East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rutim

Banned Idiot
Chinese are not claiming international airspace as their own here.
That's the clue to the whole disvussion. I say nothing changed but everyone here writes that's a great strategic move by Chinese government.

Glad we agree on this.
That is also the government that tries to muddle the difference between an identification zone and air space.
I don't understand the rant on Japanese government as those are your words, not Japanese government...
Far from logical, it is pretty ridiculous especially considering there isn't much worth protecting on those hundreds of islands in the first place.
Unfortunately, there are gems underwater which wait to be brought up on the surface in lots of those places... And why China needs so much space there? To have a pond there and operate their fleet there?
 

Engineer

Major
That's the clue to the whole disvussion. I say nothing changed but everyone here writes that's a great strategic move by Chinese government.

Glad we agree on this.
I disagree. Chinese not claiming international space as their own has no relation to whether the creation of ADIZ being a great move.

I don't understand the rant on Japanese government as those are your words, not Japanese government...
I fail to see the purpose of quoting my post then stating they are my words, Mr. Obvious. If you have trouble understanding my post, please go here.

Unfortunately, there are gems underwater which wait to be brought up on the surface in lots of those places... And why China needs so much space there? To have a pond there and operate their fleet there?
An ADIZ is not EEZ. Whether there are resources underwater has no relevance.
 
Last edited:

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
That's the clue to the whole disvussion. I say nothing changed but everyone here writes that's a great strategic move by Chinese government.

... Is it not?
If they claimed the ADIZ as national airspace or something that would be completely illegal.

But claiming an ADIZ is a great strategic move because:
1: Such an ADIZ will encompass the disputed islands, eroding Japanese sovereignty over it
2: It puts the ball in Japan's court as to how to respond. If they don't shoot down any PLAAF fighters over Diaoyu/senkaku airspace they are effectively forfeiting a significant part of what constitutes sovereignty. If they do shoot, then they will be clearly seen as the aggressors.
3: Japan, and the US both have their own ADIZ which are much larger than China's, so they do not have any grounds to protest over it.


I don't understand the rant on Japanese government as those are your words, not Japanese government...

Yes, but the Japanese government and media always "voice concern" over increasing passages of both Chinese and Russian aircraft (and ships) through international airspace and waters near its own. What's between the lines is that there seems to be a Japanese assumption that exists that they hold some level of control in their ADIZ or that if countries enter that space then it is somehow a threat to Japan.


Unfortunately, there are gems underwater which wait to be brought up on the surface in lots of those places... And why China needs so much space there? To have a pond there and operate their fleet there?

I'd say it's two sided.
1: USN/JASDF planes may conduct surveillance operations which need to be monitored. This is standard practice for many nations and the US itself has had a massive ADIZ for years, but PRC until yesterday didn't have an institutionalized ADIZ.
2: the Diaoyu territorial dispute/Japan's large ADIZ. By creating China's own ADIZ it can challenge Japanese sovereignty over Diaoyu while also exerting a greater air power presence.
 
Last edited:

Blackstone

Brigadier
Somebody let Kerry know about
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

Well, we have treaty obligations to protect Japan from unprovoked attacks, so it's absolutely correct for Secretaries Kerry and Hagel to highlight that in formal announcements. It’s also clear the US is doing a kabuki dance to look like we’re supporting Japan, while at the same time signaling to everyone the US doesn’t want trouble, and could only be dragged into the conflict if China fires on Japan first.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
the US claimed "The United States, for its part, does not ask foreign aircraft to identify themselves if they are not intending to enter US airspace."

O RLY?? Let's take a look at the US's own ADIZ acts...

However, the U.S. Navy's Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations states the ADIZ applies only to commercial aircraft intending to enter U.S. sovereign airspace, with a basis in international law of "the right of a nation to establish reasonable conditions of entry into its territory". The manual specifically instructs U.S. military aircraft to ignore the ADIZ of other states when operating in coastal areas:
The United States does not recognize the right of a coastal nation to apply its ADIZ procedures to foreign aircraft not intending to enter national airspace

Right, so it looks decent, the US is saying ADIZ's can't be applied to foreign aircraft not intending to enter one's own airspace. e.g.: merely flying "though" an ADIZ is okay as long as its destination/vector isn't one's airspace.

nor does the United States apply its ADIZ procedures to foreign aircraft not intending to enter U.S. airspace.

Oh look, and the US supposedly abides by these standards they set other countries too.

But read on...

Accordingly, U.S. military aircraft not intending to enter national airspace should not identify themselves or otherwise comply with ADIZ procedures established by other nations, unless the United States has specifically agreed to do so.
Meanwhile in actual practice the U.S. does attempt to apply its external ADIZ to military aircraft which pass through its extended ADIZ without intending to enter U.S. sovereign territory. A U.S. Air Force university dissertation states:
These regulations do not pertain to military aircraft, but to enter US airspace, without inducing the scrambling of fighter interceptors, these rules must be complied with and followed. The US does not claim sovereignty over these zones per se, but does closely monitor and request information of all objects entering the zone.



So.... double standards, yes?

Great. So this is in fact a politician lying through their teeth.
Same old, same old.
And of course, this is the US taking Japan's side despite Japan having used ADIZ policies against China despite most Chinese aircraft not intending to enter Japanese airspace.
Same old, same old.
 

Engineer

Major
8wjyh5.jpg

Tags: China; Chinese aircraft; Japan; November 23; Tu-154; air defense identification zone;

Chinese Tu-154 being photographed today at the overlapped region between China and Japan air defense identification zone.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
8wjyh5.jpg

Tags: China; Chinese aircraft; Japan; November 23; Tu-154; air defense identification zone;

Chinese Tu-154 being photographed today at the overlapped region between China and Japan air defense identification zone.

Y8/9 Elint would be nice, maybe with J-10x escorts. Just don't fire the first shot; let Japan be the aggressor.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
the US claimed "The United States, for its part, does not ask foreign aircraft to identify themselves if they are not intending to enter US airspace."

O RLY?? Let's take a look at the US's own ADIZ acts...



Right, so it looks decent, the US is saying ADIZ's can't be applied to foreign aircraft not intending to enter one's own airspace. e.g.: merely flying "though" an ADIZ is okay as long as its destination/vector isn't one's airspace.



Oh look, and the US supposedly abides by these standards they set other countries too.

But read on...





So.... double standards, yes?

Great. So this is in fact a politician lying through their teeth.
Same old, same old.
And of course, this is the US taking Japan's side despite Japan having used ADIZ policies against China despite most Chinese aircraft not intending to enter Japanese airspace.
Same old, same old.

At present, I put the odds at 50-50 between Kerry lying through his teeth or the intern slave who put out that piece not having a clue about what he is actually talking about since it was not made clear whether Kerry actually said that part about the US not requiring aircraft to ID themselves if they don't intend to enter US airspace.

If Kerry did say it, I put the odds at 50-50 between Kerry lying through his teeth and not knowing what he is talking about.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top