing has increased tension in a disputed part of the South China Sea by sending a patrol ship to protect fishing boats after the United States deployed a destroyer in the area. The American move was in response to alleged Chinese harassment of one of its surveillance vessels.

The Yuzheng 311, a converted naval rescue vessel, is the largest and most modern patrol ship in the Chinese Navy, the Beijing News said. It was expected to arrive in the Paracel Islands today to patrol China’s exclusive economic zone and to "strengthen fishery administration" in the South China Sea.

Actually, the Yuzheng has been tasked with these types of patrols before this incident occurred and having it go back into an area that it is already tasked to patrol is not any kind of tit for tat in the least.

In addition, given the relative capabilities of the Yuzheng set against to the Chung-hoon, there is also no comparison.

Now, if the PLAN sent one or more of the Sovs out, say the Taizhou or the Ningbo...that would clearly be a tit for tat for one of them, and a one upmanship and significant escalation if it were two.

But I hope, and also do not believe that is going to occur.